The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReview and Consider the Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasib f'PPRDVE OPT7dn/ 'C ' 5 2 Ex'uN IINI6l414, (sib pal _ 64 z, City of Huntington Beach Nod COUNN`I File #: 20-1375 MEETING DATE: 2/3/2020 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Oliver Chi, City Manager PREPARED BY: Travis Hopkins, PE. Assistant City Manager Subject: Review and consider the Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study options Statement of Issue: On August 5. 2019. the City Council directed that staff proceed with issuing a Request for Information (RFI) for qualified firms to complete a Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study. and to conduct additional research related to possible ratepayer savings through CCE programs. Based on that direction. staff has completed the RFI process, and additionally, we have obtained information on electricity rate comparisons between SCE and a current the Clean Power Alliance, a CCE currently operating in LA County. Additionally, the City recently received an invitation from the City of Irvine to explore participation in their proposed CCE Joint Powers Authority. This invitation was extended after Irvine completed their own CCE study and made the decision to move forward with forming a possible CCE program in partnership with other Orange County jurisdictions. As part of the City's possible CCE study. the City Council does have the option of exploring participation in Irvine's possible CCE program moving ahead. Financial Impact: If the City Council directs staff to complete a CCE Feasibility Study. the assessment will cost an amount not to exceed S66,000. Funding for this initiative is available in the General Fund. Recommended Action: Consider moving forward with the proposed Community Choice Feasibility Study and provide staff with direction on the following options: A) Direct staff to complete a CCE Feasibility Study and authorize the City Manager approve the required agreements with MRW & Associates for completion of the study for an amount not to exceed $66,000. Or B) Direct staff not to move forward with the CCE Feasibility Study. Or City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 4 Pnnted on 1/29/2020 gone IOW Leg sta.." File #: 20-1375 MEETING DATE: 2/3/2020 C) Direct staff to move forward with the CCE Feasibility Study with MRW & Associates for an amount not to exceed S66,000. and as part of that study, assess the feasibility of joining the City of Irvine's CCE program. Alternative Action(s): Provide staff with alternative direction. Analysis: Community Choice Energy (CCE), also known as Community Choice Aggregation, are entities that can be formed by local governments to purchase power, set rates, and collect revenue. CCE's serve as an alternate method for procuring power other than the traditional investor-owned utility. A CCE can give local governments the opportunity to control their energy procurement portfolio. Also of note, CCE's operate in partnership with the electric utility (Southern California Edison in Huntington Beach's case). In the CCE model, the utility continues to provide transmission and distribution services, power line maintenance, and customer billing services. On August 5, 2019, Council Members Delgleize and Carr submitted a City Council agenda item requesting that the City move forward with conducting a study to determine the feasibility of establishing a CCE in Huntington Beach. Based on direction provided by the City Council. staff was ultimately directed to engage two work efforts. First, staff was directed to conduct research to demonstrate whether or not CCE's could result in electrical ratepayer savings. In addition, staff was directed to coordinate a RFI to identify a qualified firm to conduct a CCE feasibility study for Huntington Beach. Regarding the feasibility study, the City released the RFI on September 20, 2019. Two firms submitted proposals, and a multi-department team reviewed the proposals. Both firms were deemed qualified, and both were interviewed on January 13, 2020, by a panel including the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Acting Public Works Director and Finance Department representatives. Based on that interview, the panel identified MRW & Associates (see attached RFI response proposal) as the preferred company to coordinate the feasibility study, if City Council ultimately elects to move forward with the review. In addition, staff researched ad obtained comparable electrical power rates as offered through the Clean Power Alliance (CPA), which is a CCE that serves customers across 31 communities in Southern California with electrical services provided by SCE. CPA was established in 2017 with the Los Angeles County unincorporated areas. Rolling Hills Estates. and South Pasadena. Attachments 1 and 2 provide a rate comparison between electrical costs with the CPA CCE compared against rates offered by Southern California Edison for commercial J industrial and residential costs. respectively. The comparison tables show that the CCE offered slight cost savings when compared with SCE, with the calculated savings falling somewhere in the neighborhood of around 2% when comparing SCE standard rates to CPA's Lean Power Rate. Also of note, the CPA CCE is structured to provide their customers with three power options using three levels of renewable energy generation (36%, 50%, and 100%). For customers that choose the 100% renewable power option. there is a premium cost of between 7-9% above SCE's base rate. City of Huntington Beach Page 2 cf 4 Printed on 1/29l2020 _:,F` Lea sld''" File #: 20-1375 MEETING DATE: 2/3/2020 Finally, in December of 2019. the City of Irvine elected to consider the formation of a CCE in partnership with other Orange County Cities. The City received a letter from Irvine Mayor Christina Shea recently (see Attachment 3), offering Huntington Beach the opportunity to participate in exploratory discussions regarding the formation of a CCE. If the City Council does elect to consider exploring participation with the Irvine CCE. the recommended consultant firm of MRW & Associates would be able to provide analysis and support for this effort within the not to exceed cost amount of $66,000. Both of the consulting firms who responded to the City's RFI shared that based on their experience, it would certainly be financially feasible for Huntington Beach to establish or join a CCE. As staff has further considered this overall matter. there are possible benefits and associated risks when forming a CCE, and among the items are the following: • Setting up a CCE provides municipal entities with local control to identify their own electrical power sources. and associated opportunities to create local energy programs and economic development opportunities. • CCE's have demonstrated the opportunity to save ratepayers around 1% - 5% off of electrical costs when compared with SCE-equivalent power programs. • There are significant up-front costs associated with establishing a CCE. For instance, the City of Irvine's recently completed feasibility study, the start-up costs for establishing their CCE were identified to be S10.05 million. • Fluctuations in electrical power cost structures could reduce or eliminate any potential ratepayer savings, and increased power supply costs could lead CCE rates to exceed SCE rates. • Future regulatory changes could diminish the competiveness of CCE's when compared with SCE related costs. The proposed feasibility study is intended to analyze the local Huntington Beach electrical power market, assess the benefits / risks associated with forming a CCE, and identify possible governance structures associated with a future CCE operation. Environmental Status: Not applicable Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain high quality City services Attachment(s): 1. SCE and CPA Joint Rate Comparison - Commercial/Industrial. 2. SCE and CPA Joint Rate Comparison - Residential. City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 1/29/2020 +eOfl .egsa, ,• File #: 20-1375 MEETING DATE: 2/3/2020 3. Irvine Letter - Invitation to Discuss Community Choice Energy 4. MRW Response to Request for Information for CCE Feasibility Study City of Huntington Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 1/29/2020 e1 Legs:3- SCE and CPA JOINT RATE COMPARISONS As part of our mutual commitment to better serve customers, Southern California Edison (SCE) and Clean Power Alliance (CPA) have jointly created a comparison of our common electric rates, average monthly charges, and generation portfolio contents. To find your specific electric rate, please scroll down. If you are not sure about your specific electric rate, this information can be found on the detailed page of your bill directly beneath the heading that reads"Details of your new charges." If you have further questions please contact Clean Power Alliance at cleanpoweralliance.org or (888)585-3788 and SCE at sce.com or(800)974-2356. Definitions Generation Rate reflects the cost of producing or purchasing electricity to power your home. This rate depends on usage, and will vary depending on your service provider and rate plan. SCE Delivery Rate is a charge assessed by SCE to deliver electricity to your home. This rate depends on usage. Surcharges represents the Cost Responsibility Surcharge(CRS)and Franchise Fee(FF) that are applicable to Community Choice Aggregation (CCA)customers. The CRS is a surcharge to recover costs associated with power purchases made on behalf of customers, prior to a customer's switch to a CCA. The FF recovers taxes owed to a city in exchange for allowing SCE to utilize electrical distribution lines throughout the property of the city. SCE acts as the collection agency for the FF surcharge which is levied by cities and counties for all customers. All comparisons are calculated using SCE's 2018 typical customer usage profiles, SCE's published rates as of July 26. 2019 and CPA's published rates as of September 9, 2019. 10631 of 21 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA T 7-E SCE Green Rate Green Raie Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) i 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0 09468 50 09306 S0 09145 50 08287 S0 08476 SO 10085 SCE Delivery Rate S0 08524 $0 08524 SO 08524 SO 08021 SO 08021 SO 08021 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 01201 SO 02401 SO 01493 $0 01493 SO 014o-r Total Costs $0 17992 S0 19031 SO 20070 SO 17801 SO 17990 SO ' Average Monthly Bill(5) $179 38 $189 74 S200 10 $177 48 $179 36 S195 41 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rases a•e current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA • SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable') (36%Renewable) i,50416Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0 08643 SO 08802 S0 08961 $0.07472 SO 07645 $0 09114 SCE Delivery Rate SO 08271 S0 08271 SO.08271 $0.07768 $0.07768 S0 07768 Surcharges SO 00000 50 01 152 S0 0232± S0 01501 S0 01501 SO 01501 Total Costs $0 15914 SO 18235 SO 1955` S0 16741 S0 16914 $0 18383 Average Monthly Bit(S i 52 097 34 52 261 14 S2 424 8: 2 075 93 S2 097 32 52 279 53 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA MIW1_______._.____ ____..illiiiiimS F. Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power i 50%Renewable) (100%Renews: •• (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable+ Generation Rate 50 08099 $0 08871 $0 06260 SO 06407 50 07652 SCE Delivery Rate SO S0 06576 S0 06576 S0 06073 SO 06073 S0 06073 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01016 $0 02031 $0 01423 S0 01423 SO 01423 Total Costs S0 13903 50 15691 S0 17478 S0 13756 S0 13903 50 15148 Average Monthly Bil(S) S39 637 04 544 734 57 549.829 25 $39,218 11 $39.636 44 $43.186 77 Monthly Usage 285.097 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE IF CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable: (100%Renewable) .. , 1100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 06901 SO 07874 S0 08846 SO 05871 _ SO 07182 SCE Delivery Rate 50 05826 SO 05825 SO 05826 SO 05323 SO 05323 SO 05323 Surc'..arges S0 00000 SO 00995 SO 01989 SO 01395 $001395 SO 01395 Total Costs SO 12727 $0 14695 SO 16661 SO 12589 SO 12727 SO 13900 Average Monthly Bil(5) $82.858 37 $95 670 92 $108.470 44 S81.961 48 S82.858 57 590.497 24 Monthly Usage 651.044 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 1 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-EV.9-SUB SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewablee (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate Si;:A;a,..' S0 0760 t S0 08800 $0 05432 $0 05560 50 06648 SCE Delivery Rate S0 031„ SO 03171 SO 03171 SO 02668 $0 02668 SO 02668 Surcharges S0 i. SO 00923 S0 01846 S0 01344 S0 01344 S0 01344 Total Costs SO 09572 SO 11695 SO 13817 SO 09444 S0 09572 S0 10660 Average Monthly Bil(S) S270.577 95 5330 590 17 5390 574 12 $266.950 77 5270 566 17 $301 332 10 Monthly Usage 2.826.765 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 10642 of 21 • SCE SCE ( CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable, (100%Renewable, 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0.09615 SO 09453 SO 09292 SO 08428 S0 08626' S0 10254 SCE Delivery Rate $0.08605 SO 08605 S0 08605 S0 08102 S0 08102 SO 08102 Surcharges 50.00000 50 01201 SO 02401 $0 01494 $0.01494 SO 01494 Total Costs $0.18220 $0 19259 S0 20298 $0 18024 S0 18217 $0.19851 Average Monthly Bill(S) $181 65 $192 C• $202 37 $179 70 $181 62 $197 91 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GSIA-AE,TOU-GS1A-AEC,TOU-GS1A-C SCE SCE CPA CPA TOU-GS-1-A-PRI Green Rate Green Rate Clean Power 100%Green Power iiiiiimir. 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (50%Rene ) (100%Renewable) c,enerabon Rate SO 09462 SO 09323 SO 09159 SO 08299 SC 08488 SO 10100 SCE Delivery Rate 50 08548 SO 08548 SO 08548 SO 08045 SO 08045 S0 08045 Surcharges SO 0000: S0 01201 SO 02401 $0 01493 $0.01493 S0 01493 Total Costa SO 1803: SO 19069 SO 20108 50 17837 SO 18027 SO 19638 Average Monthly Bi1(S) 5179 76 5190 12 $200 48 $177 84 5179 73 S195 79 - Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GSIA-AE.TOU-GSIA-AEC.TOU-GSIA-C alba ! SCE SCE >mPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 150%Renewable) (100%Renewable) .,`::. _. ) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 09159 S0 08998 50 08143 5038329 50 09913 SCE Delivery Rate SO 066(- SO 06664 S0 06664 5O 06161 S0 06161 SO 06161 Surcharges S0 S0 01201 $0 02401 S0.01492 S0.01492 SO 01492 Total Costs S0 159c0 50 17024 SO 18063 50.15795 $0.15982 S0 17566 Average Monthly Bill(S) $159 37 5'69 73 $180 09 $157 48 $159.34 3175 13 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar compansons for TOU-GSIA-AE,TOU-GSIA-AEC.TOU-GS1A-C SCE SCE CPA SCE Green Ram Green Rale - - Clear.Per 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable: (52le) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 38537 SO 08375 S0 08214 50 07382 SO 07553 S0 0900? SCE Delivery Rate SO 05583 $0.05583 50.05583 SO 05080 S0.05080 S0 05::.. Surcharges SO 00000 $0.01201 S0 02401 SO 01485 50.01485 S0.01485 Total Costs SO 14126 $0.15159 $0.16198 SO 13946 50.14117 50.15567 Average Monthly BA(SI S140 78 S151 14 $161 49 $139 04 5140.75 S155.21 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-G51B-AE.TOU-GSIB-AEC.TOU-GSIB-C 10653of21 SCE SCE CPA CPA TOU-GS-1-B-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power ilia i 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Rene) (100%Renewable) Ge eaaon Rate = S0 08265 $0 08104 S0 07274 S0 07443 S0 08876 SCE Delivery Rate 50 05557 50.06557 $0 05557 $0 05054 SO 05054 S0 05054 Surcharges - 50 0000_ 10.01201 50 02401 S0 01484 50 01484 SO 01484 Total Costs $0 13984 50.15023 $0 16062 $0 13812 SO 13981 SO 15413 Average Monthy Bill($) $139 42 S149.78 5160 14 $137 70 $139 39 $153 87 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GStB-AE.TOU-GS1B-AEC.TOU-GS1B-C SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA t.B-SUB SCE Galin Rats Green Rate Power kan Poor CPA Porter (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable:, lab%Renewable) (`50 Renewable) (100%Renewable i Generation RateLit. $0 08144 SO 07983 SO 07157 SO 07323 SO 08735 SCE Dekvery Rate SO }a698 SO 04898 SO 04195 SO 04195 SO 04195 SO 01482 Surcharges Si.u0CJ0 SO O1201 SO 02401 SO 01a82 SO 01482 Total Costs SO 13004 SO 1a0a3 SO 15082 So 12834 SO 13000 SO Iaa Average Monthly Brl(S) $129 65 51a0 Ot $150 37 5127 96 S129 61 S14, Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GSIB-AE.TOU-GSIB-AEC TOU-GSIB-C SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) lk(36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) '•,eraion Rate SO 07842 SO 07680 SO 07519 SO 06708 SO 06866 SO 08198 E Delivery Rate SO 06094 S0 06094 SO 06094 SO 05591 S0 05591 SO 05591 ._harges SO 00000 SO 01201 SO 02401 SO 01478 S0 01478 S0 01478 'al Costs SO 13936 SO 14975 $0 16014 50 13778 S0.13935 50 15267 Average Monthly Bit($ $138 94 $149 30 S159 66 S137 36 S138 93 S152 22 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents s 1'companions for TOU-GS1•O-AE.TOU-GS1-O-AE-C.TOU.GS1•D-C SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-f-D-PRI i SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate Su 27735 SO 07573 S0 07412 SO 06604 S3 Cic'59 S0 08073 SCE Delivery Rae SO 06061 _ S0 06061 SO 06061 50 05558 SO 05558 SO 05558 Surcharges SO 0000C SO 01201 SO 02401 SO 01477 SO 01477 $0.01477 Total Costs $0 13796 $0 14835 SO 15874 SO 13639 SO'3795 $0 15109 Average Mouthy 811 Sii $137 5' $147 90 $158 26 $135 98 5'37" $150 iri,. Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GSI-D-AE,TOU-GSI-D-AE-C.TOU-GS1-0-C 10664 of 21 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-G - - SCE Green Rae Green Rate Lean Power Goan Power 1009k Green Power 50%Ren wsbls) (100%Renewable) %Renewable) l50i;Renewablee) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate •- •- • 10 09243 SO 09082 SO 08226 S0 08414 SO 10012 11111"11111111111 SCE Delvery Rate SC • ' S0 08601 SO 08601 SO 08098 $0 08098 SO 08098 Surcharges SO 00vw SO 01201 SO 02401 S0 01493 $001493 SO 01493 Total Costs SO 18006 $0 19045 SO 20084 SO 17817 $0 18005 $0 19603 Average Monthly Bd($) $179 52 S189 88 $200 24 $177 63 S179 51 $195 44 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 'h,s rate comparison represents similar compansons for TOU-GS1-E-AE,TOU-GS1-E-AE-C•TOU-GS1-E-C SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-1-E-PRI ,CE Green Rate Green Rate Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 150%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Renewable . (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) '.ion Rate S0 0927 SO 09110 SO 06949 S0 08098 SO 0828; SO 09858 E Delrvery Rate SO 08544 S0 08544 SO 08544 $0 08041 SO 08041 SO 08041 charges SO 00000 SO 01201 SO 02401 SO 01492 SO 01492 SO 01492 tat Costs $0 17816 SO 18855 $0 19894 $O 17629 $0 17815 SO 19390 Average Monthly Brl(5) $177 63 S187 98 $198 34 S175 76 $17761 $193 32 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 ^•c.'ale:=O^•oar scn rn;.,rcrntc c r^iar campanaons for TOU-GSI-E•AE.TOU-GS1-E.AE-C.TOU-GSI-E-C SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-1 SCE (iltlep RatU Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (30%Relatable) (100%Renewable' (30%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate - :9327 SO 09165 SO 09004 $0 08150 6 SO 09921 SCE Delivery Rate SO 08585 SO 08585 SO 08585 SO 08082 SO 08082 SO 08082 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01201 SO 02401 S0 01492 SO 01492 $0 01492 Total Costs $0 17912 SO 18951 S0 19990 SO 17724 SO 17910 $0 19495 Average Monthly Bil(S) $178 58 5188 94 $199 30 $176 7 $178 56 $194.37 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-1-ES-PRI SCE Green Rats Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power _ (50%Raneaabla) (100%Renewable (3 ' mail (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate '4411 $0_- -: S0 09032 $0 08871 SO 08021 S0 08204 $0.09767 SCE Delivery Rate SO 0852 SO 08528 SO 08528 SO 08025 SO 08025 SO.08025 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01201 SO 02401 SO 01491 SO 01491 S0 01491 Total Costs $0 17722 SO 18761 SO 19800 SO 17536 SO 17720 SO 19283 Average Monthly b - $176 69 $187 05 $197 41 $174 84 S178 87 5192 25 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 1067sot21 SCE SCE CPA E Green Rale Green Raba • r 1 100%Green Power . (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) .. h ,_ rr '`+. (100%Renewable,. Generation Rate SO L,--'; $0 08533 S0 08692 S0 07212 S0 07379 SO 08803 SCE Delivery Rate SO 07436 $0 07436 S0.07436 S0 06933 SO 06933 $0.06933 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01162 S0 02323 SO 01499 50 01499 SO 01499 Total Costs $0 15810 $017131 S0.18451 S0 15643 SO 15810 S0 17235 Average Monthly Bd($) S1 960 44 $2 124 24 S2.287 92 $1.939 77 $1.960 48 S2.137 08 Monthly Usage 12,400 kWh Monthly Demand: 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS2-E.AE.TOU-GS2-E-AE.C.TOU-GS2-E-C SCE SCE CO CPA TOU-GS-2-E-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Powe 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable he' [100%Renewable) ."oration Rate SO 08245 SO 08404 SO C' SO Tr.. SO 07250 $0.08651 E Delivery Rate SO 07384 S0 07384 SO C :: $0.068t' SO 06881 S0.06881 _ _'charges S0 00000 S0 01162 SO 02323 $0.01497 SO 01497 S0 01497 Total Costs 50 15629 $0.18950 SO 18270 S8 15464 $0 15829 SO 17030 Average Monthly Bil($) $1,938.00 $2,101 80 S2,265 48 $1,917 55 $1,937 97 $2.111 88 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate companson represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS2-E-AE,TOU-GS2-E-AE-C,TOU-GS2-E-C SCE SCE CPA T SCE Green Rate Green Rate • tean Power - 100%Give-, l50%Renewable) (100%Rettevvable) 36%Renewable) { (100%Rer•,.;,. - Generation Rate =_ _--__ $0 08251 S0 08410 SO 06937 S0 0709', 50 08474 SCE Delivery Rate S0 06424 $0 06424 $0 06424 S0 05921 SO 05921 SO 05921 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01162 SO 02323 $0 01496 S0 01496 $0 01496 Total Costs $0 14516 S0 15837 $017157 $0 14354 SO 14516 SO 1589' Average Monthly Bd($) $1.799 98 $1 953 79 $2.127 47 S1,779 92 $1.799 97 51.970 44 Monthly Usage 12,400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 Ths rate companson represents srmrlar comp,, sons for TOU-GS2B-AE.TOU-GS2B-AEC.TOU-GS2B-C.TOU-GS2B-SAE •- ' SCE SCE _ CPA CPA TOU-GS-2-8-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate Leer►Pow _ Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable aIIIIIIIIII (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) i Generator.Rate $j:7971 SO 08130 S0 08289 $0 06819 50 06979 - SCE Delivery Rate S0 06387 SO 06387 SO 06387 50 05884 SO 05884 -_ __o-i Surcharges S0 00000 $0 01182 SO 0232 J S0 01495 S0 0149' S0.01495 Total Costs 50.14358 $0 15679 SO 16999 - '4198 $0 14358 S0.15712 Average Monthly Bil IS) $1,780 39 $1,944 20 $2.107 88 $1.760 59 S1,780 35 $1,948.35 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar compansons for TOU-GS2B-AE.TOU-GS2B-AEC.TOU-GS2B-C,TOU-GS2B-SAE 10686of21 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA T0U-GS-2-B-SUB '.0 E Green Rats Green Rate Lean Power Clean Passer 100%Green Power (5096 Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewabe -..eratron Rate - - $0 07967 SO 08126 $0 06661 S.i :.::? S0 08144 SCE Delivery Rate S0 05075 S0 05075 $0 05075 50 04572 SO 04572 SO 04572 Surcharges SO 00000 $0 01162 SO 02323 $0 01493 SO 01493 SO 01493 Total Costs SO 12883 $0 14204 $0 15524 50 12726 SO 12883 SO 14210 - Average Monthly BrBill($) $1.597 49 $1,761 30 $1,924 96 $1 578 06 $1 597 47 S1.762 00 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS2B•AE.TOU-GS2B-AEC TOU-G52B-C TOU-G52B-SAE SCE SCE lir CPA CPA Ci' TO_ Power U-GS-2 SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable Generation Rate S0 07688 SO 07847 SO 08006 SO 06544 Si)43tir6 SO 08006 SCE Delivery Rate SO 06636 SO 06636 SO 06636 SO 06133 SO 06133 SO 06133 Surcharges SO 0000_ ,01162 SO 02323 SO 01492 SO 01492 SO 01492 Total Costs SO 14324 SO 15645 50 16965 SO 14170 50 14324 SO 15631 Average Monthly Bill 1,51 $1,776 I $1,93998 $2,103 66 $1,757 04 $1,776 13 51.938 25 - Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS2D-AE.TOU-GS2D-AEC,TOU-GS2D-C TOU-GS2D-SAE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-2-D-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (S0%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 07570 SO 07729 5O 07888 SO 06431 50 0658' SO 07869 SCE Delivery Rate SO 06595 $0 06595 SO 06595 SO 06092 SO 06092 SO 06092 Surcharges SO 00000 $0 01162 SO 02323 SO 01491 SO 01491 SO 01491 Total Costs 50 14165 $0 15486 $0 16806 50 14014 S0 14165 SO 15452 Average Monthly Bill S) $1 756 46 $1 920 26 $2 083 94 51 737 76 $1.756 41 51,916 03 Monthly Usage 12 400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 Th;s rate comparison represents srmdw comparisons for TOU-GS2D-AE.TOU-C=S?D-AEC.TOU-GS2D-C.TOU-GS2D-SAE l -iimis SCE SCE CPA CPA GS-2-D-SUB SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Clean Power 100%Green Power - (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable (36%R (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) f Generation Rate 5.. .'. .. S0 07569 SO 07728 i,- _.6275 SJ r54 4 50 07684 SCE Delivery Rate SO 05200 SO 05200 SO 05200 5O 04697 SO 04697 SO 04697 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01162 SO 02323 SO 01490 SO 01490 SO 01490 Total Costs SO 12610 SO 13931 SO 15251 S0 12462 $0 12611 $0 13871 Average Monthly Bill(S) 51 563 64 51.727 44 51.891 12 $1.545 32 S1.563 72 51.719 96 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate companson represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS2D-AE.TOU-GS2D-AEC,TOU-GS2D-C.TOU-GS2D-SAE 10697of21 SCE SCE CPA CPA Ilishisiiii....___r____ . SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power -__ , -,i'c;,•- (50%Renewable) r'DO%Renewable• ( (50%Penewablel ., ; Renewable, Generation Rate S0 08804 SO 08963 S0 07474 SO 09117 SCE Delivery Rate S0 07090 $0 07090 SO 07090 SO 06587 SO 06587 SO 06587 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 01162 SO 02323 SO 01501 SO 01501 50 01501 Total Costs SO 15735 S0 17056 $0 18376 30 15563 SO 15735 SO 17205 Average Monthly Bill(Si 51.951 14 e2 r 14 94 S2.278 62 $1 929 75 S1 951 17 52.133 38 Monthly Usage- 12,400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 Th s rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS2R-AE.TOU-GS2R-AE-C.TOU-GS2R-C SCE SCE CPA TOU-GS-2-R-PRI c.F r Rt'- Green Rate 100%Green Power tsG rienewablu (100%Renewable) (100%Renewable/ Generation Rate S0 08670 $0 08829 S0 07344 S0 07514 SO 08961 SCE Delivery Rate SO 0704' S0 07043 SO 07043 S0 06540 S0 06540 SO 06540 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01162 SO 02323 50 01500 SO 01500 SO 01500 Total Costs SO 15554 SO 16875 SO 18195 S0 15384 SO 15554 SO 17001 Average Monthly Bd(S) 51.928.70 52.092 50 52.256 18 51.907 62 51.928 70 S2.108 11 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS2R-AE.TOU-GS2R-AE-C TOU-GS2R-C W SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-3-B - SCE Green Rate Green Rate Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50 07280 SO 07837 SO 08394 SO 06196 50 06340 SO 07579 SCE Delivery Rate $0 05759 S0 05759 SO 05759 S0 05256 $0 05256 S0 05256 Surcharges S0 0000C SO 01071 SO 02141 S0 01443 SO 01443 S0 01443 Total Costs S0 13039 SO 14667 30 16294 S0 12894 30 13039 SO 14278 Average Monthly Brl($) $11.704 72 $13.166 13 514.626 63 S11.574 68 S 11 704 60 $12.816 52 Monthly Usage 89 767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents srmrter eompar:scns for :CU-GS3B-AE.TOU-GS3-SAES.TOU-GS3-B-C _-_ SCE SCE CPA TOU-GS-3-B-PRI SCE Green Rate Grain Ralf 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 07722 S0 08279 S0 06083 S0 06226 50 07445 SCE Delivery Rate SO 05722 S0 05722 S0.05722 S0 05219 S0 05219 SO 05219 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01071 SO 02141 SO 01442 S0 01442 SO 01442 Total Costs SO 12887 50.14515 S0.16142 S0 12744 SO 12887 50 14106 Average Monthly Bil(S) $11.56827 S13,029 68 $14.490.19 S11.439 57 511.568.14 S12.662 40 Monthly Usage 89 767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 Ths rate comparison represents similar compansons for TOU-GS3B-AE.TOU-GS3-SAES.TOU-GS3-B-C 10708of21 SCE SCE 'IP CPA .:'� Green tale Green Rile Lean Power 100%Green Power (50%Reneaable) (100%Renewable (_; ...p.l,,.. (100%Renewable) •Generation Rate $0 07059 SO 07616 S0 08173 S0.05981 S0 06122 SO.07321 SCE Dekvery Rate S0 05914 50 05914 50 05914 50.05411 SO 05411 S0.05411 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01071 $0.02141 S0.01441 SO 01441 $0.01441 Total Costs 50 12973 $0.14601 SO.16228 $0.12833 S0 12973 S0.14173 Average Monthly Bd(Si 511.645.47 S13.106 88 S14.567.39 $11.519.52 $1 1 645 81 $12.722 39 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 Ti.'s rate co—parson represents similar compansons for TOU-GS3-0-C.TOU-GS3 D-AES TOU GS3-D-AE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-34321.17 SCE Green Ralf Green Rai- Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power ID- 50%Renew ble) (100%Renew.! (36%Renewable) ,50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 5j 06d45 50 07502 S0 0805_' S0 05869 S0 06009 S0 07189 SCE Delivery Rate SO 05873 S0 05873 SO 0587'i 50.05370 SO 05370 $0 05370 Surcharges SO 00000 $0 01071 S0 02141 50 01440 $0 01440 $0 01440 Total Costs $0.12818 $0 14446 S0 16073 50 12678 $0 12818 50 13998 Average Monthy.Bit Sii $11,506 33 $12,967 74 $14,428 25 $11.380 79 $11.506 47 S12.565 82 Mouthy Usage oy 767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS3-D-C,TOU GS3 0-AES.TOU-GS3-D.AE A SCE SCE C CPA CPA f 0U.GS 3-E Green Rate Green Rate . Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power .. ,50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0.0758 7 50 08144 SO 0870' SO 06493 S0 07935 SCE Dekvery Rate $0.0653 7 50 08537 50 0653;' SO 06034 SO 06034 50 08034 Surcharges 50.00000 50 01071 50 02141 SO 01445 S0 01445 S0 01445 Total Costs $0.14124 $0 15752 $0 17379 SO 13972 $0 14124 SO 15414 Average Monthly Bill($) $12.678 69 $14.140 10 $15.600 61 $12.542 67 $12.678 36 S13.836 76 Monthly Usage: 89,767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate cornpanson represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS3-E-AE.TOU-GS3-E-C Ilk SCE SCE - - CPA CPA TOU-GS-3-E-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate Leen poker Clean Power 100%Green Power Ail (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable 1,50%Renewable; (100%Renewable) -"eration Rate S4 '- . S0 08020 50 08577 SO 06372 SC 0 52' S0 07789 E Dervery Rate S0 05.:36 SO 06486 SO 06486 SO 05983 SO 0598? SO 05983 arid"SOS SO 00000 So 01071 50 02141 SO 01444 50 01444 SO 01444 Total Costs 50 13949 SO 15577 50 17204 50 13800 SO 13948 SO 15217 Average Monthly BA(S) S12.521 60 $13.983 01 515.443.51 S 12 38761 512.521 02 S 13.859 42 Monthly Usage: 89,767 kWh Monthly Demand: 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS3-E-AE.TOU-GS3-E-C 10719 of 21 SCE SCE C I'A CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Cw•an Prior,' 100%Green P: (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) n+� ;• - 1. _Rene:'n',i:,Ie i (100%Renewals. Generation Rate S0 08256 S0 08813 S0 06601 .. .- -. SO 08064 SCE Delivery Rate SO 06246 SO 06246 S0 06246 SO 05743 SO 05743 SO 0574 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01071 S0.02141 SO 01446 S0 01446 S0 0144E Total Costs SO 13945 SO 15573 S0 17200 SO 13790 _ S0 13945 S0 15253 Average Monthly Bit(S) $12.51801 S13.97941 $1543992 $1237929 S1251756 S1369261 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monittly Demand 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 Thus rate rompanson represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS3R-AE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA �___r__„_;r Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Pourer 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable i (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 07571 SO 08128 SO 08685 SO 06417 $0 06628 SO 07915 SCE Delivery Rate S0 06200 SO 06200 S0 06200 $0 05697 $0 05697 SO 05697 Surcharges S0 00000 $0 01071 SO 02141 SO 01445 S0 01445 SO 01445 Total Costs $0.1377• $0 15399 SO 17026 $0.13619 $0 13770 SO 15057 •verage Monthly Bill(SI $12.361 81 $13.823 22 $15.283 73 312.225 56 S12 361 29 $13.516 61 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-GS3R-AE SCE SCE CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable ) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50 06914 SO 07686 SO C= S0 05859 SO 35v97 SO 07173 SCE Delivery Rate S0 05334 S0.05334 SO C5_.A S0 04831 SO 04831 SO 04831 Surcharges SO 00000 S0.01016 SO 02031 S0 01419 $001419 $0 01419 Total Costs $0 12248 $0.14036 $0 15823 50 12109 $0 12247 $0 13423 Average Monthly St IS) 134.918 68 $40,018 21 $45.110 90 $34.523 71 $34.916 85 S38.269 19 Monthly Usage 285.097 kWh Monthly Demand 512 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-8-B-APSE SCE SCE CPA TOU-B-: . Green Rate Green Rate 100%Green Power (50%Renewabie) (100%Rene►able) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50.08553 SO 07526 50 08498 S0 05533 SO 05884 50 06778 SCE Delivery Rate S0 04680 $0 04680 S0 04680 S0 O4'-' $0 04177 S0 04177 Surcharges S0 00000 $0 00995 S0 01989 S0 01392 SO 01392 SO 01392 Total Costs $0.11233 $0 13201 $0 15167 SO 11102 SO 11233 SO 12347 Average Monthly Bit(S) S73.131 77 $85,944 32 S98,743.84 $72 278 47 $73.131 88 S80,381 28 Monthly Usage 651.044 kWh Monthly Demand 1.038 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU$B-APSE 10730 of 21 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-8-8-SUB 0.'1 Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) kip'_._ ---. _ .- ----k ,- Generation Rate SC . S0 07400 SO 08599 S0.05237 S0 0536' S0 06415 SCE Dekvery Rate SO 02799 S0 02799 SO 02799 S0 02296 SO 02296 SO C. Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00923 SO 01846 S0 01342 SO 01342 SO C 1_i4. Total Costs SO 08999 S0 11122 SO 13244 SO 08875 SO 08998 SO 10053 Average Monthly Bil(S) $254 380 58 S314 392 80 $374,376-76 $250 867 48 5254,35824 $.284,169.58 ,Monthly Usage 2,826.765 kWh Monthly Demand 4.152 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU$B-APSE SCE SCE llir CAW 111111Prir CPA TOU-B-D-S >'l Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 50%R4trlaM�ble) (100%Renewable) ) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50 07479 SO 08251 SO 05658 SO 05792 S0 D6933 SCE Dekvery Rate SO 05480 SD 05480 SO 05480 SO 04977 SO 04977 S0 04977 Surcharges SO 00000 $0 01016 S0 02031 SO 01417 SO 01417 S0 01417 Total Costs $012187 S0 13975 $0 15762 SO 12052 $0 12186 S0 13327 Average Monthly Bil($) S34 744 77 $39.842 31 S44 936 99 $34.360 61 S34 743 32 37 995 40 Monthly Usage 285.097 kWh Monthly Demand 512 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents Sanger comparisons'or TO:8 n APSE SCE SCE CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Paver Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewablei (100%Renewable; ) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0 D6338 $0 07311 SO 08283 VT-,5324 SJ :5452 SO 06529 SCE Delvery Rate S0 04821 SO 04821 S0 04821 S_ _A318 SO 04318 50 04318 Surcharges SO 00000 SC . •• SO 01989 SO 01390 SO 01390 SO 0139C Total Costs SO 11159 SO 13127 SO 15093 50 11032 SO 11160 SO 12237 Average Monthly Bel(5) 572 650 00 S85,462 55 598 262 C' 571 825 09 S72.854 55 $79 665 44 Monthly Usage 651.044 kWh Monthly Demand 1.038 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-8-D-APSE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU.8-D-S SCE Green Rate Green Rale Lean Power Clean Power 100(%Green Power i (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable' (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 06080 S0 07280 S0 $0.05120 SO 05242 $0.06275 SCE Delivery Rate SO 02808 S0 02808 SO D28C SO 02305 SO 02305 SO 02305 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 00923 SO 01846 50.01341 S0 01341 $001341 Total Costs SO 08888 $011011 50 13133 50 08766 SO 08887 SO 09920 Average Monthly Bit(S) S251.242 87 S311.255 09 S371.239 05 S247,781 82 S251.224 55 $280,423 07 Monthly Usage 2 826 765 kWh Monthly Demand 4 152 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-8•D-APSE 10711orI1 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU$-E-SEC Yr:1 Green Rae Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green I' .. i 50%Renewable, (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Re ••:. : . Generation Rate SO.. '- • SO 0794' 50 08713 $0.06107 SO 06250 S0 07469 SCE Delivery Rate $0.05w5 SO 05965 SO 05965 $0.05462 SO 05462 SO 05462_ Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01016 SO 02031 $0.01422 50 01422 SO 01422 Total Costs S0 13134 S0 14922 SO 16709 $0.12991 $013133 $0 14353 Average Monthly Bill(5) S37,444 64 $42,542.17 $47.636 66 537 035 57 S37.442 73 $40.919 71 Monthly Usage 205.097 kWh Monthly Demand 512 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-8-E-APSE �1 • SCE SCE F CPA CPA CPA TOU-&E-• SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power imil (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable i (36%R (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 0 180 50 07753 S0 08725 SC C5753 SC J5iBh SO 07042 SCE Delivery Rate $0 05244 SO 05244 SO 05244 SO 04741 SO 04741 $0.04741 Surcharges 30 00000 S0 00995 SO 01989 SO 01394 SO 01394 SO 01394 Total Costs 30 12024 SO 13992 SO 15958 S0 11888 SO 12023 SO 13177 •verage Monthly Bu($) $78.281 53 S91,094 08 5103 893 60 S77.398 08 $78.277 36 385,787 74 Monthly Usage 651,044 kWh Monthly Demand- 1,038 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-B-E-APSE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50 06390 SO 07590 50 08789 50 05422 50 J555C SO 06635_ SCE Delivery Rate SO 02896 So 02896 SO 02896 SO 02393 SO 02393 50 02393 Surcharges SO D000•T S0 00923 S0 01846 SO 01343 SO 01343 SO 01343 Total Costs SO 0928c $0 11409 SO 13531 SO 09159 $0 09287 SO 10372 Average Monthly Bi 1(S) S262.493 40 $322.505 62 $382 489 57 $258,893 11 $262 510.34 S293.185 17 Monthly Usage 2.826.765 kWh Monthly Demand 4.152 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar compansons for TOU-8-E-APSE SCE SCE CPA g CPA Green Rate Green Rate Leal! Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (50%Rensrwde) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 07302 S0 08074 S0 08848 $0 06236 SO 06382 SO 07624 J SCE Delivery Rate S0 05727 SO 05727 S0 05727 $0.05224 SO 05224 S0 05224 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01016 50 02031 $0 01423 SO 01423 SO 01423 Total Costs SO 13029 SO 14817 SO 16604 $0.12883 SO 13029 $0 14271 Average Monthly Bil(S) S37.145 29 S42.242 82 147.337 51 $36.729.40 $37,145 39 $40.685.57 Monthly Usage 285,097 kWh Monthly Demand 512 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU-8-R•APSE 10712 of 21 SCE SCE CPA CPA BCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean lower 100` , - , .. (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable (36%Rennwable) (50-< Renev..it ie; (100 . ,_ -.-r • Generation Rate SO 06901 SO 07874 SO 0884t: SO 05871 = S0 07182 SCE Delivery Rate S0 05025 SO 05025 SO 05025 S0 04522 S0 04522 S0 04522 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 00995 S0 01989 SO 01395 S0 01395 50 01395 Total Costs $0 11926 $0 13894 SO 15860 1,011788 $0 11926 S0 13099 Average Monthly Bill(Si S77.643 51 $90.456 05 $103.255 58 S76.743 68 577 644 58 $85.200 81 Monthly Usage 651.044 kWh Monthly Demand 1,038 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TOU•8-R-APSE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable. (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 06436 SO 07636 S0 0883E S0 054E6 S0 05595 SO 06689 SCE Delivery Rate 50 02892 S0 02892 SO 02892 SO 02389 S0 02389 SO 02389 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00923 SO 0184 S0 01344 S0 01344 SO 01344 Total Costs S0 09328 S0 11451 S0 1357 SO 09' S0 09328 $0 10422 Average Monthly 84(5) S263,880.64 5323,692 86 $383.676 81 $260,032 23 $263,668 81 $294.604 36 Monthly Usage 2.628.765 kWh Monthly Demand 1.152 kWh Rates are current as of September 9-2019 This rate comparison represents similar compansons for TOU-8-R-APSE 1D713of21 AGRICULTURE AND PUMPING Mik SCE SCE CPA CPA _E Green Rabe Green Rate lean Fbrwer Clean Power 10C 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable i Mare) 4,50%Renewable: (1 OL .. Generation Rale - 1 SO 08058 S0 08620 SO 06423 SO 08573 S0 07847 SCE Dekvery Rate SO 04863 S0 04863 S0 04883 SO 04360 SO 04380 SO 0436': Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01094 S0 02188 S0.01426 S0 01426 SO 0142+: Total Costs 50 12360 $0 14015 50 15671 50.12209 SD 12359 SO 13634 Average Monthly al($1 $906 98 $1.028 42 $1.149 94 $895 91 5906 90 51 100 4` Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are curre-•as^f Septen-. 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-2-A•PRI 5,_F Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewahk• (36%Renewalhle) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) r°- r -L' a4 Generato❑Rate SO 079,: $0 0849E $0 06299 SO 0644E S0 07698 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04633 S0 04833 S0 0483. $0 04330 SO 04330 SO 0433C Surcharges SO 00000 $0 01094 S0 0218.E $0 01425 S0 01425 SO 01425 Total Costs 5:"'2272 S0 13857 S0 15513 $0 12054 $0 12201 50 13454 Average Monthly E . - $1,018 83 S 1 138 34 $884 53 $895 32 $987 23 Monthly Usage 7 338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of Seote^rcer 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-2-Bllik.. SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 150%Renewable (100%Renewable) (38%Renewable) (50%Renewa5r) (100%Renewable) ,-,on Rate So 06 726 S0 07287 SO 07849 50 05i. - SO 05809 - -Del:very Rate S0 03927 S0 03927 SO 03927 - S0 03424 SO 03424 SG 03424 ,•charges S0 00000 S0 01094 SO 02188 S0 01419 S0 01419 S0 01419 r Total Costs $0 10653 SO 12308 SO 13964 Solon $0 10652 SO 11796 Average Monthly B1l(S) $781 72 5903 16 $1,024 68 S771.79 $781.85 $865 60 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU•PA-2-8-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rale Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power I50%Renewable) (100%Renewabt• (36%Renewable) 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0 D661? SO 0717$ SO 0774C $0.05.• 1 $O 05702 50 06826 SCE Delivery Rate SO D3909 SO 03909 SO 03909 $0.034Gc SO 03406 $0 03406 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01094 50 02188. 50.01418 $0 01418 50 01418 total Costs SO 10526 $0 12161 13837 S0 10394 SO 10526 SD 11650 Average Monthly B t(3: $772 40 $893 84 $1.015 36 $762 68 $772 42 5854 91 Monthly Usage 7 338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 107R4of21 SCE s.:E CPA CPA CPA haiiiiL__-______._iiiimak_ais____-- SCE Green Rate •.•N••:+:er., Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 1.50%Renewable) •:.3 o Renewable (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S:: *,:•-. SO 07028 S0 07590 SO 05424 S.. t,552 $0.06651 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04464 SO 04464 SO 04464 S0 03981 S0 03961 S0 03961 i Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01094 S0 02188 S0 01417 SO 01417 $0.01417 Total Costs S0 10931 SO 12586 $0 14242 SO 10802 SO 10930 S0.12029 Average Monthly 811(S) $802.12 5923 56 S1.045 08 5792 62 S802 08 S882 70 Monthly Usage 7,338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA 10 CPA TOU-PA-2-D-PRI Green RMe Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) miw® 1 Generation Rate $0 06361 $0 06922 S0 07484 SO 05320 SO 0544• S0 06529 SCE Delivery Rate S0 04439 S0 04439 S0 04439 SO 03936 S0 03936 SO 03938 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01094 SO 02188 SO 01416 SO 01416 SO 01416 Total Costs SO 10800 S0 12455 SO 14111 $0 10672 SO 10799 SO 11881 Average Monthly Bill($) $792 50 $913 95 51,035 47 $783 12 5792 4.' 5871 84 Month)),Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA Green Rats Green Rate lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50 06591 S0 07152 $007714 S0 05544 50.0567' SO 06796 SCE Delivery Rate 50.04442 SO 04442 S0 04442 $0.03939 $0.03939 SO 03939 Surcharges SO.00000 So 01094 So 02188 W.01418 W.01418 SO 01418 Total Costs S0 11033 S0 12688 S0 14344 10.10902 SO 11033 S0 12153 Average Monthly Bill(S) S809 60 5931 05 51,052 5e S799.97 5$. S891 78 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 161i. SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) %Renewable) ,50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50.06485 $0.07046 S0.07808 50 05441 $0 05571 SO 06673 , SCE Delivery Rate $0.04417 $0.04417 $0.04417 50 03914 S0 03914 50 03914 Surcharges $0.00000 $0.01094 $0.02188 $0 01417 SO 01417 14301417 Total Costs $0.10902 S0.12557 $0.14213 $0 10772 S0 10902 $0 12004 Average Monthly Bit(S) S799 99 S921.43 $1,042 95 $790 46 $799 98 S880 88 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 10735 of 21 SCE SCE CPA ':PA CPA 9 Green Role Lean Power C ea'Fewer t 00%Green Power _= i (80%Renewable) (100 (36%Renewable) 150:ro Rene+vat4e; 1100%Renewable', Generation Rate SO 07575 S0 08136 $0 C:. 50.064 $0 06650 S0 07938 SCE Dekvery Rate SO 04894 SO 04894 SO C: S0.04 • _ $0 04391 S0 04391 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 01094 S0.0216, $0.01427 S0 01427 SO 01427 Total Costs SO 12469 $0 14124 $0.15780 S0.12317 $0.12468 SO 13758 Average Monthly Bill(S $914 98 S1 036 42 51,157 94 $903.80 $914 92 $1.009 43 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh R;vec are currc^t as of September 9,2019 SCE SCE Lean CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-2-E-PRI .:I Green Rate Grose Raga Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 0%Renewable) (100%Renewable) %Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable Generation Rate $0� SO 08008 SO 08570 SO 06374 SC 07789 SCE Dekvery Rate SO 04861 SO 04861 SO 0486' S0 04" SO 34358 SO C-: Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01094 SO 02188 S0.014 , SO 01426 SO 014,• Total Costs S0 12308 S0 13963 SO 15819 S0 12158 SO 12308 50 1357"_ Average Monthly Bd(S) S903 16 $1,024.60 $1,146 12 S892 18 5903 14 $996 02 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 * 1imem 1 SCE SCE CPA CPA Irirl - -E-5708 SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Renewable) `•� k�-,.^.3 ..• (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 0763 S0 08193 SO 08755 SO 06555 SO 06707 8005 SCE Delivery Rate SO Oaa-r SO 04906 50 04906 SO 04403 SO 04403 SO 04403 Surcharges SO 0 SO 01094 SO 02188 SO 01428 S0 01428 S0 01428 Total Costs $0 12538 SO 14193 S0.15848 SO 12388 S0 12538 S0.13836 Average Monthly Bd(S) $920 04 $1.041 48 51,163 0C S908 87 $920.04 $1.015 26 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SLh grillIliCPA CPA 1[(„1-, PA-2-E-5T08-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate _ rat Cear Power 100%Green Power la 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable l w-,Re^wrap e) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 07504 S0 08065 SO 08627 $0.06430 SO 06581 SO 07856 •SCE Delivery Rate S0 04873 $0.04873 SO 04873 $0.04370 $0.04370 SO 04370 Surcharges S0 00000 $0.01094 $0.02188 $0.01427 S0 01427 S0 01427 Total Costs SO 12377 1 $0.14032 50 15688 SO 12227 S0.12377 S0 13653 Average Monthy Bit 1$1 S908.22 $1,029.87 $1,15119 589721 $90824 $1,001 86 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 10746of21 • SCE 1 SCE _ T T CPA • r t Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power- .. 100%Green Power .• 150%Renewable (100%Renewable i.vu:_nenewacu e_ '100%Renewable) • Generation Rate SO C.• S0 07729 50 0882' S0 05815 S0 05747 S0 06874 SCE Delivery Rate S0 04417 S0 04417 S0.04417 S0 03914 S0 03914 SO 03914 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 00997 50 01994 S0.01387 SO 01387 50 01387 Total Costs SO 11048 SO 13143 SO 15237 50.10915 50 11047 SO 12175 Average Monthly Bill(S) 58.703 5' 110.354 45 512 004'' 58.599 32 58 703 al S9,591 71 Monthly Usage 78.783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are 7.11•-e-1 as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-3-A-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0 06511 SO 07609 SO 08706 $0.05498 S0 05628 SO 08735 SCE Dekvery Rate SO 04391 SO 04391 SO 04391 _ S0 03888 S0 03888 S0 03888 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00997 SO 01994 SO 01386 SO 01386 SO 01386 Total Costs SO 10902 S0 12997 S0 15091 SO 10772 S0 10902 S0 12008 Average Mow'., - $8.588 92 S10.239 43 S11.889.14 $8,486 12 $8.588.59 S9,460 62 Monthly Usage 78,783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-P SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable Generation Rate SO 06067 S0.07185 SO 08262 SO 05068 S0 05188 50.06220 SCE Delivery Rate SO 03739 SO.03739 SO 03739 SO 032- SO 03238 $0.03 " Surcharges $0 00000 SO.00997 So 01994 SO 013b' SO 01381 $0.01,0' Total Costs SO 09808 $0.11901 SO 13995 SO 09685 S0(9808 50.10838 Average Monthly Bil(S) $7.725 46 $9,375.96 $11.025 68 $7.63,1 . $7,725.20 $8,538.15 Monthly Usage 78.783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA A 3-8 PRl SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Parser 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) -(36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate _ SO 3 05960 50 07058 50 08155 $ 04963 S0 05083 SO 06096 SCE Delivery Rate SO 03722 $0.03722 $0.03722 $0.03219 S0 03219 SO 03219 Surcharges $0.00000 $0.00997 S0.01994 $001380 S0 01380 SO 01380 Total Costs $0.09682 $0.11777 S0.13871 $0.09563 S0 09683 $0 10696 Average Monthly[ill(5) $7,627.77 $9,278 27 S10.927 99 $7,533 73 S7.628 24 $8.426 34 Monthly Usage 78,783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 1 077 of 21 Aw:-, .s SCE SCE CPA •• CPA • Green Rale Green Rale 1 earl Powe' i -- 100%Green Power ,fit--�K: •ri?_..._7,r a e (50%Rerlawable) (100%Renewable` (-Lo kenewao+e r.e;,exa c; (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 05933 S0 07031 S0 08128 $0.04938 $0.05058 S0 06065 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04125 S0 04125 $0.04125 S0.03622 $0.( /2 $0 03622 Surcharges 50 00000 S0 00997 SO.01994 $0.0'2' $0.01380 S0 01380 Total Costs S0 10058 $0 12153 S0.14247 $0.0954 $0 10058 $0 11067 Average Monthly Bil IS) S7 923 99 S9 574 50 511 224 2' S7 831 30 57 924 32 $8.719 09 Monthly Usage 78 783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are cur.,-i as of Septe'-'-='74 2019 ...- SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-3-D-PRI s 5 E Green Rile Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power l50%Renewe8M) (100%Renewable) (36% (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0 05827 S0 06925 S0 08022 S0 04835 SO 04951 S0.05942 SCE Delivery Rate $0.04103 S0 04103 S0 04103 S0 03600 SO 03600 SO.03600 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 00997 $0.01994 SO 01379 S0 01379 SO 01379 Total Costs S0 09930 SO 12025 $0 14119 S0 09814 S0 09931 SO 10921 Average Monthly BA($) $7.823 15 $9.473 68 $11.123 37 $7.731 64 S7.823 76 S8.604 06 Monthly Usage 78 783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates.a'e cu-e^,t as of Se:•le-leer 9 2019 r- SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-3-D-5TO8 SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 05990 SO 07088 SO 08185 SO 04'•_' S0 05112 SO.08131 SCE Delivery Rate $0 04114 SO 04114 SO 04114 S0 0361 1 _ S0 03611 S0.03611 Surcharges SO 00000 SO.00997 50 01994 50 01381 _ 50 01381 $0.01381 Total Costs S0 10104 S0 12199 S0 14293 SO 09984 S0 10103 $0.11122 Average Monthly Bil(S) $7.960 23 $9,610.74 S11.260.45 $7.865 97 S7,959 82 $8,762.54 Monthly Usage 78.783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-3-0.5T08-PRI SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable (100%Renewatuei lit(36%Renewable) '50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) eradon Rate SO 05885 SO 06983 SO 0808C SO.04890 $0.05009 S0 06009 >(1 E Delivery Rale SO 04092 SO 04092 SO 04092 S0.03589 $0 03589 SO 03589 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00997 $0.01994 S0.01380 $0 01380 SO 01380 Total Costs S0 09977 55,) 12072 SO 14186 $0.09859 $0 09978 50 10978 Average Monthly Sal(S) $7,860 18 $9.510 68 $11.160.40 $7,767.20 $7,860.67 $8.648 57 Monthly Usage 78.783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 10898 of 21 SCE SCE CPA CPA TOU-PA- - SCE Green Rate Green Rale Lean Power •, 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ,•50_.Renewable: t 100%Renewable) generation Rate S.. '' SC 07809 SO 08906 S0 05892 S0 05827 S0 06968 SCE Delivery Rate S0 04430 S0 04430 S0 04430 SO 03927 SO 03927 $0.03927 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 00997 S0 01994 50 01387 S0 01387 $0.01387 Total Costs SO 11141 SO 13236 S0 15330 $0.11007 S0 11141 $0.12282 Average Monthly Bi(3) 58.777 21 510.427 72 S12.077.43 $8,671.33 $8.777.23 $9,678 06 Monthly Usage 78,783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate 100%Green Pacer (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 7 ` SO 07689 SO 08786 $0.05576 $0 05708 S0 06828 SCE Delivery Rate SO'44 . S0 04402 SO 04402 S0.03899 S0 03899 S0 03899 Surcharges SO $0 00997 $0 01994 S0.01386 S0 01386 S0 01386 Total Costs SO 10953 $0 13088 $0 15182 _ $0 10861 $0 10993 SO 12113 Average Monthly Bd(S) $8.660 62 $10,311.12 S 1 1 960 84 $8,556 86 $8.660 56 59.543 30 Monthly Usage 78.783 kWh Monthly Demand. 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA -IammllA 3E-5TOS SCE Green Rate Green Rafe Lean Power 100%Gram Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ,,, imi,(3fi')IeR�l�ewabMJ ( (100%Renewri6le) c.on Rate 50.06783 SO 07881 SO 08978 SO 05783 S0.05899 S0 07052 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04444 S0 04444 SO 04444 S0 03941 SO 03941 S0 03941 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00997 SO 01994 $0.01388 50 01388 $0.01388 Total Costs $0 11227 S0 13322 $0 15418 30.11092 50 11228 SO.12381 Average Monthly Bill 1$1 $8.844 97 S10 495 47 $12.145 19 $8,738 81 $8.845 58 59.753 84 Monthly Usage 78.783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September c 7019 SCE SCE CPA CPA TOU-PA-3•E•5TO8-PRI SCE Green Rale Green Rate Lean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable (36%Renewable) _, ('' (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 07761 SO C. SO 06848 $0 05780 $0.06912 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04417 SO 04417 S0 04417 $0.03914 $0 03914 50.03914 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00997 50 01994 S0 01387 $0.01387 $0.01387 Total Costs S0 11080 SO 13175 SO 15269 : 10947 $0.11081 30.12213 Average Monthly Bill $8.729 18 _ S10.379 66 512 029 H. 62 $8.729 69 $9.822 03 Monthly Usage 78.783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 10819of 21 STREET AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Greer, ••• Lean Power CCk an P.Tm l 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Re ,:..i; (36%Renewable) i StrA,Renewable l i 100%Renewable) Generation Rate .. _ S0 08055 SO 08848 SO 06220 S0.08386 SO 07599 SCE Delivery Rate $0 10781 50 10781 50 10781 50 10278 S0 10278 50 10278 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01031 SO 02061 50 01394 S0 01394 S0 01394 Total Costs SO 18044 S0 19867 S0 21688 50 17892 SO 18038 50 19271 Average Monthy Gil(S) S57 20 S62 95 568 75 556 72 557 18 561 09 Monthly Usage 317 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power C6 1,P:»v.•• 10C` (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable i ) 501tRent.eiablei (10C Generation Rate 5J 04797 SO 00000 SO 00000 SO.03877 50 $0 0478•t SCE Delivery Rate SO 03787 SO.00000 S0 00000 50.03284 SO 03281 50 03284 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 00000 SO 00000 S0 01325 SO 01325 SO 01325 Total Costs SO 08584 50 00000 50 00000 50.08488 SO 38582 50 09398 Average Monthly Bil($) $130 73 S0 00 S0 00 5129 24 $130 71 5143 T3 Monthly Usage 1,523 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 04797 S0 00000 S0 00000 SO 03877 0397• S0.04788 SCE Delivery Rate S0 03787 S0 00000 S0 00000 SO 03284 50 03284 S0 03284 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 00000 S0 00000 S0 01325 SO 01325 S0 01325 Total Costs S0 08584 $0 00000 SO 00000 SO 08486 $0 08582 50 09398 - Average Monthly Bit(S $130 73 SO 00 S0 00 $129 24 5130 71 514313 Monthly Usage. 1.523 kWh Rates are current as 01 September 9,2019 This rale comparison represents similar comparisons for LS-2-4,LS-2-B SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable, (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) !ME! eration Rate S0 04797 $0 00000 SO 00000 50 03877 50 03973 50 04788 E Delivery Rate S0 03787 SO 00000 SO 00000 S0 03284 S0 03284 S0 03284 charges SO 0000C SO 00000 S0 00000 S0 01325 S0 01325 S0 01325 al Costs SO 38584 SO 00000 SO 00000 S0 08486 SO 08582 S0 D9398 rage Monthly Gil(S) $130 73 5O OC S0 00 5129 24 5130 71 $143 13 Monthly Usage 1.523 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for OL-1-ALLNITE 108300,21 2111.111 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA L SCE Green Rate Green Rate Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) SO 06918 Generation Rate S0 04848 SO 08988 SO 03927 SO 04024 $0 04847 SCE Delivery Rate SO 03116 SD 03116 SD 03116 $0.02613 SO 02613 SO 02613 SO 01326 SO 08786 Surcharges $O OOOOO SO D0602 SD 01603 30 Ot328 SO 01326 Total Costs $D 07964 SO t OB36 SO 13707 SO 07866 S0 07963 verage Monthly Bd($1 $121 29 5165 03 5208 76 $119 79 $121 27 $133 82 Monthly Usage 1.523 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for LS-3-8 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) i 50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 04848 SO 06918 SO 08988 S0 03927 S0 040:24 SO 04847 SCE Delivery Rate S0 03116 SO 03116 SO 03116 SO 02613 SO 02613 S0 02613 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00802 SO 01603 SO 01326 S0.01326 SO 01326 Total Costs S0 07964 S0 10836 SO 13707 SO 07866 SO 07963 50 08786 Average Monthly BA(5) S121 29 S165 03 S208 76 5119 79 S121 27 S133 82 Monthly Usage 1.523 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 This rate comparison represents similar comparisons for AL-2 1°8 1of21 SCE and CPA JOINT RATE COMPARISONS As part of our mutual commitment to better serve customers, Southern California Edison (SCE)and Clean Power Alliance(CPA)have jointly created a comparison of our common electric rates.average monthly charges, and generation portfolio contents. To find your specific electric rate. please scroll down If you are not sure about your specific electric rate,this information can be found on the detailed page of your bill directly beneath the heading that reads"Details of your new charges" If you have further questions please contact Clean Power Alliance at cleanpoweralliance org or(888)585-3788 and SCE at sce corn or (800)974-2356 Definitions Generation Rate reflects the cost of producing or purchasing electncity to power your home This rate depends on usage. and will vary depending on your service provider and rate plan SCE Delivery Rate is a charge assessed by SCE to deliver electricity to your home. This rate depends on usage Surcharges represents the Cost Responsibility Surcharge(CRS)and Franchise Fee(FF)that are applicable to Community Choice Aggregation(CCA)customers. The CRS is a surcharge to recover costs associated with power purchases made on behalf of customers, prior to a customer's switch to a CCA.The FF recovers taxes owed to a city in exchange for allowing SCE to utilize electrical distribution lines throughout the property of the city SCE acts as the collection agency for the FF surcharge which is levied by cities and counties for all customers All comparisons are calculated using SCEs 2018 typical customer usage profiles,SCE's published rates as of July 26. 2019 and CPA's published rates as of September 9, 2019 1084 RESIDENTIAL , CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA .. en w.100%Gro Po SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 00%Green Pow. • (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ,(36%Renewable) 50%Renewable) 1100%Re ,wetY1) '(Defetee Jurndctiorta) Generator Rate SO 097+9 SO 09631 SO 09523 S0 06688 SO 064-- S0 08539 S0 03636 SCE Celnery Rate $0 10432 SO 10432 S010432 1009929 1009929 5009929 S009929 Surcharges 50 00000 SO 01381 SO 02786 S0 03358 SO 03358 $0 03358 SO 03358 Total Costs SO 20171 SO 21446 SO 22 721 SO 19975 SO 20170 S0 21825 1021922 Average Monthly BA($) 11(175 $11881 S12587 S11066 S11174 _ S12091 S12145 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates we WWI as of September 9.2019 The WsceeyerAonrsprwentssarateroprr;terleons fix 0-SDP.0-SDP-O.DE.DE SDP OEESOP-0 DM ^!'S1.DMS-2.DMA5.3 CIY'L-aP _ SCE SCE ` 'Z7Q CPA7 CPA CPA CPA • Green Rale Green Ran .._ .Lean Paw Clam Power 100%Green Pore• 100%Green Power Junsd (50%Renewable) t100%Renewable (36%Renewable) !SO%Renewable) (100%Renewobw (100%Reneene(Debut!Rrcbortsh wable) Rate MrLIP"--..."---GenerabonO 09739 SO 0963' SO 0952J SO 08686 SO 06883 30 085J9 SO 06@@3 _ SCE Delivery Rale D 03882 SO 01882 SO 03882 SO 03379 SO 03379 SO 03379 SO 03379 Surcharges O 00000 SO 01383 SO 02786 SO 03358 SO 03358 SO 03358 SD 03358 Total Costs 0 13621 SO 14896 SO 16171 So 13425 S0 13620 SO 15275 So 13620 Average Monthly Bye(S) 175 46 $82 52 $89 59 $74 37 $75 45 S84 63 $75 45 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The-me. -ter a-wry•en res,,Is singer cor'parsons for OM CARE D-CARE-SOP D-CARE•SOP-0 .... ... ..... . l SCE SCE CPA CPA !� CPA • _,. . . , CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Ulan Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 1 100%Groan Power (Wail ae 150%Renewablee) 1100%Renewer- (36%Rem/wade) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewabte) (100%Renewable) •h Rio. SO 09739 SO 09631 SO 09523 SO O6688 SO 06883 SO 08539 SO 06683 ,..el,RaEr S0 06786 S0 06736 SO 067^ 10 06283 SO(16283 SO 08283 SO 08233 ^aryes SO 00000 SO 01383 SO 02- SO 03358 SO 03358 .... SO 03356 SO 03358 •.Y SO 16525 $0 17800 30 19075 $0 16329 SO 16524 So 16179 _ SO 16524 ••'onthy Ba IS) _ $91 55 19861 $105 68 $9048 $91 54 $100 71 S91 54 reny Usage 564 kWh - - -4b ^u:es a'e current as of September 9.2019 The rate comparison represents smear companions for D-FERA-SOP.D-FERA-SDP-0.DE-FERA OWNIIIMIr SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA 100%Green Power SCE Green Rale Green Rate • Clean Power 100%Green Power • (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ) 150% No) 1100%Renewable) • Generation Rate $0 09886 So 0977E SO 09670 SO 06831 50.07029 S0 08709 SO 0880E SCE Dahmer)Rate SO 10947 SO 10947 SO 10947 $0 10444 $0 10444 SD 10444 $0 10444 Surc erges $0 00000 SO 01383 50 02766 SO 03359 W0 03359 SO 03359 $0 03359 r Total Costs SO 20633 S0 221 O8 SO 23383 SO 20534 SO 20832 S0 22512 SO 22611 Average Monthly Be IS) $115 41 $12248 $12954 511431 $115 41 $124 72 S125 27 Monthly Usage 554 kWh , Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate comparison represents emery cornpar.on■for TOU-D-A-,SDP.TOU-D-A-SDP•O.IOU-DE-A. TOU-DE-A-SDP 1085 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-0u1RE si'r Green Rate Green Rate Clean Power 100%Green Power 100%Green Power d- (SO%Renewsdel 1100%Renewed') R6ara�la) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewed") (Defaur.MSM1ctbns) Ge•,- .-a SO C. SO 09778 SO 09670 S0 06831 S0 07029 S0 08709 SO 07029 SCE Derrvery Rate SO 04204 50 04204 SO 04204 30 03701 SO 03701 S0 03701 SO 03701 Surcharges S0.03000 SO 01383 S0 02766 80 03359 10 03359 - SO 03359 SO 03359 Total Coss SO 14090 SO 15365 SO'6640 S0.13891 50'4089 S0 15769 SO 14089 Average Monthly Be IS) S78 06 S85 12 592'9 $76 96 $78 DS $87 36 S78 05 Morrerty Usage 564 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 The rate comparison represents wrier companions for TD A-C-SDP TO-A-C-SO CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA 100%Green Power SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Poem 100%Green Power (So%ReneRemovable)0le) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Removable) (100%Rsnewabe, (Default JurSOiggm) Fr (100%Renerreble) Generation Rate S0 09886 SO 09778 SO 09870 SO 06831 SO 07029 SO 08709 SO 07029 SCE Delivery Rate SO 07197 SO 07197 SO 07197 SO 06694 S0 06894 SO 06694 SO 06894 Surtar9es SO 00000 SO 01383 SO 02766 SO 03359 S0 03359 SO 03359 S0 03359 T0111 Costs S0 17083 S0 18358 S0 19833 50 18884 $0 17062 $0 18762 $O 17082 Average Monthly BA(S) 394 64 3101 70 $108 77 S93 54 S9463 S103 94 S94 63 -Monthly Lisp* 554 kWh Ratss are crrrenb as of September 9 2019 Ts rate companion represents tenger omparwons for TD-A-F-SDP TD-A-F-SO SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA t; 100% Green Power SCE (100%Renewable) Green Rate Groen Rah Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power t, � s) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewedel ; (36%Re'rewable1 (50%Renevade) 1100%Renewable) S (Default- Genet rlidcbc p Rate �'0004 S0 09896 SD 09768 SC 06946 S0 v"7145 SO 08847 S0 08647 SCE Dekvery Rale SO 11422 S0 11422 SO 11422 1,010919 SO 10919 $0 10919 SO 10919 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01383 SO 02766 SO 03360 $0 03360 SO 03360 SO 03360 Total Coss $021426 SO22701 S023976 S02'225 5021425 SO23126 5023228 Average Monthly Ba(SI $118 70 S 125 78 S 132 83 911759 S 118 69 5128 12 5128 87 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 The rate companion represents saniarcomparsons for IOU D El SDPTOU-D-BSDP-0 IOU-DE-B.TOU-DE-B-SDP.TOU-DE-0-50P-0 SCE SCE CPA (.-.PA ! ' Green Rah Green Rate Clean Power 100%Green Power ialmiL-1°°.4 Veen Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Renewable) (100%Renewable: - reribOn Rabe 50 10004 SO 09896 SO 09798 SO 06946 50 07146 SO 08847 SO 07148 ' Desvery Rats S0 04507 SO 04507 SO 04507 S0 04004 SO 04004 S0 04004 SO 04004 -cnarges SO 00000 50 01383 SO 02 768 SO 03380 SO 03380 S0 03380 50 03360 50 14511 SO 15786 50 17061 $0 14310 S0 14510 SO 18211 50 14510 .-Monthly Ba(Si 560 39 _ S87 45 594 52 $79 28 S60 39 S89 81 S80 39 Monthly Usage 564 kWh Rates are current es of September 9,2019 The rate comparison represents similar comparisons for TO-&C-SOP TD-B-0-SO 1086 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA - CPA • SCE Green Rate Green Rate Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) -'(80%Renewable) (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) '(Defatr(10t3%1 RealewaJuredtcbkltrons) Generabon Rate S0 10004 SO 09898 SO 09788 SO 06946 SO 07146 SO 08847 SO 07146 Denary Deery Rale SO 07565 SO 07565 S0 07565 SO 07062 SO 07062 SO 07062 SO 07062 Surcharges SO 00000 S0.01383 SO 02766 50 03360 SO 03360 SO 03380 S0 03360 Total Coats S0 t 7569 SO 18844 S0 20119 SO 17368 SO 17568 SO 19269 SO 17588 Average Monthly BN(S) S97 33 S104 40 S111 48 S96 22 S97 33 $106 75 S97 33 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 The rate companion represents war companions for TD-B-F•SOP TD-B-F.SO SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power a 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (Default Juredretnpna) ; (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 10079 SO 0997• SO 09863 SO 0'019 SO 07.. SO 08934 SO 09035 SCE Delivery Rate SO 10487 SO 10487 SO 10487 SO 09984 SO 099c4 SO 09984 SO 09984 Surcharges 50 00000 50 01383 SO 02768 SO 03341 50 03361 SO 03381 SO 03381 Total Costs S0 20566 SO 2184• SO 23115 SO 20364 S0 20566 S0 22279 SO 22380 r Average Monthly B4(5) $11394 S12100 S12806 311282 511393 St2342 S12398 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate comparison represents smmiler companions for IOU DE T TOU DE-T-SDP.TOU-DE-T•SDP-O TOU D-T SOP TOU D-T SOP-O - SCE SCE CPA TOU-O-T • - - SCE Green Rate Green Rate 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) - (100%Renewable) ;enerabon,F a e SO 10079 SO 09971 SO 09863 SO 07019 S0 07220 30 08934 SO 07220 SCE Delivery Rate S0 03821 SO 03821 S0 03821 SO 03318 SO 03318 SO 03318 SO 03318 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 01363 SO 02766 S0 03361 SO 03361 SO 03361 50 03361 Total Costs SO 13900 S0 15175 SO 16450 S0 13898 S0 13900 S0 15613 50 13900 Average Monthly BA IS) S77 01 584 07 S91 13 - 575 89 S77 00 S86 50 $77 00 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate companion represents ender companions for TOU-DT-C-SOP.TOU-OT-C-SOP-O SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA A SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) tile) (50%Renewable) k,100%Renewable) anicarbonsl Generation Rate S. • . SO 39664 SO 09556 S0 067<:. S.:�..,E SO 08577 SO 08675 SCE Delivery Rate SO• - SO 10789 SO 10769 SO 1026E SO 10266 S0 10266 S0 10266 Surcharges 10 03000 S0 01383 S0 02766 SO 03358 SO 03358 SO 03358 10 03358 Total Costs S3 20541 $0 21816 SO 23091 50 20344 SO 20540 50 22201 SO 22298 Average Monty Bill t$( -'-3 80 S 120 86 S127 92 $112 71 St 13 79 S122 99 3123 53 Monthly Usage 554 r.'ih Rates are current as of September 9 2019 The rate companion represent'smiler comparisons for TOU-D4-SDP TOU-D-4•SDP-0,TOU-OE-4.TOU-CIE4-SOP. TOU•DE4-SDP-0 1087 SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA TOiiiU-0-a- SCE ,r OP Green Rale Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power . 100%Green Power -. "v.+t: 1103%Renewable) L (38%Renewable) 150%Renewable) 1100%RenaaaEle) (DefaultJurndktnnsl • 1pp%Rarwwaob) Generation Rib S0 09772 S0 09664 SO 09556 SO 06720 SO 06916 S0 06577 Y SO 06916 - SC E De*aery Rate $0 041 t 1 $0 04 t 1 1 S0 0111 1 S0 03606 $0 03606 S0 03608 SO 03608 _ Surcharges 30 00000 SO 01383 SO 02766 50 03358 SO 03358 $0 03358 SO 03358 Total Costs $0 131363 SO 15156 S0 16433 SO 13686 50 13882 SO 15543 SO 13882 Average Monthly Be(S) S76 91 $83 98 $91 04 $75 82 $76 90 $86 11 $76 90 Monty Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 The rate comparison represents srrnlar COmpinsors for TOJ-C-SDP TO-4-C-SO CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA r Op%green Power SCE Green Rate Power Rate Lean Pow Clean Power 100%Green Power (50% Renewable)RenewaI (100% (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) abuRJura4tbotls) lic00%Renewable) Generation Raw SO 09772 S0 09664 SO 09556 SO 06720 $0 06916 1 SO 06577 S0 06916 SCE Delivery Rate S0 07072 SO 07072 S0 07072 SO 06569 S0 06589 S0 06589 SO 06569 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01383 S0 02766 SO 03356 10 03358 50 03358 _ 50 03358 Total Costs SO 18844 $0 18119 SO 19394 $0 16647 $0 16843 SO 1(1504 S0 16843 _ Average Monthly BA(S) S93 32 S100 36 S107 44 S92 23 S93 31 S 102 51 $93 31 Monary Usage 554 kWh Rawl are current as Of Sepratl ter 9.2019 The rate comparison represeny similar comparisons for TD-4-F-SDP TDJ-F-SO SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate n Power Clean Punier 100%Green Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable! {100%Renewable) Renewable) (100%Renewable) ■) Nei Generatrn Rase S0 09773 , SO 09665 SO 79557 Su Oo'1 b S0 06914 30 08575 So 086'1 SCE Deb-rery Rate $0 10782 SO 10782 so 10782 SO 10279 S0 10279 S0 10279 S0 10279 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01383 SO 02786 SO 03357 SO 03357 SO 03357 SO 03357 Total Costs S0 20555 S0 21830 SO 23105 So 20355 SO 20550 10 22211 50 22308 AverageMonthyeaIS) $11387 $12094 $12800 $11277 S11385 $12305 S•2Sco Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 The rate comparison represents'mar comparisons for TOU•O.S-SOP TOU-D•5•SDP O TO1.1•0E•5.TOU-DE.5-SOP IOU-DES-SDP-0 . SCE _ CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Rwwassble) {100%Renewal- ) (50%RenerOle) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 09773 $0 09665 SO 09557 SO 06719 So:ley!4 SO 01575 SO 06914 SCE Dehrery Rate SO 0412C SO 04120 S0 04120 SO 03617 SO 03617 SO 03617 S0 03617 Surcharges $0 00000 SO 01363 SO 02756 50 03357 S0 03357 50 03357 SO 03357 Total Costs SO 13893 50 15166 S0 18443 SO 13693 r $0 13888 SO 15549 S0 13688 Average Monthy Bra{Si $76 97 S84 03 $91 09 $75 86 S76 94 386 14 $76 94 Montle.'Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 The rate comparison represents snwr conprworre tor 10-5-C-SDP.TD-SC-SO 1088 CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA 100%Green Power 1 Ok)-0-5-8-FERA _-- Green Rale Green Rao Own Power 100%Green Po..- (50%Rarreable) (100%Renewable) (50%Renewrsbte) (100%R wv ene o (Debut JuretlhcfJons) (100R Generator Ra-- SO S0 09665 SO 09557 SO 06719 - • 4 SO 08575 S0 06914 SCE Deerery Ra'r SO 07C52 S0 07082 S0 07082 S0 06579 SO 08519 SO 06579 SO 06579 Surcharges 6.0 00000 50 01383 50 02766 50 03357 SO 03357 SO 03357 S0 03357 'otal Costs S0 16855 50 18130 $0 19405 SO 16655 SO 16850 SO 18511 50 16850 Average Monthly Be IS) _ S93 38 S100 44 S107 50 S92 27 S93 35 S 102 55 S93 35 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as or September 9 2019 'hrs rate companion represents srnnar cor,pareons for TD 5-F SDP TO-S.F-SO SCE SCE r CPA CPA CPA100lG Green Power SCE Green Rafe Grew,Rate an Porn Cyan Power 100%Green Pwer(50%Ren ( (100%Renewable) Rnewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ! (100%Reoessoblo) Aeedrebona)Genertion Rate SO 09686 SO09580 SO 09472O06639 SO 06833 S0 08480 S006576 SCE Der ery Rate S0 1142S SO 11425 SO11425O 10922 S010922 SO 10922 SD10922 Suharges SO0000C S001383 SO02768O03357 SO03357 S003357 SO03357 TotalCosh S021113 S022388 S023683O20918 S021t12 S022759 SO2S11e97 512403 S131D9S115 89 - $1 t6.96 $126 08 $126 t Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates ere Darren es of Seeplentber 9 2019 The rale companion represents senior comparleons for TOU-D-PRIME-SDP TOU-D-PRIME-SDP-C ORMIIIIMPr- SCE SCE CPA uCPA -x CPA 100%Green POW MI SCE Green Rate Green Rafe Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (56%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) 150%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) ( 00%R ne a�ons) (11 00%Rene wable) Gererabion Rake SO 09686 S0 09580 S0 09472 - SO 06833 SO 08480 SO 06833 SCE Da(very Rate SO 04601 So 04801 S0 04601 $._A: SO 04098 S- '4.7.e S0 04098 r Surcharges SO 00000 10 01383 SD 02768 SO 03357 $0 03357 S. _.. SO 03357 Total Costa 50 14289 50 15564 SO 16839 50 14094 50 14288 SD 15935 SO 14288 Average Monthly Bit(S) S79 16 S86 22 S93 2a S16 08 _ $79 16 S88 28 S79'6 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate companion represents sander cornpartions for TD-PRIME-C-SDP.TD•PRIk1E-C-SC SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rafe Green Rake Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (WA Renewable) (100%Renew c.. ((36%Rmig ( Wei 100%Renewable) r Generator Rase SC-09688 SO D9589 SO 09472 S., 639 SO 06633 S0 05460 SO 66833 SCE Deavery Rate S0 07625 SO 07625 S0.07625 SO 07122 SO 07122 S0 07122 SO0 7'22 r Surcharges SO 00000 ch SD 01383 SO 02766 60 03357 SO 03357 SO 03357 10 D3357 Total Costs SO 17313 S0 18588 SO 19863 SO 17118 S0 17312 SO 16959 So 17312 Average Monthly Ea(S) 595 91 S 102.96 _ S110 04 594 63 _ $05 91 $105 03 595 91 Monthly Usage 554 KWtt Rates are wren as of SeplerMer 9.2019 The rah companion repreeenta veralor cbntpereons 4x TD-PRIME-F-SDP.ID-PRIME-F-SO ir SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA S •Olaen_Pbaae SCE Green Rate Green Rate lean Power Clea, '7AV, 100%Green Pow. (50%Renewable) (100%Renewebv ) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable; l 1 Generator Rafe 50 10050 SL 09942 So 09834 So 06992 $.-:'•:,:1 S3 08902 SO 09003 SCE Deerery Rafe S0 11758 I SO 11756 S0 11756 S0 11253 S0 11253 SO 11253 S0 11253 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01383 S0 02766 So 03361 SO 03361 SO 03361 So 03361 IToCotta SO 21806 SO 23081 S0 24356 50 21607 SO 21608 SO 23517 S0 23617 Average Monthly Bat is) $12081 •. . •97 S13493 S11970 S12081 $13028 S13084 Monthly Usage 554 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 1089 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SCE SCE tll11>e>p1► CPA CPA 100%G sere Poser SCE Green Rate Green Rale Lela POW Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Reneraebie) (100%Renewebe - - (50% (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable. . [pilau lufe4 Cewn1 1 Renewable) Generation Rate SO 09468 SO 09306 SO 09145 SO 08790 SO Er3i,'9 S0 08588 5� SCE Delivery Rate SO 08524 SO 08524 SO 08524 - -:;21 $0 08021 - SO 08021 SO 08021 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01201 SO 02401 S0 02990 S0 02990 SO 02990 SO • Total Costs SO 17992 S0 19011 SO 20070 $0 17801 $0 17990 SO 19600 r $0 I9...w Average Monthly BA($) _ S179 38 5189-: $200 10 $177 48 $179 38 $195 et $196 35 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA T.0U-E V-8 • SCE Green Rate Green Ram Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Powerrailliqraillit"-. 0f j Green Paver (50%Renewable) (100%Rorwwebr 136%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) 100%Reneelt00%Ranewauk) i; - i'e SO 06643 S0 08802 SO 06961 Su 06068 SO 06241 S0 07710 SO 07797 SC_ - - . 3'e 50 08271 SO 08271 80 08271 SO 07788 SO 07768 S0 07768 SO 0775E Surcharges 10 00000 SO 01182 SO 02323 SO 02905 S0 02905 50 02905 SC 02905 Total Cock $0 16914 SO 18235 S0 19555 50 15741 50 15914 50 18383 10 18470 Average V • . Sl $2.097 34 $2281 14 S2 424 62 $2 075 93 S2.097 32 $2.279 53 S2.290 27 .Jsage 12.00 kWh Rates are curter as of September 9.2019 r .� CPA+ SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA 100%Careen Power SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Paear Clean P . 100%Green Pow+ 150%Renewable) (100%Rerevatp. (36%Rewable) ;53%Renewabiet 1100%Reneeebk• (Ddau[Awedn�oral Renewable) Ste% Generation Rae 10 07327 SO 08099 SO 08871 S0 05082 10.05229 S0 06474 SO 06547 r SCE Delivery Rate SO 0657e S0 06576 SO 06576 S0 06073 S0 06073 SO 06073 SO 06073 Surcharges S0 00000 $0 01015 SO 02031 8.0 02601 S0 02601 r S0 02601 S0 02601 Total Costs 50 13903 10 15691 50 17478 SO 13756 S0 13903 SO 15148 SO 15221 Average Monthly Be(S) S39.837 04 144,734 57 S49.829 25 S39.216 11 339 638 44 843 186 77 543.395 83 -Monthly Usage 285.097 kWh Rates ere current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE Mg CPA CPA - aeon Rate Green Rare Leen Pbeer Clean Powwr 100%Green Pow., (50%IEeneeebla) (100%Ren bk (50%Peltweb4a) (100%Reneweb+e ... Generaton Ram _ S0 09615 SO 09453 10 09292 S0 06932 50 07124 So 08758 S0 08854 SCE Delivery Ram S0 00605 SO 08605 SO 08605 SO 08102 30 08102 $0 08102 S0 08102 Surcharges $0 00000 SO 012 SO 02401 SO 02991 S0 02991 SO 02991 50 02991 Total Costs SO 18220 $0 19 !..• S0 20298 SO 18024 S0 15217 r S0 19851 S0 19947 Average Abnttry Be(St 6181 65 S192 01 5202 37 $179 70 S181 62 $197 91 S19e 87 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.201 D The rate comparson represents similar compareons tor TOU.GS•A AE.iOU-GS1A-AEC.TOU-GSIA-C SCE SCE CPA C CPA CPA 'r SCE Green Rate Green Rae �Power glean Pwr 100%Greenw.Po -• 100%Gresn Power (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) .50 51enewa:te (100%ReneeeWe (Dee"'Au_Orbons) inhalla Generation Ram S:. r.4P2 SO 09320 S0 09159 SO 06803 SO 06992 SO 08603 S0 08698 SCE Delivery Ram SO 08548 S0 08548 SO 08548 S0 06045 SO 06045 So Ot-` s0 C 8-4• Surcharges so 00000 s0 01201 s0 02401 $0 02990 SO 02990 S0 02_.-_ S0;.<':•- Total Costs S0 115030 S0 19069 SO 20108 S0 17537 $0.18027 SO 19638 SO 19733 Average Money 134(Si S179 78 $190 12 $200 48 $177 84 $179 73 $195 79 $195 74 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9,2019 The rate comparison represents WSW Wnnpsrwons for TOU-GSIA-AE,TOU-GSIA-AEC.TOU-GS1A-C 1090 r SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA TOU-GS-1-A-SUB SCE Green Rake Green Rats Clean Prover 100%Grwn Pow.•, 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) L : 0vde1 36enewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewiebk• fOsteuaJunsOKtionsl Generation Ra..• SO 09321 SO 09159 S0 08998 SO 06646 SO 06832 SO 08417 SO 08509 SCE Delivery F.' S0 06664 SO 06664 S0 06664 20 06'F- S0 06151 S0 08181 S0 06161 Surcharges SO D0000 SO 01201 SO 02401 SO 021r r-. SO 02968 SO 02968 SO 02986 Total Cosh S0 15985 SO 17024 SO 18063 SO 15795 SO 15982 SO 17566 SO 17655 Average r.r • . 5. _ 1159 37 _ $ 69 73 S 180 09 5157 48 $159 34 5175 13 $176 06 .. r Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of Sepem er 9.2019 The rate comparison represents wear comparisons for TOU•GS1A-AF TOU-GS1 A•AFC TOU-GSIA-C I CPA SCE SCE ! PA C CPA CPA t00%Groen Power SCE Green Rate Green Rate • Power Clean Power 100'%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%RenaMmbts) IDe4wa h+redacaons) (100%Renee i) Generation Rate $0 D8537 SO 06375 SO 08214 S:2,05885 S0 06056 S0 07506 SO 07592 SCE Delany Rate SO 05583 SO 05583 SO 05583 SO 05080 $0 05080 $0 05080 SO 05060 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01201 SO 02401 SO 02981 SO 02981 SO 02981 SO 02981 Total Costs $0 14120 $0 15159 SO 16198 SO 13946 SO 14117 SO 15587 S015653 Average Monthly BA($) $140 78 $151 14 $181 49 $139 04 $140 75 $15521 $156 06 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate companion represents&meat companions tor TDU-GS19-AE.TOU-6516-AEC.TOU-GSIB-C CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA 100%Green Power dMn Role Green Rate t Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Pow.-(Default Junsdrsona) • (SO%RettetNbte) 1100%Renewabls) (36%Ren_erabla) (50%Renewable) (100%Renawabn.. -40. 1 Ger erebon Rate $0 06427 SO 08265 SD 08104 SO D5778 60.06947 SO 07379 SO 07463 SC E Dekvery Rate S0 05557 So 05557 SO 05557 SO 05054 2005054 SO 05054 SO 05054 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01201 SO D2401 S0 D2980 S0.02960 SO 02980 SO 02980 Total Costa S0 13964 S0 15023 S0 16062 SO 13812 S0.13911 SO 15413 SO 15497 Average Monthly BA(2) Ss3942 S149 78 $160 14 2137 70 S139 39 S153 67 $154 51 Monthly Usage:997 kWh Monthly Derrrarwl 2 kW Rates are current es of September 9.2019 The rate cargerleen represents Omar companions for TOU-GSIB-AE.TOU-GSIB-AEC.TOU-GS1B-C SCE eIFEN r•'A CPA SCE Greenn Rate Greenn R Rake Clean Power 100%Green Power . . - (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ,. Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 06306 S0 06144 S0 07963 SO 05660 SO:;5825 SO 07238 SO 07321 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04e96 SO 04558 SO 04698 SO 04195 SO 04195 S0 04195 SO 04195 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01201 So 02401 SO 02979 SO 02979 S0 02979 Sr)02979 Total Costs SO 13004 SO 14043 S0 15062 SO 12834 SO 13000 S0 14412 SO 14495 Average Monthly Be IS) S129 65 2140 01 $150 37 $127 96 $129 51 _ 2143 69 5'al 51 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rath are current as of September 9.2019 The rase comparison represents smear compareons for TOU-GS1 B-AE.TOU-GS1 B-AEC.TOU-GSI E SCE SCE I CPA CPA CPA CPA MI Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power close Power 100%Green Power 100% eaU Green Pacer (50%Renewable) (100%Reneeebw• (36%Renewablei (50%Renewabl (100%Ramesh,' (D�SuM JurlsdreLorlsl (103%Renewable) Generaton Rate S0 07142 SO 07680 SO 075.9 SO 05212 S0 05369 SO 06701 SO 06779 SCE Delivery Rate SO 06094 S0 06094 SO 08094 SO 05591 SO 05591 SO 05591 SO 05591 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01207 SO 02401 So 02975 S0 02975 SO 02975 SO 02975 Tokel Cosh SO 13936 SO 14975 SO 160,4 $0 13778 $0 13935 S0 15267 SO 15345 Average Monthly BA($) 6138 94 $up 30 2159 68 $137 36 _ S138 93 $152 22 $152 99 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Monthly Demand 2 kW Rates ere current as 01 September 9.2019 The rate companion represents sender comperworrs for TOU-GSI-D.AE.TOU.GSI-D-AE.C.TOU-GSI-D-C 1091 CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA • 100%Green Pager TDU-GS-1-D- SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Prover Clean Power 100%Green Power (60%Renewabte) 1100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Rerytwbr• (Def Jtrr;dlcbons) (100%Removable) Generaton Rate SO 07735 S0 07573 S0 07412 $0 05107 S0 05263 S0 06576 S0 06655 SCE Delivery Rate S0 06061 SO 06061 SO 05061 S0 0555E So 05558 S0 05558 S0 05558 -Surcharges 10 00000 SO 01201 SO 02401 SO 02974 SO 02974 S0 02974 10 02974 Total Costa S0 13795 S0 14835 90 15874 S0 t 3639 S0.13796 So 15109 S0 f 5167 Average Monthly Ea(5) r $137 55 $147 90 5158 26 3135 98 _ 5137 53 3150 63 $151.42 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Mondry Demand 2 kW Rates are current as of September 9,2019 The rate conversion repreaenh smear companions for TOU-GS1-0-AE.T0U-G$1•0-AE-C.TOU•GS1-D-C SCE SCE CPA Gwen Rae Green Rale Lean Power F 100%Green Pov,.• tee (50%Rwreebe) (100%RSnIwabe) _ ) (100%Renewble (Nave h+rrt4fktlona) Generation Rafe 10 09405 SO 09243 S0 09082 S0 06729 50 06917 S0 08518 SO 08610 SCE Detwery Rate S0 08601 S0 08601 S0 08601 S0 08098 5 -:98 SO 08098 S0 08098 Surcharges S0 00000 50 01201 S0 02401 50 02990 SO 02990 50 02990 SO 02990 Total Costs 10 18006 S0 19045 $0 20084 50 17817 $0 t 8005 S0 19603 50 19697 Average Monthly BJI IS) _ $179 52 $189 88 $200 24 $177 83 _ S179 51 $195 44 S196 38 Monthly Usage 9978Wh Rates ere current es of Sspssrnber 9,2019 The rate comparison represents senior companions br T0U-GS1-E-AE.70U-GS1-E-AE-C.70U-GS1-E-C CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA 100%Green Power SCE Green Rae Green Rae Leen Power Caen Power 100%Green Power (50%Rtetewebrs) (100%RMmtebe) (36%ReneweDel 450%Renewabe) (100%Renewable) •(Dell°Junsdlpronsl Gene/ratan Rate SO 09272 SJ 09 7,O S0 08949 SO 06600 $0 06765 SO 06361 SO 08454 SCE()Orrery Rate 10 08544 50 08544 10 08544 SO 08041 S0 08041 SO 08041 SO 08041 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 0120 f S0 0240, S0 02968 SO 0298E SO 02968 SO 02998 r Tow Costs S0 1781E SO 18855 S0 19894 $0 17629 S0 17815 SO 19390 SO 19483 Average Monthly Bra(SI $177 83 S187 98 S198 34 $175 76 $177 61 $193 32 $194 25 - Monthly Usage 997 kWh - Raw are current as of September 9.2019 The rate companion wawa'weer companso,,stor TOU-GS1.E.AE TOU•GS1 F A " 'r,51 F-C • SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA �', CPA Green Rate Green Rate Lean PowClean Power 10O%Green Power "100v Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable. (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) j (DefauRJurlsdrebons) .- k (100%Renewable) IIIIIrEGenerator Rate $0 09327 S0 09165 SO 09004 SO 06653 S0 06e-•. S0 08425 S0 06518 SCE Delivery Rate S0 08585 S0 08585 _ SO clams S0 06082 S0 08082 S0 08082 S0 08082 Surcharges SO 00000 r SO 01201 S0 02401 SO 02989 S0 02969 10 02989 S0 02989 r Total Costa S0 17912 S0 18951 S0 19990 $0 17724 S0 17910 S0 19495 S0 19589 Average Monthly Bill(Si $176 58 S188 94 _ S 199 30 $176 70 5178 5E $194 37 $195 30 r Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current es of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA - SCE Green Rele Green Rate 100%Green Power ,DO%Green Power (50%Reneeebrc' 1100%Renewable) (100%Renewable) • (Defaui how/coons) J Generaton Rate SO 09194 9,0 09032 S0 06871 S0 06524 _ S0 06707 10 08270 SO 08362 SCE°Way Rale SO 08528 SO 0852E SO 06528 S0 08025 S008025 $7 08025 S0 CE"_ Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01201 SO 02401 SO 02988 S:02988 SO 0298E SO 02:- r Total Costs S017722 SO 18761 SO 19500 50 17536 - SJ 19283 50 19375 Average Monthly Be(Si $17669 S18705 $19741 St7484 = S19225 S19317 Monthly Usage 997 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 2019 1092 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate I. Lean Power Mean Power 100%Green Power 100%Green Power (50%Renew*la) (103%Renewable) (381iRenewaph) (50%Rewewebh) (100%Renewable) (pefawdt lursdmons) Generator Refs S0 06374 SO D8533 50 08692 50.058e6 SO 05975 50 07399 SO 07483 SCE Delvery Rale SO 07436 $0 0743E SO 07438 $0 06933 S0 06933 SO 06933 SO 06933 Surcharges SO 00000 10 01182 SO 02323 S0 02903 10 02903 SO 02903 SO 02903 Total Cosa S0 15810 S0 17131 S0 18451 S0 15643 S0 15810 SO 17235 SO 17318 -Average Monthly 81 tS) It 960 44 S2.124 24 S2.287 92 S1.939 77 S1 960 48 $2.137 08 52 147 46 Monthly Usage- 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kw Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate corrparson represents smear corrrparsons for TOU.GS2-E.AE.TOU-GS2-E-AE.C.TOU4S2-E-C SCE SCE - CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rale Lean Pose Chen Power 100%Green Power (50%Rehesable) (100%Renewable) 1111.111r) (50% (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 08245 S0 08404 SO 08583 $0 05882 SO 05848 SO 07247 S0 07330 SCE Dekwry Rate SO 07384 SO 07384 S0 07384 SO 08881 S0 06881 SO 08881 SO 08881 Surcharges $0 00000 S0 01182 SO 02323 S0 02901 S0 02901 SO 02901 So 02901 Tote Costs SO 15629 SO 18950 SO 18270 $0 15464 50 15829 50 17030 50 t7113 Average Monthly Be IS) 31.936 00 S2.101 80 S2.285 4B 51.917 55 S1.937 97 32.111 68 S2 122 00 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW Rases are current as of Sepaember 9.2019 Ths rate cnrrparson represent:snake comparsons for"ft.!GS2.E AE TOU•GS2 F AF-r 'C".1;S:I :: SCE SCE Y CPA CPA CPA CPA Green Rate Green Rate ! Lean Power Clean Potter 100%Green Power 1 10011w Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) W (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) it 00%Renewable) (0uR RR r es)I Generaton Rate SO 08092 SO 08251 SO 06410 _ '533 SO 05695 S0 07070 50 07151 SCE Dekvery Rate S0 06424 $0 08424 SO 06424 S.__5921 S0 05921 SO 05921 SO 05921 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01162 SO 02323 50 02900 SO 02900 SO 02900 SO 02900 Total Costs S0 14516 $0 t 5837 S0 17157 $0 14354 $0 14516 S0 15891 S0 15972 Average Monthly Be(5) 51.799 98 _ 11.963 79 S2 127 47 $1 779 92 St 799 97 $1.970 44 $1.980 54 Monthly Usage 12 400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 This rate companion represents smear compansons for TOU-GS2B-AE.TOU-GS2B-AEC.TOU-GS2B-C.TOU-G526-SAE SCE SCE Uh_f CPA CPA CPA BCe Green Rate Green Rate CINan P.m,'Pnw • 100%Green Pow" 100%Greert Power (50%Reewebh) (100%Renewable) .50'.:Rent-w.so4 :100%Reneesbw (petal*JurmdrcWns) Generaton Rale S0 0797' S0 08130 S0 08289 S0 05415 330 SO 07010 SCE Dekvery Rate SO 06387 SO 06387 S0 06387 SO 05884 SO 05884 SO 05884 $0 C',L Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01162 S0 02323 SO 02899 SO 02899 SO 02899 SO 028., Tote Costs SO 14358 So 15879 S0 18999 $0 14198 SO 14358 $O 15712 50 15793 .Average Monthly Be ill 51.760 39 11.944 20 S2.107 88 51 780 59 St 780 35 SI 948 35 $1.958 28 Monihy Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate companion represents snit companions for TOU-GS213-AE.TOU-GS2B-AEC TOU-GS2B-C.TOU-GS.26-SAE gaillW SCE SCE A LP A 1�% TOU GS-2-B-SUB SCE Green Rate Green Rate Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) (100%Renewable) wneraeon Rale SC:...-8.59 SO 07967 10 08128 S0 05257 $0 05413 S0 06740 S0 06818 SCE Delvery Rate S0.05075 SO 05075 50 05075 S0 04572 10 04572 SO 04572 50 04572 Surcharges SO 00000 50 01182 S0 02323 $0 02897 $0 02897 SO 02897 S0 02897 Total Costs SO 12883 S0 14204 SO 15524 50 12726 _ SO 12883 SO 14210 $0 14288 Average Monthly BO1Si St 59749 $1.761 30 $1.92498 51 578 06 St.59747 $1.76200 St 77168 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate companion represents sander companions for TOU-G52B-AE.TOU-GS2B-AEC TOU-GS2B-C.TOU-GS2B-SAE 1093 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA ! S-2-D SCE Omen Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power • 100'%Green Power W{i 150%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ,htns0 one) '. - ---�I Generation Rate S0 07688 10 07847 SO 08006 S0 05140 50 05294 SO 06602 S0 08679 SCE Delivery Rats SO 06836 S0 06638 80 06636 50 06133 SO 08133 50 06133 S0 06133 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 01162 S0 02323 S0 02696 r S0 02696 _ $0 02896 SO 02898 Total Coati 50 14324 SO 15645 S0 18965 S0 74170 $0 14324 SO 15631 SO 15708 Average Monthly Eta IS) $1.778 18 S 1 939 96 52.103 66 51.757 04 _ S1 776 13 S1 938 25 S1 947 71 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW Rates are current as of September 9,2019 The rate companion represents srnier mmpareons low TOU-GS20-AE TOU-GS2D-AEC.TOU-GS20-C.TOU-GS20-SAE SCE SCE CPA CPr SCE Green Rale Green Reit LNI Kew Clean Power 100%Green Pow, (50%Reneweble) (100%Rertswablr r , _. ,. (50%Renewable) (100%Renewal)*i Me,leua Jtxedretitinsj Generation Ras 10.07670 SO 07729 S0 07888 S0 05027 3.1 '' SO 06465 S0 06541 SCE D4Mly Rate SO.06595 S0 06595 SO 06595 SO 06092 SO 06092 SO 06092 SO 06092 Surcbar9es S0 00000 S0 01162 SO 02323 SO 02895 10 02895 SO 02695 SO 02695 Total Coats $0 14165 S0 15486 S0 16808 $0 14014 $0 14165 SO 15452 SO 15528 Average Monthly M(S) S1,75646 St 920 26 32 063 94 S1.737 78 S1,758 41 $1 918 03 S1 925 47 Monty!Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW Rasa we cumin n of September 9.2019 The rake mrnparsor represer%smiler cnmpaneons ion TOU-GS2D-AE.TOU-GS2D-AEC.TOU-G520-C.7OU-G52D-SAE • SCE SCE. CPA 2_-0sue ...:t ;Lifson Rate Green Rae 100%Green Power {50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Ras SOt)741L S007569 SO07726 S004671 SO05020 SO06280 5008354 SCE D►kvery Rate S0 05200 S0 05200 SO 05200 SO 04897 S0 04697 r S0 04897 SO 04697 Surcharges 60 00000 10 01162 SO 02323 SO 02894 SO 02894 SO 02894 SO 02894 Total Coats S0 12610 S0 13931 SO 15251 5012462 5012611 80 13871 S0.73945 Average Monthly Be)5) $1 563 64 S1.72744 S189112 5154532 S1.56372 51.71996 _ 577291 Monthly Usage 12 400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW ROM are cvrent es c4 September 9.2019 The raw oonpereon represents am4rr companions k r 7OU-GS20-AE.TOU-GS2D-AEC.TOU-GS2D-C TOU-GS2D-SAE SCE SCE CPA CPA ' SCE Green Ras Green Rs% 100%Green Pow+' 100%Green Power • (50%Renewable) (100%Raneaatile) (100%Renew eb.• (Default Jursdncborts) -Generation Rats S0.00645 5: :9=..4 S0 08963 50 06070 S0 08243 SO 07713 S0.07799 SCE Deanery Rate 50 07000 SO 07090 SO 07090 S0 06587 SO 06587 50 06567 S0 08587 Surcharges so 00000 SO 01182 50 02323 SO 02905 S0 02905 r SO 02905 S0 02905 Total Casts SO 15735 SO 17056 SO 18376 SO 15563 100.15735 SO 17205 10.17292 Average Monthly Eta(S) S 1.951 14 $2 11494 S2.278 62 S 1 929 75 _ 51.951 17 _ S2 133 38 S2.144 15 Monthly waste 72 400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 eW Rate are cement as or September 9.2019 The rate companion rapneerta swear comparisons for TOU-GS2R-AE,TOU-GS2R-AE-C.TOU GS2R-C • SCE SCE CPA - SCE Green Rao Green Rate - (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (1009,.Fenewabe.. . - Generation Rate S;;::N 5.1 SO 088:0 SO 08829 S0 05940 S0 06110 S0 07557 SO.07642 SCE Deanery Rate 50 07043 S0.07043 S0.07043 S0 06540 S0 06540 SO 06540 SO 06540 Surcharges S0 00000 10 01182 SO 02323 SO 02904 10 02904 SO 02904 50 02904 Total Coats S0 15554 $0 16875 SO 18195 SO 15384 S0 15554 S0 17001 $0.17068 Avenge Monthly 81(8I 11.928 70 52.092 50 S2.256 18 51.907 62 S1.928 70 S2.108 11 52.118 70 Monthly Usage 12.400 kWh Monthly Demand 27 kW Rates are current as of September 9,2019 The rate comparson represents swear companions ton TOU-GS2R-AE.TOU-GS2R-AE-C.TOU-GS2R-C 1094 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA H CPA T SCE Gaon Ray Green Rao Lean Power Chen Power 100%Green power tl 100%Green Power (50%Reneeeby) (100%Rensst i s) (36%Ren ewable) (50%Reelesebs (10) 0%Renewable) ' (Default hrreelcaorts) - — , — (10pX...R2e rabea) Ge-•• • Raw! 5007280 S007837 S008394 /' $005' I -;390 1006983 1007057 SCE:.emery Ratt SO 05759 SO 05759 S0 05759 S0 05256 S3 35256 S0 05256 SO 05256 Surcharges I S0 00000 S0 01071 $0 02141 S0 02711 10 02711 10 02711 $002711 Total Costs 10 13039 $0 14667 $0 16294 $0 14112 $0 14357 SO 14950 SO 15023 Avenge Monthly Be 15o 511.704 72 313.166 13 $14626 63 S12.667 71 S 12.887 54 $13.419 88 $13 485 92 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kW Rates are current as or September 9 2019 This rate companson represents srniar conpansons for TOU-GS38-AE.TOU-GS3-SAES.T0U-GSI13-C SCE SCE -. --,-. CPA Green Rate Green Rate '•.�..-.+-.. 100%Green Power .cQ%R wale) 1 eneb100%Reneweb.• (;rti%Renewaor) (100%Reneerable) Generation Rate _ 50 0772: SO 08279 SO 06013 SO 06254 S0 06837 _ SO 06909 SCE Delivery Rate SO 05722 S0 05722 SO 05722 S0 05219 $0 05219 SO 05219 S0 05219 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01071 S0 02141 $0 02710 $002710 S0 02710 SO 02710 Total Costs $012887 $0 14515 50 16142 S0 13942 $014162 60 14765 SO 14838 Are•aaeMonthyBe(1) _ S11 568 27 S13,02268 $14 490 19 $12.515 19 S12.73097 S13.25433 S13.31957 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kW Rates are current as of SepMnper 9,2019 The rote conoarson represents saran co maroons for TOUGS3B-AE.TOO-GS}BAES.T0U-GS3-B-C SCE SCE «Y - -CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Reis Green Rate lama Power Clean Power 100%Green Power , 100%Greets Power 150%Renewable) 1100%Renewsbo ble) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) - - Generation Rail SO 07059 ( $0 07616 30 08173 S0 05870 10 06106 S0 06689 S0 06761 SCE Dekvery Rate S0 05914 S0 05914 S0 05914 SO 0541 t SO 05411 S0 05411 50 05411 Surcharges $0 00000 S0 01071 10 02' SO 02709 S0 02709 SO 02709 S0 02709 Total Costs SO 12973 SO 14801 SO 16228 S0 13989 SO 14225 S0 14809 SO 14881 Average Monthly BM(S) $11.645 47 - $13.106 88 $14 567 39 S12.557 67 912 769 78 S13.293 17 _ $11 15R 91 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rail conponson represents saner conpareons for TOU-GS3-D-C.TOU-GS3-D-AES TOU-GS3-D-AE BCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA ' 100%Green Paver AeM Ray Green Rail Power C lea,Pourer 100%Green Peer • (10%Reneetthy) 1100%Renewable) (36%R4naeeble) •50'%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (Dafaut____chwts) 100%. Generation Rats SO 06945 SO 07502 50 08059 10 05733 $0.05965 S0 06540 50 06610 SCE Delivery Rate S0 05871 S0 05873 SO 05673 SO 05370 SO 05370 S0 05370 S0 05370 -Surcharges 10 00000 SO 01071 $0 02141 S0 02708 SO 02708 SO 02708 S0 02706 Total Costs S1312616 S014446 5016073 S01381' SO14042 _ S014618 S014688 Average Monthly BM tS. $11.506 33 $12 967 74 $14 42825 S12.397 34 $12.605 24 _ S13 121 62 $13.18a 92 Monthly Usage 89.787 kWh Monthly Depend 179 kW Rates are owned as of September 9 2019 The rate ccenparton represents sneer carpanaorts for TOU-GS3-D-C.TOU-GS3-D-AES.TOU-GS3-D-AE SCE SCE CPA SCE Green Ray Green Rail 700%Green Power . e RJlredcluetp (50%Renewa0y) (100%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate 50.07587 SO 08144 S0 08701 S0 D6445 SO 06695 S0 07343 _ SO 07420 SCE Delivery Rate S0 06537 S0 06537 50 06537 SO 05034 $0 06034 SO 06034 SO 06034 Surcharges $0 00000 SO 01077 SO 02141 50 02713 10 02713 13 02713 S0 02713 Total Cots SO 14124 S0 15752 $0 17379 $0 15192 S0 15443 $3 16090 50 161 R' Average Monthly BMRi $12.67569 S14.14010 _ S15.60061 5'3.63767 $13.66236 $1444350 S145' . Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly Dimond 179 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate comparison npresenta sprier comparisons for TOU•GS1E-AE TOU-GS3-E-C 1095 SCE SCE -- CPA CPA Gale RMe Green Rale Lean Power Clear r'-w, 100%Green Power (50%Reneeeble) 1100%Renewable) L,,9,.-.; ) ,50'5 Renw.ack, •100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 07463 $0 08020 SO 06577 SO 06296 .- SO 07182 SO 07258 SCE Delivery Rate S0 06486 S0 06486 S0 06488 SO 05983 S0 05983 SO 05983 SO 05983 Surcharges S0 00030 SO 01071 SO 021.0 SO D2712 S0 02712 S0 02712 SO 02712 Total Casts S0 13949 SO 15577 SO 17204 10 14991 SO 15237 S0 15677 SO 15953 Average Monthly BA)S) _ $12.52160 $1396301 $1544351 51745706 113.67775 574.25236 104.32057 Monthly Usage 89.787 kWh Monthly Demand 179 kW Rates are currant as of September 9.2019 -firs rate companion represents senior rnmpareons for TO1.1-GS3-E-AE TOU-G$3-E-C SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA Tp,I{3S SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (I . Generation Rate S0 07699 SO 08256 SO 0681 3 SO 06559 SO 06812 S0 07477 SO 07555_ SCE Delivery Rate SO 06248 $0 06246 SO 0E24, SO 05743 SO 05743 S0 05743 SO 05743 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01071 SO 02-4' SO 02714 SO 02714 S0 02714 SO 02714 Tom Cosa SO 13945 S0 15573 SO 17200 50 15018 SO 15269 S0 15935 S0 16017 varag.MontldyERIS) $12.51801 $1397947 S1543992 $1347954 3137Oe9Q S•43:.193 $14.37407 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly°e e d 179 kw Riles we current as of SapYmeer 9.2019 The rate coenpareon represents smear comparisons for TOU-GS3R-AE • CPA SCE SCE CPA 100%Green Power S� Gwen Rate Green Rate 100%Green Pow- (Default JuretllCeprls) (50%R M Mwable) (100%Remember) ,ISO! (100%Re0eeebk• [$007SR Generation Rate S.: $0 1..8.1 h S0 08685 S0 08405 50 06654 S0 07311 S0 07388 SCE Delivery Rale SO 06200 S0 06200 S0 06200 SO 05897 SO 05697 SO D5897 S0 05697 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01071 SO 02141 SO 02713 S0 02713 10 02713 10 02713 r Total Cosa S0 13771 S0 15399 SO 17026 S3 14815 S0 15084 S0 15721 SO 15798 r Avenge Monthly Be($)ra 512.361 81 $13.823 22 $15 283 73 S 13.299 17 _ St 3 522 68 S14,11215 $14.181 59 Monthly Usage 89.767 kWh Monthly Demand. 179 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 The rate compare on represents sieve companions for TOU-GS3R-AE SCE SCE CPA SCE Green Rasa Green Rale 100%Green Power (30%Renealebb) (700%Renewable) 1100%Renewsba) Generation Rate 51__*_�'4 SO 07888 SO 08458 SO 06032 SO 06261 SO 06886 SO 06956 SCE Deavery Ra•n S.:. 3:4 SO 05334 SO 05334 SO 04831 S004831 SO 04831 SO 04831 Surcharges SO 00000 50 01016 SO 02031 SO 02597 50.02597 SO 02597 SO 02597 Total Costs SO 12248 SO 14038 $0 15823 SO 13461 SO 13709 $0 14314 S0 14385 Average Monthly BA 5 534.918 68 940.016 21 _ $45 110 90 S 38 37569 139 084 91 540.508 39 5.41.009 94 Monttry usage 285.097 kWh Monthly Demand 512 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate corrpareon represents ears4r compareons for-0U-8-8-.APSE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA .•100%Green Powe Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Gress Power (50%Renewable' (100%Re-rer..1-. 136%Renewable, (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ( R 1 (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 05553 SO 07526 - - Ss 0596r SO 36235 SO 06818 _ SCE Delivery Rate SO 04680 SO 04660 S- 30 04177 S0 01177 SO 04177 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00995 f0 01989 SO 02552 S(102552 SD 02552 . Total Costs S0 11233 SO 13201 SO 15167 S0 12688 SO 12934 SO 13546 - Average Monthly Be(Si S73 131 77 $85.944 32 S98.743 84 582.807 66 _ S84207 73 r $88.193 51 _ - Monthly usage 851 044 kWh Monthly Demand 1.038 kW Rates are cunrent as of September 9.2019 The rate Conpaneon rePtieenb sander companions for i0U-8-13-APSE TOU$B-SUB SCE Green Rate wso Green Rate Lean CPA PaintClean Power 100%Green Pow, CPA SCE SCE ) CPA CPA 100%Green Power (50%Renewabte) (100%Renewb+= (36%Renewable) (50%(lenewable) (100%Renovate (Dela"JuredKbons) .4100%Renewable) Generation Ras. S0 07400 S0 08599 S0 05967 1. S0 06844 SO C. • SCE Dekvery Rate 5U�.2 y9 SO 02799 SO 02799 S0 02296 So D2296 S0 02296 SO 022ye: Surcharges SO 00000 SO 00923 $001846 90 02406 SO 02406 S0 02406 SO 02406 Total Costs S0 08999 SO 11122 S0 13244 SO 10668 S0 10911 $0 11548 SO 1•• ; w Average Monthly Be 1S) $254 360 58 S314.392 80 5374,376 76 5301.5137 86 1308 4s1 09 _ $326 372 78 $328 172 Monthly Usage 2.626.765 kWh Monthly Demand 4.152 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate compareon represents under comparisons for TOU-8-B-APSE SCE SCE -- :'.PA CPA Gram Rob Given Rate Lean Pair -lean Poe• 100%Gran Pcr f5O%Pa-iie--) (100%Renewable( _ 50.Rrnewatdel (100%Renewete Jttnedr errs) Generaton Rasa S0 06707 $0 07479 $0 08251 SO 05756 , S0 06594 SO 0666• SCE De8wery Rate 50 05480 50.05480 30 05480 SO 04977 50 04977 S0 04977 S0 04977 Surcharges S0 00000 r SO 01015 SO 02031 50 02595 SO 02595 50 02595 SO 02595 Tote)Costs $012187 S0 13975 $0 15762 SO 13328 SO 13569 50 14166 SO 14234 Average Monthly Be Sii S34.744 77 S39.842 31 144.936 99 537 998 91 S38 683 62 S40.387 92 $40.579 89 Monthly Usage 285.097 kWh Monthly Demand 512 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate compareon represents sander comparisons for TOU-8-D-APSE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA tpp%Green Power SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Parer 100%Green Power ISO%Renewable) 11D0%Renewac.. (36%Renewrabl) 150%Renewrable) 1100%Renewab.n (Defaultnsdcbns) Renewable) enewrable) Generation Rate $0 06338 SO 07311 $0 08283 50 05662 S7 05898 SO 08496 SO 06563 SCE Deleery Rate SO 04821 S0 04821 S0 04821 S0 04318 So D4318 S0 04318 SO 04318 IN Surcharges $0 00000 SO 00995 S0 01969 10 D2550 SO 02550 SO 02550 S0 02550 Total Costs $011159 $0 13127 $0 15093 S0 12530 $0.12766 SO 13366 S0 13431 Average Monthya B (t) 172.650 CO 585.482 55 S98.252 07 S81.572 Ile $83 109 28 $57.021 36 w $87 443 37 - Monthly Usage 651.044 kWh Monthly Demand 1 038 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate cornpareon represents terrier cpmpareons for TDU-8-0-APSE SCE SCE CPA r 2 CPA CPA IOU 8 0-SUB SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power r�14,n--•rOW, 100%Green Power 100%Green Poser (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable (36%Renewabk 5 l ,; .,nM. - r n .'., : i100%Renewable; (Defaue Jursd,cbne) • (t00S1, Generaton Rate SO 06080 S0 07280 $0 054•• 50 05782 SO 06647 S0 06710 SCE Dekvery Rate S0 02808 _ S002808 3 So 02305 SO 222C5 S0 0237' S002 Surcharges S0 00000 _ $0 00923 S.. SO 02405 SO 02405 SO 024.:;'. S0 024 Total Costs S0 08885 50 11011 S0 13133 _ 50 10491 30 10728 50 11357 S0 11419 Avewaga Monthly BA,51 _ S251.242 87 S311.255.09 S371 239 05 5296 569 22 $303.257 73 $321 033 75 $322.793 9' Morthy Usage 2 826.765 kWh Monthy Demand 4 152 kW Rates are current as o1 September 9.2019 The rate cornpareon represents smiler obmpeneona for TOU-5-0-APSE • SCE SCE �}d CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate ..4f 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renew51114 i (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S. - - S•;'J7947 SO 08713 SO 06289 SO 06523 $0 07177 S0 07249 r SCE Dummy Rate S0 D5965 ve SO 05965 SO 05965 SO 05462 SO 05462 SD 05462 $0 05462 Surcharges S0 00000 SO 01016 So 02031 SO 02600 $0 02600 50 02600 50 02600 Total Costs _ S0 13134 50 14922 50 16709 SO 14330 SO 14585 S0 15239 SO 15310 Average Monthy Be IS; $37.444 64 S42.542 17 S47 636 86 :40.855 60 _ $41 580 81 S43.445 90 S43 649 55 Monthy Usage 285.097 kWh Monthly Demand 512 kW Rates ere current es of September 9.2019 The rate companion represents sender comparisons for TOU�E•APSE 1097 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA TOU•6•ER SCE Green Raft Green Rate Power Clean Power 100%Green Power r 10094 Green Power •P (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (38%Ran...t e) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewab.• (Default Jurnactnns) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate S0 08780 SO 07753 S0 08725 S0 06161 I So.x.,, 50 07068 S0 07137 SCE Dekvery Rale S0 05244 SO 05244 SO 05244 $0 04741 S0 04741 $0 04741 S0 04741 Surcharges 10 00000 SO 00995 S0 01969 S0 02554 SD 02554 $0 02554 SO 02554 Total Costs 50 12024 50 13992 50 15 50 13456 50 13705 50 14363 S0 14432 Average Monthly Ba 15) _ 178 281 53 $91 094 08 $103.893 5;. 587 604 04 S89.224 44 S93.506 72 $93.958 15 Monthly Usage 651.044 kWh Monthly°emend 1.038 kW Rates are current es of September 9.2019 This rate corpsman represents similar comparaont'for TOU-&•E•APSE SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA Green Rah Green Rase ,-' Leen Poear Paw Clean Po 100%Green Power Gf"P (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) _... .. ' _ a.,, (100%Renewable) 'r. ' " .i .... Generation Rate SC Xi':_. SO 07590 S0 08 789 S0 06140 S0 06387 SO 07057 S0 07123 SCE Dewery Rale S0:2'•^ S0 02596 S0 02896 SO 02393 S0 02393 30 02393 S0 02393 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 00923 10 01846 S0 02407 10 02407 SO 02407 S0 02407 Total Costs 50 09288 50 11409 SO 13531 10 10940 S0 11187 S0 1 1858 $0 11923 Average Monthly BO 5 5262 493 40 I $322.505 62 S382489 57 S 309.248 45 S316.232 37 5335,187 03 $337.038 56 Monthly Usage 2.826.765 kWh Monthly Demand 4,152 kW Rates ere current as of September 9.2019 This rate companion represents sender comparisons for TOU-B-E-APSE SCE SCE CPA" CPA CPA CPA T SCE GreenRate Green Rate n Power Clean Power I0O%Green wa+Po 1 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) , (98%Renewable) (50%Renewable) i100%Renewable) °R•k' ) (130%Renewable) Generation Rate SO 07302 S0 08074 S0 08848 1:;06415 50 08673 - S0 07344 SO.37416 SCE Delivery Rale SO 05727 S0 05727 SO 05727 SO 05224 SO 05224 S0 05224 $0 05224 Surcharges SO 00000 30.01016 50 02031 S0 02601 50 02601 SO 02801 50 02801 Total Costs $013029 SO 14817 SO 18604 SO 14240 SO 14497 10 15189 5015243 Average Monthly BA(S) S37.145 29 S42,242 82 $47 337 51 540.597 84 $41 331 38 343.248 32 $43458 r!- MoMhy Usage 285.097 kWh Homily Dernend 512 kW Rafts ane aererre es of Sephnber 9.2019 The rise conversion reprise-•.smiler„-- , "s for T0U-8-R-APSE - SCE SCE CPA '_'A CPA CPA 100%Green Power TOU-0-R ,_.- ;rae^^ale Green Rale Lean Power ,-i••a,.-".',,war '00 A Green Powe• (Default Jurisdictions) ....h.,(iie) (100%Renewank. (36%Renewable) ,..0"..F7enewabe, (100%Renewable (100%Rene ebte) Generation Rate S0=• ' 50 07874 S0 08846 S0 06303 SO 06556 S0 07228 S0 07299 r SCE Dekvery Rale S0 05U1_, SO 05025 S0 05025 S0 04522 S0 D4522 S0 04522 S0 04522 Surcharges SO 00000 50 00995 SO 01989 S0 02555 SO 02555 S0 02555 S0 02555 Total Costs $0 1 192e SO 13894 SO 15860 50 13380 10 13633 SO 14305 SO 14378 Average Monthly BA(S) 177 643 51 _ S90 456 05 $103 255 58 587.111 01 $88.757 57 $93.134 28 593 592 62 Monody triage 651.044 kWh Monthly Demand 1 038 kW Rates are amen as of September 9.2019 The nee comparison repreeents sender conpensons for TOU-e-R-APSE IIM17---------1111111-11011111111, SCE SCE CP _ CPA Glee Green Rairewe Lean Power (100 (•Roan Pow.•' {50%Rseareabftl t00%Renewsb (100%R4rlewaoheGeneration Rate 5O 07638 S0 06835 SO 06200 SO 06448 SO 07123 SO 07159 SCE Delivery Rape S0 02592 50 02892 SO 02892 SO 02389 10 02389 _ 20 02389 10 02389 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 00923 S0 01546 10 02400 SO 02408 SO 02408 SO 024'= Total Costs SO09328 SO11451 _ 1013573 5010997 5011245 SO 11920 S01•;,,, Average Monthly Be i S, 5263.680 64 S323.592 86 $383.676 81 S 310.850 54 1317 969 30 5336 959 47 S338,811 80 Monthly Usage 2 826,765 kWh. Monthly Demand 4.152 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 Thy rate companion represents similar comparisons for TOU-8-R-APSE 1098 AGRICULTURE AND PUMPING _ _ + SCE SCE CPA CPA f'A-- SCE Groan Rate Green Rate Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Ranesbb) (100%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate _ S0 08058 S0 08620 S0 06453 5 .^' i S0 07447 S0 07523 r • SCE Delivery Rate f0 04863 SO 04863 SO 04863 SO 04360 SO 04360 SO 04360 S0 04360 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01094 $0 02188 SO 02759 SO 02759 SO 02759 - SO 02759 Total Costa S0 12360 $0 14015 $0 15671 S0 13573 S0 13829 10 14567 50 146.43 Average Monday Ba If 1 5908 96 II,026 42 11.14994 r 5995 98 $t 014 76 S t.068 90 • S 1.074 48 Monthly Usage '338kWh Montt*Damrnd 12 kW Rates ere current es of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA TOu-P - SCE Green Rale Green Rats lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Pow,• 100%Green Power . (50%Rennrlr) (100%Ren web.- (38%Renewable) (50%Renewable) 1100%Renerwc= {Deter!hredcbms) Genanlgn Rate Sc.:_k 9 SO 07930 SO 08492 S0 06296 SO 08547 S0 07275 S0 07349 T E Delivery Rate SO 04833 S0 04833 SD 04833 S0 04330 SO 04330 SO 04330 S0 04330 ,.•cnarpee SO 00000 $0 01094 _ f0 02188 50 02758 _ S0 02758 S0 02758 SO 02758 'otar Cosh S0 12202 50 13857 _ SO 15513 SO 13384 50 13835 S0 14363 50 14438 Average Monthy Be(Si $895 38 $1.016 83 $1 138 34 $982 14 S1,000 56 S1 053 95 51.059 43 Monthly Usage 7,338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Ran Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power ' 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) i(36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewal)... (Default Jurrsd[ixns) (100%Renewable) i v Generation Rah SO 06726 S0 07287 SO 07849 SO 05663 SO 05933 SO 06538 S0 06606 SCE Oeevery Rate SO 03927 SO 03927 30 03927 SO 03424 • SO 03424 SO 03424 SO 03424 Surcharges S 30000 SO 01094 SO 02188 50 02752 50 02752 f0 02752 S0 02752 Total Costs S0 10653 S0 12308 SO 13964 SO 11870 50 12110 SO 12714 SO 12762 Average Monthly Bill iS1 S781 72 $903 16 $1 02468 $87099 $88800 $932 9' $93796 Monthly usage 7 338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA TOIJPA-24-PRI ,CE Green Re* Green Rah Clean Power - 100%Green Power At iii (50%Renewable) (100%Renenvab4, (50%Renewable) (100%Renevia^r. ,,eneretion Rate S 06617 S0 07176 S0 07 740 50 05583 50 05800 50 06354 50 06461 SCE Delivery Rate So 03909 S0 03909 S0 03909 SO 03406 50 03406 50 03406 50 03406 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01094 SO 02188 S0 02751 SO 02751 So 02751 S0 02751 Total Costs S0 10526 SO 12181 SO 13837 S0 t 1720 S0 t 1967 SO 12552 S0 12618 Average Monthly Be(f) $772 40 $893 84 $1 015 36 S860 04 $877 43 a $92'04 $925 94 Monthly Usage 7 338 kWh Mondry Demand 12 k W Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA 5i�t (3tIM,RanGreen Rate Lear Power rraiw 100%Utn Pawar A (SO%kable 1100%Ranwnt-- �el _ i (100%Ranertable) .4r••• . 'r Generation Ran i. _•.+-' S0 07028 SO 07590 SO 05306 SO D5532 SO 06147 S0 06206 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04464 f0044E4 S0 04464 SO 03961 S0 03981 SO 03961 S0 03961 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01094 SO 02186 S0 02750 SO 02750 SO 02750 50 02750 Total Coen SO 10931 SO 12586 $0 14242 S0 12017 S0 12243 SO 12852 $0 12917 Average Monthly Be(S i $802 12 $923 56 S1.045 08 5881 82 5898 42 S943 06 S947 85 Monthly Usage C 338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 1099 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power t00%G'en Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) (BetatA'ltlrsdt[eortsl w Generaeon Rale S0 06361 SO 06922 _ f0 07484 So 05175 f0 05396 SO 05997 f0 06062 SCE O.rery Rate S0 04439 SO 04439 S0 04439 SO 03936 SO 03936 SO 03936 S0 03938 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01094 S0 02188 SO 02749 50 02749 SO 02749 50 02749 Total Costs SO 10800 S0 12455 $0 14111 $0 11660 SO 12083 10 12682 50 12747 Average Monthly 64(Si 5792 50 $913 95 11 035 47 S870 28 $888 83 1930 83 $935 35 -Montnty Usage 7.338 kWh - Monlny Demand 12 kW ,,a'es a,-, e-•as DI Seclernber 9 r19 a SCE SCE A CPA CPA 100%Green Power OUP 2•D-5T06 SCE Green Rate Green Rats Lean Power CWn Power 100%green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) , (38%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ` (Default Jurtt4lrcbone) - (100%Renewable) Generation Rate f0 08591 f0 Oi 152 SO 07714 SO G54 SO 05633 SO 06272 SO SCE Desvery Rate f0 04442 f0 04442 SO 04442 f0 035�: SO 03939 SD 03939 SO Os�.... Surptargss SO 00000 SO 01094 SO 02 t158 SO 0275 t f0 02751 SO 02751 SO 02751 Total Costs SO 11033 f0 12868 f0 14344 SO 12D96 SO 12323 SO 129fi2 S013029 Average Monody Be ff) f809 60 5931 05 _ 57.052 56 f687 56 5904 29 $961 16 f956 07 •• Money Usage 7 338 kWh Money Demand 12 kW Rees are current as of September 9.2019 SCEAA E CPA CPA CPA 100%Green Power TOU•PA•2•0•5106•PRI SCE Green Rale Green Rake Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Pow•• • (50%Renewable) 11(10%Renewah _ _ ) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) • =e<--'•_:.._.__:...__ Generabon Raw S-x4:!. ( SD 07046 SO D7606 S0 05275 S0 054ye S0 06128 ) S006195 SCE Delaery Raw 10 04417 $004417 S0 04417 SO 03914 SO 03914 50 03914 SO 03914 Surcharges 10 00000 50 01064 50 02188 50 02750 S0 02750 SO 02750 SO 02750 Total Costs SO 10902 SO 12557 So 14213 50 11939 SO 12162 SO 12793 S0 12859 _Average Monthly Bill(f) $799 99 $921 43 S 1 042 95 58 76 10 S892 47 S938 73 $943 59 Monthly Usage. 7,338 kWh Monody Demand Demand 12 kW Rates are current a of September 9.2019 SCE SCE ' CPA •• CPA SCE Oran Rate Green Rate Lean Power i;k•F1 r',reew .. OMRo laleble (100%Renewable) '(3dl), ..�. '°,Renewaolel (Default Generation Rate 1 S.: .. SO 08138 SO 08898 $0 06529 Si:x: yt: S0 07538 SO 07615 SCE Detvery Rate SO C-4--.4 S0 04894 S0 04894 f0 04391 SO 04391 f0 04391 SO 04391 Surcharges SO 0000,- SO 01094 SO 02188 SO 02760 S0 02780 S0 02760 SO 02780 Totat Coats S0 12465 S0 14124 SO'5780 SO 13880 SO 13937 50 14689 50 14766 Average Monthly 134 IS 3914 98 $1 038 42 1••-'94 _ f t 003 85 S 1.022 72 $1.077 89 f 1 083 54 Monthly Usage 7 338 kWh Months!Demand. 12 kW Rates are currant as or September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA S CPA TOU-Y/r GrpAIIII een Rale Gaen Rate 14 Lean Power i:k a..t�rr., ••�:O1r Green Power ' 100%Green (50%Ranaaeble) (100%Renewable) 1 136%Renewable} !-,' ,•,,•,.d:,. 1100%Renewable:. ODSIM a JurledtLylbna) 1000Sf,Ree�bYl,-. GMNNgn Rate SO 08008 S0 08570 S0 06371 . 24 SO 07365 S0.07441 SCE Delvery Rate St,_ SO 04861 SO 04861 SO 04358 SO 04358 S0 04358 S0 04358 Surcharge. S0 CC, 50 01091 S0 02188 S0 02759 10 02759 50 02759 50 02759 Total Cosh r SO 12306 $0 13963 50 15619 50 13488 SO 13741 10 14482 50 14558 Average Monthly 134(f) $903 16 St 024 60 $1.146 12 S989 77 f 1 008 25 _ $1.062 70 f 1.068 26 Monthly Usage 7.338 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 1100 ,r CPA SCE SCE i CPA CPA _ CPA 100%Green Power TOU-PA-2-E-5708 SCE Green Ram Green Rate - Leen Power Clean Power 100%Green Pcr • (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) . (35%Renewable) (50%Reneestble) (100%Reneweble (4S RaneaaWel l Generation Rate SO 07632 S0 08193 S0 06755 $0-06653 $0 06609 So 07583 SO 07661 SCE Deerary Rate S0 04906 SO 04906 SO 04906 SO 04403 SO 04403 S0 04403 S0.04403 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 01094 S0 02168 S0 02761 SO 02761 S0 02761 S0 02761 Total Costs S0 12536 1,0 14193 SO 15649 S0 13717 $0 13973 $0 14747 S0 14825 Average Monthly 0a($) S920 04 $1.041 48 S1.163 00 $1.006.54 St 025 35 51.052.14 S 1.067 64 - Usage kl7tthly 7.336 kWh Monthly Demand 12 kW Rams are current as or September 9,2019 _ --+ester A , . SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TO 1 j SCE GreenRau Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 100%Green Pow 150%Renewable) (100%Renewable. (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable (Default Q%Renewable) 000%Renewable) Generation Ram SO 07504 S0 08065 S0 08827 SO 06395 S0 0664 7 S0 07411 S0 07487 SCE Drewry Ram 10 04873 S0 04873 50 04873 SO 04370 _ SO 04370 f0 04370 $0 04370 Surcharges $0 00000 $0 01094 $0 02158 50 02760 50 02760 SO 02760 SO 02760 Total Costa 10 12377 SO 14032 10 15888 s0 13525 SO 13777 S0 14540 S014616 Average Monthly Be IS) $908 22 S1 029 67 $1.151 19 5992 47 Si 010 93 11 066.c' S1.072.55 Monthly Usage 7.330 kWh Montle"Demand 12 kW Rams an current as of Sapmmber 9,2019 • SCE SCE CPA CPA SCE Green Ram Green Rao PowClean Power 100%Green ':1007i Grime P84ear (50%Renewable) (100%R.aewe ee) GreernMn Rate S0.06631 SO 07729 S0 08826 $0.06467 A)Ui C i;. S0 07421 S0 07489 SCE Defrery Rale SO 04417 SO 04417 S0 04417 S0 03914 50 03914 50.03914 S0 03914 • Surcharges S0 00000 S0 00997 SO 01994 S0 02558 S0 02558 S0 02558 SO 02558 Toter Costs 10 11048 50.13143 50 15237 S0 12939 $0 13192 S0 13893 S0 13960 - Average Monfiy BA(S) $6.703 95 S10.354.45 S12.004 17 _ 110.193.50 S•0 392 81 S•0.945 39 S10,998 42 Monthly Usage 7e 753 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rees at,current of or September D.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA TOU-PA-3-A-PR1 SCE Green RatS Green Rale Leer Reef-' - Clean Power 100%Green Pow (50%Renewable) (100%Renewebr (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Ram _ S0.06511 S0 07609 SO 08736 S0 06301 5,*.:-4? SO 07239 SO 07305 SCE Drewry Rate SO 04391 S0 04391 S0 04391 S0 03688 S0 03888 SO 03888 S0 03886 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 00997 SO 01954 S0 02557 S0 02557 50 02557 SO 02557 Total Coale SO 10902 S0 12997 S0 15091 S0 12745 SO 12993 S0 13643 SO 13750 Average Moneily Be(S) S8.568 92 S 10.239 43 511 889'4 510.041 07 S10 236 25 _ $10.750 26 $10.632 64 Monty Usage 76.763 kWh kbn6My Demand 122 kW -.•w are .•nt as or September 9.2019 CPA .. SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-3-B Green Ram Green Pate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Pow. t0094 Green Power I50%Renewable) (103%Renewat4-, (36%Renasnb4) (50%Rerieweble) I100%Reereweb�e (DfauRJuratlidrorlt) Generation Rate SO 06067 5. :.'• S0 06262 SO 05911 5- k.152 S3 06757 S0 06619 SCE Delivery Ram S0.03739 60 03739 SO 03739 10 03236 50 33236 SO 03236 50 03235 Surcharges SO 00000 $0.00997 S3.01904 SO 02552 S0 02552 S0 02552 S0 02552 Total Costs 50 09606 S0 11901 SO 13995 10 11700 S0 11941 S0 12546 S0 121307 r Average Monthly Si 7$) _ 17.725 48 $9,375 96 S 11.025 88 $9217 27 $9.407 38 $9 883 74 S9.932 17 Monthly Usage.. 78,763 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rams are anent as of Sepl tuber 9.2019 1101 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOPA-3- SCE Green Rate Green Rale Lean Power ;'w.,r -, �P,..• 100%Green Pa, 100%Green Power U• (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) .5:.'.,t'.e,r-rircie' r100%Renewabe (Defau9.katediGlrxhs) z t - (100%RerNs Gensrsbon Rate SO 05960 S0 07058 SO 08155 S0 05770 SO 06C-- 5-0 06600 - SCE Deivery Rate SO 03722 S0 03722 S0 03722 S0 03219 $0 03219 S0 03219 SO 03219 Surcharges 50 00000 30 00997 $0 01994 $0 02551 S0 02551 SO 02551 S0 02551 Total Costa SO 09682 S0 11777 S0 13871 S0 11540 SO 11778 SO 12370 S0 12431 w Average Monthly 841 IS) $7.627 77 19.276 27 1110.927 99 $9 091 95 39 279 25 59 745 79 39.793 77 Monthly Usage 76.763 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rates ere current ea of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA CPA ICE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable( (100%Renewable) (DehuMJtrisrectionsl - (100%Renweabte) 'Generation SO 06933 50 07031 ▪ SO 06128 SC 05645 SO 05876 30 08484 50 06546 SCE Delivery Rate S0 04125 S0 04125 S0 04125 S0 03622 SO 03622 10 03622 SO 03622 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 00997 $0.01994 SO 02551 S0 02551 SO 02551 S0 02551 ToW Costs S0 10058 S0.12153 SO.14247 SO 11818 - 30 12050 - 50 12658 50 12719 verege Monthy Be(St $7 923 99 $9.574 50 31122121 $9.310 82 _ 39.493 07 _ $9.972 02 310.020 23 Monthly Usage 78 783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rates we current as of September 9 2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA SCE Green Rale Green Rate 100%Green Parer 100%Green Pawer (50%Renewabw 100%Renewable) (100%Renewable) - - ) Generation Rate S0 0582' 00 06925 SO 08022 S0 05496 S0 05726 S0.06324 10 06384 SCE De/very Rate SO 04103 S0 04103 S0 041 C3 S0 03600 S0 03600 SO 03600 S0 03600 Surcharges S0 00000 50 00997 10 01994 S0 02550 S0 02550 SO 02550 50 02550 Toter Costa S0 09930 S0 12025 h S0 14119 S0 11648 $011876 10.12474 10.12534 Average Monthly Be rS $7,823 15 59.473 66 In 123 37 $9 176 85 59 356 20 S9.1327 35 _ S9 874 78 Monthly Usage 78,783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rates are current as al September 9.2019 fr.l SCE CPA TOU-PA-3 D ST06 .. Gwen Rw 100%Green Power - _ . . . 100%Renesiebin) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate SO G.`: • S SO 0e,e5 SO 05652 S0 05861 SO 06510 S0 06570 SCE Delivery Rats SO 04114 $0 04114 $0.04114 $003611 S0 33611 SO 03511 SO 0361 t SwW rges 10 00000 S0 00997 $0 01984 S0 02552 30 02552 SO.02552 S0 02552 Total Costs S0 10104 S0 12199 30.14293 S0 11815 10 12044 S0 12673 S0 12733 Average Monery 881(3) $7,960 23 $9.610 74 $11.280 45 $9,307 90 39 488 57 $9.964 29 $10.03164 -Monthly Usage. 78,783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 SW Pales are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE II CPA CPA CPA •A-3-0-ST06-PRI S.1 Green Rate Gw n Rob Clean Pow Pow,100%Green Po - 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Roaaable) (50%Renwebbel r100%Renewable (Default hnsdreurn) GsMraoo 5'3 069e 3 S0.08080 30 05505 90 05731 3)06350 90 06110 SCE Delivery Rate SO 04092 SO 04092 $0 04092 SO 03589 S0 03589 3)03589 S0 03589 Surcharges S0 00000 S0 00997 $0 01994 S0 02551 S0 02551 5)02551 10 02551 Total Coats S0.09977 10 12072 50 14186 S0 t 1645 30 11871 5)12490 $0 12550 Average Monthly 8e(S) $7,66016 $9.510 68 1 511.160 40 S9.174.50 S9.352 06 S S 340 05 $9.887 48 Monthly Usage 713.783 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rases are current as or September 9.2019 1102 SCE SCE - A CPA SCE Green Rate Glean Rate Lean newer .-• 100%Green Poser (50%Renewable (100%Renoweb* (50%Rrtewable) (100%Reneweble) Generation Rate Su 387' $0 C7B09 S0 08906 S0 06547 S0 08802 S0 07517 SO 07585 • SCE Desery Rate SC 04430 S0 04430 $0 04430 10 03927 S0 03927 50 03927 S0 03927 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 00997 $0 01994 S0 02558 S0 02558 SO 02558 + SO 02558 Total Coats S0 11141 S0 13238 S0 15330 S0 13032 $0 13287 S0 14002 S0 14074 Average Monthly Ba.S, $8.77721 S1042772 $12.07743 $10.26738 slant'sS11.03151 S11.06499 -Mon Usage 78.783 kWh - -8ry Monthly Detrend 122 kW Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Rile Green c'.'•• Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power 7 100%Grssr+Purer 11 (50%Renewable) (100%Re.,,...• (38%Renewble) Su 4 e+.enewabiel (100%Renewable) - (DefwaJur6Arkorhs) -- i Generation Rate S0 06591 IC]759 9 S0 06788 S0 06381 10 06631 50 07335 50 07402 SCE Desvery Ram S0 04402 SO 04402 S0 04402 SO 03899 10 03899 S0 03899 SO 03899 Surcharges SO 00000 S0 00997__ S0 01994 S0 02557 S0 02557 50 02557 _ 50 02557 Total Costa SO 10993 S0 13088 S0 15182 S0 12837 S0 13087 S0 13791 S0 13858 Average Monthly BA($) $8.680 62 $10.311 12 $11.96C 84 510.113 57 310.310 40 S10 884 97 110.917 65 Monthly Usage 78,783 kWh - - Monthly Demand 122 kW .us are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA TOU-PA-3, Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power • 100%Gwen Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) ' 436%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) •. ( .R* - ) Generate')Ra••• SO 08783 S0 07881 S0 08978 S0 C '- S0 06844 S0 07577 S0 07646 SCE Delivery Rare S0 04444 S0 04444 SO 04444 SO 0394' S0 03941 30 03941 S0 03941 _r:narges S0 00000 SO 00997 SO 01994 $0 02559 $0 02559 $0 02559 S0 02559 _ +;Costs SO 11227 S0 13322 50 15416 S0 13089 S0.13344 SO 14077 —� S0 14146 ..,age Monthly Ba is) se.94497 $10.49547 $12.14519 $10.3121B S10.51245 _ 81109054 $11.14487 Monthly Usage 76.763 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rates are current as of September 9 2019 ' -' SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA 700%Green Ptwm _3790-PRO SCE Green Rale Green Rat Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) , 136%Renewablei 150%Renewable) (100%Renewable) • (1 Generation Rile 10 06663 50 07761 50 08858 5-♦.36423 S0 06672 SO 07395 S0 07463_ SCE Delivery Rat $0 04417 S0 04417 SO 04417 SO 03914 SO 03914 $0 03914 S0 03914 &octarges S0 00000 S0 00997 SO 01994 S0 02558 $0 02558 S0 02558 50 02558 Total Costs SO 11080 80 13175 SO 15289 S0 12895 SO 13144 S0 13887 S0 13935 Average Monthly Bra(S) 68.729 16 S10,379 66 512 029 in $10.158 76 S10.355 39 S 10 924 79 $10.978 08 Monthly Usage 78.793 kWh Monthly Demand 122 kW Rats are current as of September 9.2019 1103 STREET AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING CPA SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA 100%Cresn PDarar MIlit SCE Green Rate Green Rate Lean Power Clean Power 100%Green Power '; I50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) (36%Renewable) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) '' (Defautjurimilelbna) (100%Rattat ebb) Generation Rate 50 07263 SO 08055 S0 08646 S0 049e6 50 05132 80 06365 $0 06438 SCE Delivery Rate SO 10781 SO 10781 S0 10781 S0 10278 $0 10218 $0 10278 _ $0 10278 Surcharges SO 00000 SO 01031 50 02061 10.02628 10 02628 SO 02628 S0 02628 •Total Cab. $0 18044 $0 19867 S0 21668 $0.17892 10 16038 50 19271 _ 5019344 Average Monthly Ba(S) $57 20 $62 96 $68 75 $56 72 $57 1e $61 09 S61 32 Monthly Usage 317 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPA SCEGreen Rate Rees Lean Power Caen Power 100%Green P • 100%Groan Power e Given owe (50%Reneweba) (100%Renewablee (36%Renewable i 50'w Renewable) (100%Renewable (Default JureOrct+orle) Generabon Rate SC 000^O S0 00000 $0 03052 SO 03148 S0 03964 S0 04012 SCE De very Rate S0 0378' S -- S0 00000 S0 03284 S0 03284 S0 03284 S0 03284 Surcharges S0 0000C SO 00000 50 02150 S0 02150 50 02150 80 02150 Total Costs SO 08584 SO 00000 SO 00000 SO 08486 SO 08582 50 09398 50 09446 Average Monthly Bali) $130 73 S0 00 $0 00 $129 24 $130 71 St43 13 $143 86 Monthly Usage 1.523 kWh Rates are parent as of September 9.2019 The rate corrparwon r., -..•c smear Companions Ion DW.DWL-B SCE SCE A " • CPA CPA CPA SCE Green Raw Green Rabw Goan Power 100%Green Power 100%Gran Porn (50%Renewable) (100%Refeblal 150%Renewable) 1100%Renewable) Generation Raw. Ski C,4 7 y 7 SO 00000 S0 00000 S0 06576 SO:i6857 S0 07578 SO 07626 SCE Dekvary Rate S0 03787 S0 00000 $0 00000 $0 03254 S0 03264 S0 03284 50 03284 Surcharges S0 0000C SO 00000 SO 00000 SO 02150 SO 02150 SO 02150 SO 02150 Total Cosa SO 08584 SO 00000 50 00000 SO 12010 SO 12331 10 13012 S0 13061 Average Monthly el IS) $130 73 S0 00 S0 00 S 1 B2 91 S 187.50 1198 17 $198 91 Monthly Usage 1.523 kWh Rates are current as of September 9 20'9 SCE SCE CPA SCE Green Rate Green Rase 100%Green Power • (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) 1100%Renweble) Genersbon Rate Si'.:,4'�' SO 03000 S0 00000 S0 06576 $0 06897 SO 07576 S0 07626 _ SCE Delivery Rate 10 03787 50 00000 56 00000 30 03284 50 032154 10 03284 $0 03284 Swcharges S0 0000C S0 00000 SO 00000 r SO 02150 SO 02150 _ SO 02150 S0 02150 Total Costs $0 08584 S0 00000 S0 00000 $0 12010 $0 12331 SO 13012 S0 13061 Average Monthly Be IS) S130 73 S0 00 S0 00 5182 91 _ 5187 80 _ $198 17 $198 91 Monthly Usage 1 523 kWh Rates are current n of September 9 2019 Thus rate comparison represents smear comp..' -s for LS-2-4.LS-2-B SCE SCE CPA CPA Green Rale Green Rate Laea Clean Power 100%Green Power (50%Renawtabh) (100%Renewable) - (36%RanaaDb) (50%Renewable) (100%Renewable) Generation Rate $0 04797 SO 00000 50 00000 10 06576 10 06897 50 07578 50 07626 SCE Detnrery Rate 50 03787 SO 00000 SO 00000 $0 03284 50 33284 S0 03284 S0 03284 Surcharges S0 00000 50 00000 SO 00000 SO 02150 SO 02150 50 02150 80 02150 Mel Ca S0 08584 S0 00000 S0 00000 $0 12010 r w SO 12331 80 13012 S0 13061 Mon1N*Ba(51 $13073 1000 S000 118291 S18780 _ S19817 $19891 Monty Usage 1.523 kWh Rates we current a of September 9.2019 The rate comparison repreeenla WSW Cam:,.. -s For OL-I-ALLNRE 1104 SCE SCE CPA CPA CPR ---1--CPA100%Cow Poem Gesso NO Green Rah Clean Power 100%Green Power (SO%Renweeble) (100%Pommeblel 150%Reneweblel 1100%Renewable) Generation Rate 10 04646 S0 06918 S0 08988 SO 06665 10.36990 SO 07678 SO 07727 SCE Deanery Rate S0 03116 S0 03116 SO 03116 SO 02613 SO 02613 SO 02013 S0 02613 Surcharges 10 00000 ALSO 00602 S0 01603 S0 02151 S0 02151 SO 02151 S0 02151 Total Cosh S0 07964 SO 10636 S0 13707 SO 11428 50 11753 S0 12442 S0 12491 Average Monthly 841 ISI $121 29 8165 03 S206 76 8174 06 917900 $189 49 S190 24 Mond*Usage 1.523 kWh Rates are current as of September 9.2019 The rate conaaraan represents smear comparisons br LS.3-8 SCE SCE CPA SCE Green Rate (green Rase 100%Green Power (50%Renewable) (100%Reneeabt (100%Renewieble) Generation Rate SO04046 S0 06918 — S0 06966 — S0 06665 SO 06990 S0 07678 SO 07727 SCE Deanery Rate S0 03116 SO 03118 10 03118 S0 02613 S0 02813 S0 02813 S0 02613 r Surcharges SO 00000 S0 00802 SO 01603 50 02151 S0 02151 SO 02151 S0 02151 Total Costa S0 07964 SO 10836 S0 13707 $0 11428 S0 11753 $0 12442 $0 12491 Average Monthly Bi(S) 112129 3185 03 S208 76 S 174 06 S 179 00 $189 49 S 190 24 Monthly usage 1.523 kWh Rates ere current as of September 9 2019 The rate conlparlson represents rumor comparisons ire AL-2 1105 A4OF14, V •� Christina L. Shea, Mayor atyofirvine org City of Irvine.One Civic Center Plaza.PO Box 19575. Irvine California 92623-9575 949-724-6233 ai) January 9. 2020 Re: Invitation to Discuss Community Choice Energy Dear Mayors and City Councilmembers: On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council voted unanimously to consider formation of a Community Choice Energy (CCE) program in partnership with other Orange County cities. I am inviting your agency to join the City of Irvine in this landmark action as we review options to develop a Joint Power Authority and launch a CCE program in Orange County. We see Community Choice Energy as an opportunity to bring competition, local control, and freedom of choice to the electricity market. We understand there is potential to increase clean energy in this region. take control of electricity rates. and design programs that fit the needs of our communities. Irvine staff will provide an update to our City Council on February 11, 2020. and we would like to know which cities in Orange County are interested in partnering with Irvine to explore implementation of a CCE program. As some background. CCE programs. also known as Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). serve as an alternative to the traditional Investor Owned Utility power procurement process, allowing local governments to purchase electricity and sell it to consumers at competitive rates. CCE programs are not considered municipal utilities and will operate in partnership with the utility. Southern California Edison will continue to provide transmission and distribution, power line maintenance, and customer billing services. Irvine commissioned a feasibility study of CCE program implementation to better understand the issues surrounding development and risks of operating a CCE program in Irvine. The Study found that with mitigated risks, a CCE program in Irvine is financially feasible, and that partnership with other Orange County cities is possible. If you would like to participate in CCE exploratory discussions, please contact Sona Coffee. Environmental Programs Administrator at 949-724-1562 or scoffee(a�cityofirvine.orq by February 3, 2020. Our staff will be in touch with interested cities to coordinate next steps as we move forward Sincerely. Christina L. Shea Mayor cc: John Russo, City Manager, City of Irvine Mark Steuer, Director of Public Works and Transportation. City of Irvine Sona Coffee. Environmental Programs Administrator. City of Irvine City Manager, Orange County Cities 1106 MRW & Associates, LLC Response to Request for Information for a Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study Submitted to City of Huntington Beach, California 911 Mo'� ..� MRW&ASSOCIATES MRW & Associates, LLC 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 834-1999 Contact: Mark Fulmer 510-834-1999, ext. 240 mef@mrwassoc.com October 18, 2019 1107 Response to Huntington Beach RFI Table of Contents Table of Contents Vendor Application Form 1 Cover Letter 3 1. Project Background and Summary 4 2. Methodology 6 A. Description of Project Plan 6 B. Scope of Work 6 C. Orange County CCE Consortium Formation 9 D. California Public Utilities Commission CCE Implementation Plan Requirements 9 E. Project Management Plan and Coordination with City Staff 9 F. Schedule of Milestones, Associated Deliverables, and Payments 10 4. MRW Qualifications 12 A. MRW Background 12 8. MRW References 16 C. MRW Staff 19 5. Fee Information 21 A. Fixed Price Quote 21 B. Billing Rates for All Personnel 21 C. Personnel Hours and Delivery 21 Appendix A: Resumes 22 MRW& Associates, LLC 1108 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL VENDOR APPLICATION FORM TYPE OF APPLICANT: ❑■ NEW ❑ CURRENT VENDOR Legal Contractual Name of Corporation: MRW & Associates, LLC Contact Person for Agreement: Mark Fulmer Corporate Mailing Address: 1736 Franklin Street, Suite 700 City. State and Zip Code: Oakland, CA 94612 E-Mail Address: mef@mrwassoc.com 510-834-1999 510-834-0918 Phone: Fax: Contact Person for Proposals: Mark Fulmer 1 itle:Principal E-Mail Address: mef@mrwassoc.com Business Telephone: 510 834 1999 Business Fax: 510-834-0918 Is your business: (check one) ❑ NON PROFIT CORPORATION ❑■ FOR PROFIT CORPORATION Is your business: (check one) ❑■ CORPORATION ❑ LIMITED LIA 131 LITY PARTNERSHIP ❑ INDIVIDUAL. ❑ SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP ❑ PARTNERSHIP ❑ UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION • Iof2 1109 Names & Titles of Corporate Board Members (Also list Names & Titles of persons with written authorization/resolution to sign contracts) Names Title Phone Mark Fulmer President 510-834-1999 David Howarth CFO 510-834-1999 26-4500748 Federal Tax Identification Number: City of Huntington Beach Business License Number: (If none, you must obtain a Huntington Beach Business License upon award of contract.) City of Huntington Beach Business License Expiration Date: • 2 of") 1110 Response to Huntington Beach RFI 1736 FRANKLIN STREET ' TEL 510.834.1999 SUITE 700 FAX 510.834.0918 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA mrw@mrwassoc.com 94612 1 . 111 MRW & ASSOCIATES October 18, 2019 City of Huntington Beach Via PlanetBid To Whom It May Concern, MRW & Associates, LLC, (MRW) is proud to offer this response to the City of Huntington Beach's Request for Information (RFI) seeking a Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study. MRW's proposal follows the response structure requested in the RFI: Section 1. Project Background and Summary. This section describes MRW's understanding of the City, the work requested by the City, and the objectives to be accomplished by this work Section 2. Methodology. This section describes MRW's recommended approach to complete the Feasibility Study. Section 3. Qualifications. This section provides references and describes MRW's work on similar projects and the key personnel MRW anticipates assigning to the project. Section 4. Fee Information. This section presents MRW's price quote and hourly billing rates. The MRW team is committed to providing the City of Huntington Beach with independent, impartial analysis. MRW has not performed business for any Investor Owned Utility (IOU) in the last 17 years, nor has it ever performed work for Southern California Edison. MRW has conducted no business on behalf of the IOUs since the inception of CCE within California. MRW has performed numerous CCE analyses, not all of which have shown CCEs to be financially viable. The pricing proposed in MRW's response to the RFI will remain valid for a minimum period of 180 days from the date of submission to the City. I look forward to hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to work with you on this exciting project. Best Regards, MRW& Associates, LLC 3 Inl Response to Huntington Beach RFI 1. Project Background and Summary MRW is pleased to respond to the City's RFI regarding a CCE feasibility study. MRW is familiar with the City's long-standing commitment to sustainability, energy efficiency, and renewable energy technology. With many CCEs already operating or in the process of coming online across the State of California, it is logical for the City to evaluate whether forming a CCE is an appropriate vehicle to pursue its future sustainability and economic goals. MRW has deep experience with CCE formation, operation, and regulatory issues in California and looks forward to assisting the City in its evaluation. The City's RFI seeks an evaluation of whether implementation of a CCE program makes economic sense and will achieve the City's local objectives. This evaluation follows up on the City's initial inquiry into CCE in 2017, which was tabled for future consideration (now). Ultimately, this evaluation will turn on whether operating a CCE program subject to constraints for economic savings and/or local energy programs is financially feasible. Assessing the financial feasibility of CCE formation relies on analysis of loads that the CCE would serve, the rates offered by the incumbent investor-owned utility (i.e. SCE) that the CCE must compete against, the cost to the CCE of buying power, and other startup and operating costs to the CCE. MRW generally understands that the City would like to understand the nature of the loads in several specific customer groups within its potential CCE service area, the current electricity costs for those loads under SCE's electric rates, the financial feasibility of serving this load through a CCE, and the opportunities for partnering with other entities to offer CCE service. The RFI expresses interest in both overall CCE-related cost savings as well as savings for the specific customer groups to be examined in the initial load analysis. In addition, MRW understands that the RFI requires specific information regarding project management approach, project schedule, strategies to ensure client satisfaction, and requirements for City staff support. The project laid out in the RFI is complex in that it contains a number of components that all impact the estimated community savings due to CCE implementation. Understanding the interrelationships of all the components and using consistent and coherent assumptions throughout are critical to delivering a quality work product. For example, a critical component is that the wholesale power market and price assumptions are consistent between the CCE and SCE. While there are reasons that one might have lower or higher costs than the other for a particular product (e.g., CCEs can use tax-free debt to finance generation projects while the utilities cannot), both will participate in the wider western US gas and power markets and therefore will be subject to the same underlying market forces. To decouple these assumptions, such as simply escalating utility rates while deriving the CCE rates using a bottoms-up approach, will result in erroneous results. Beyond the core load and SCE rate analysis, there are other significant factors to consider as well. The parameters that constrain the CCE's supply portfolio (e.g. specific renewable MRW& Associates, LLC 4 1112 Response to Huntington Beach RFI technology preferences or preferences to exclude unbundled renewable energy credits (unbundled RECs)) will in turn impact the CCE's energy supply costs. Additional factors such as staffing size, CCE bond requirements, and SCE surcharges (e.g. the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA)) all impact the CCE program's costs. A litany of market and policy related risks must also be weighed to assess the lasting feasibility of the potential CCE program. MRW is aware that the City's 2017 General Plan Update included greenhouse gas reduction strategies, including CCE formation and other energy-related efforts.' This feasibility study would be an opportune time for the City to examine greenhouse gas reduction targets for the CCE through analysis of energy supply options and their impact on the savings analysis. As discussed in detail in Section 3, MRW is able to incorporate multiple energy supply scenarios and can customize the energy supply portfolios used to reflect specific resource procurement or greenhouse gas reduction targets that the City may have. Furthermore, MRW is aware that the City has already taken measures to pursue clean energy opportunities that it may wish to integrate into a City CCE's planning activities. For example, both the City's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program and its Advanced Energy Community project may directly inform the City's plans to offer energy efficiency and/or local clean energy generation opportunities through its CCE. MRW is able to incorporate specific City plans or projections regarding these resources into its feasibility analysis. While the RFI requests a comparison between SCE rates and market prices to determine potential CCE savings, MRW strongly recommends that the City consider the additional factors described above in a pro forma financial analysis based on MRW's prior experiences with CCE implementation in California. The Section 3 below discusses MRW's proposed approach to this analysis in detail. https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/HB-GPU Adopted-October-2017.pdf and https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/planning/Volume-I I I-Appendix-G-G HG- ReductionProgram.pdf MRW& Associates, LLC S 1113 Response to Huntington Beach RFI 2. Methodology A. Description of Project Plan MRW proposes to perform the work requested by the City as described in the subsections below. MRW proposes to prepare a report describing the data, analytical approaches, and results used in assessing the City's electric loads and potential CCE savings, along with the requested discussion of potential CCE partnerships and list of CPUC CCE Implementation Plan filing requirements. B. Scope of Work 1. Load Study and Forecast Per the RFI, MRW will analyze monthly customer load data with the City of Huntington Beach as provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The first step is acquiring the data. This requires the Mayor or City Manager to formally request the data. SCE typically takes 4 to 8 weeks to respond. Therefore, MRW recommends that this request be made as soon as possible, before the City retains a consult, so that MRW or the selected consultant can begin work upon execution of the contract. MRW can assist, if needed, with drafting the data request, pro bono. SCE will provide data by rate class only; it does not provide data on individual customers or "customer types." Therefore, MRW will work with the City to estimate or acquire load data for detailed market segments such as City facilities, other governmental facilities, and hospitals. MRW assumes that the City has information on its own loads. While SCE provides a mechanism for 3' parties such as MRW or the City to access loads for other customers, MRW has found it to be cumbersome and not likely to be useful. Other options would be to estimate the usage based on other metrics such as typical energy use by square foot of space or building type. The load study will translate the retail loads into an aggregate load profile for the CCE which the energy supply portfolio must serve. Because MRW expects SCE to only provide monthly load data, MRW will have to rely on SCE's class-average hourly load profiles, which will be aggregated into an overall CCE load profile. Next, MRW will develop a load forecast based on the load data provided by SCE. MRW will forecast growth rates based on the California Energy Commission's annual electric demand forecast. Additionally, MRW will coordinate with the City Planning Department to acquire any city-specific growth projections or economic activity forecasts that might exist. MRW can also work with City staff to incorporate specific energy efficiency or customer-sited distributed generation targets or projections the City has developed. MRW will also account for loads associated with direct access customers, as well as include an input to explore the changes in load with differing CCE opt-out percentages. MRW& Associates, LLC 6 1114 Response to Huntington Beach RFI This load analysis feeds into the rest of the project in two ways: first, it provides the customer base over which all the CCE's costs must be collected. That is, one needs to know the sales estimates in order to develop a CCE rate. Second, the load analysis is the foundation upon which the supply scenarios are built. It specifies when power will be needed so that the unique output characteristics of renewable generating supplies—and other supplies—can be best used to meet the CCE's load. 2. Economic Analysis of Huntington Beach Electric Usage Once the City's electric loads have been broken out into specific categories in the load study and analysis, it is a straightforward exercise to provide economic analysis of those loads under SCE's electric rates. Specifically, MRW proposes to analyze energy costs associated with each category of load based on SCE's currently applicable rates. However, SCE's rates are far from static; they change at least once a year, if not two or three times. As part of the economic analysis, MRW will apply the loads developed in the prior task to a 10-year forecast of SCE rates so as to not only provide a right-now snapshot but an understanding of how they electricity costs are likely to change over the next decade. 3. Savings Analysis of City of Huntington Beach CCE Electric Service Compared to SCE Electric Service MRW proposes to estimate the overall customer savings to City CCE customers compared to SCE electric service as described in detail in the subsections below, which separately address 1) analysis of energy supplies, 2) rate analysis and comparison of SCE and CCE forecasted rates, and 3) pro forma financial analysis to derive annual CCE cash flow year-by-year (over the course of five- and ten-year terms), which will provide the best indication of the savings to customers that the CCE can sustainably provide. a) CCE Energy Supplies The City has not specified particular energy supply portfolios, such as renewable energy targets, that it would like included in the requested rate comparison and savings analysis. MRW typically conducts two or more scenarios for potential CCEs to allow for comparison of meeting or exceeding the incumbent investor-owned utility's renewable percentage. To the extent that the City would like to develop scenarios specific to the greenhouse gas reduction targets discussed in the City's 2017 General Plan Update, MRW can work with the City to develop appropriate energy supply portfolios and would be able to incorporate one or more such scenarios into its modeling. For the City, MRW proposes to, at a minimum, analyze two options so that the City can compare the likely minimum and maximum renewable energy percentages that the City could pursue: one consistent with SCE's current RPS content, and one where the City could achieve 100% renewable energy content by 2035. b) Rate Analysis and Comparison The CCE and SCE rate forecasts are critical in assessing the CCE's financial feasibility. MRW has significant expertise in rate forecasting and will build on previously developed in-house rate models to forecast in detail rates for the CCE and comparable SCE rates in five- and ten-year timeframes. MRW& Associates, LLC 7 1115 Response to Huntington Beach RFI The MRW team will forecast SCE's rates in a bottoms-up fashion, using assumptions consistent with those used to derive the CCE rates. MRW's rate model provides year-by-year rate changes for up to 30 years, reflecting changes in wholesale power markets, changes in renewable power costs, and SCE's supply portfolio. We account for SCE's actual power supply portfolio, explicitly modeling the utility's portfolio of renewable, gas-fired, hydroelectric and nuclear resources. Various scenarios with differing cost elements can be considered, such as higher or lower natural gas prices, varying hydroelectric output, and rate restructuring. Using the past decade's worth of SCE tariffs, MRW will assess the City's viability to withstand longer term economic downturns. A particularly challenging element to forecast is the Power Charge Indifference Amount (PCIA) that SCE charges to all CCE customers. While the RFI suggests a "rough estimate" of the PCIA, MRW recommends a bit deeper analysis. The PCIA is a function of market prices and SCE's procurement portfolio, both of which MRW explicitly models. Linking the PCIA to the other assumptions in analysis—such as the market prices—is critical to having sound picture of the economic viability of the CCE. The PCIA is built into the MRW forecasting models and including this more detailed analysis does not increase MRW's bid. Mr. Fulmer, who will head MRW's team, is one of California's primary experts on these matters and has been involved with the development of exit fees since their inception in 2002. In addition, Ms. Casas at MRW regularly provides PCIA forecasts to clients. c) Pro Forma Analysis The pro forma model is the heart of the economic analysis. It uses the costs from the supply analyses and CCE operational assumptions to derive the annual cash flow, from which the CCE rates are derived. Without knowing the cost to operate the CCE—beyond the simple cost of market power—a meaningful economic comparison to SCE's rates cannot be made. Beyond the power costs, the MRW CCE pro forma model includes the cost of compliance with State renewable and resource adequacy requirements, CCE costs such as startup costs (e.g. loans made to the CCE by city agencies), cost of capital, administrative and general operational costs, costs associated with uncollected accounts, and the development of cash reserves. MRW will use its pro forma model to analyze the economic feasibility of a CCE in Huntington Beach. The pro forma will show year-by-year cash flows over the course of five and ten years. The model shows expenses to the CCE (broken down by cost category) and total average cost per kilowatt-hour provided. MRW will use known and predictable cost of service variables and examine the impacts of customer phase-in over time. The MRW model is built to allow for analysis of the financial feasibility subject to a series of sensitivity analyses. At the City's option, MRW will examine key sensitivities to develop several possible cases that demonstrate the range of likely results of the analysis. MRW& Associates, LLC 8 1116 Response to Huntington Beach RFI C. Orange County CCE Consortium Formation The City has requested a synopsis of available options for cooperating with other municipalities in implementing CCE service, such as partnering with other municipalities in a CCE consortium. In coordination with City Staff, MRW will help the City understand the options for and implications of implementing a CCE via a county-wide consortium. We believe that good model to look to for such a consortium is the California Choice Energy Authority (CCEA). CCEA has been described as a "WA-light," wherein member cities can set their own rates and policies but rely upon CCEA for many administrative activities, such as billing, procurement, regulatory advocacy and compliance. CCEA is administered by the City of Lancaster—the first CCE entity in SCE's service territory—and has found a niche serving smaller communities desiring in CCE but lacking the staffing to fully operate a CCE program. While Huntington Beach is large enough to form its own city-enterprise based CCE, joining with neighboring Orange County cities (or perhaps even Orange County itself) may provide economic or other benefits. MRW will provide information regarding potential CCE governance structures, including operation by individual one or more individual jurisdictions, by independent regions, collectively by a consortium, and by a third-party administrator. D. California Public Utilities Commission CCE Implementation Plan Requirements MRW has experience with the CPUC CCE Implementation Plan requirements and will provide a summary of relevant information and requirements to the City. MRW's analysis of potential CCE financial savings for the City of Huntington Beach will include forecasted PCIA charges, consistent with the RFI's request for an estimate of PCIA charges. MRW will present PCIA charges as a standalone item in addition to integrating the charges into the savings analysis. E. Project Management Plan and Coordination with City Staff Mr. Fulmer will be the overall project manager and primary point of contact of the City. From MRW, Mr. Howarth will lead the power portfolio scenario construction and assessment and Ms. Casas will lead the rate and pro forma modeling. MRW envisions an initial kick-off meeting with City Staff and any designated stakeholders. At that meeting, MRW will present its anticipated work schedule, data needs, and communication paths. This will allow MRW and the City to identify appropriate staff members for follow up and further discussion regarding data needs and policy-related feedback. Based on the outcome of that meeting, MRW will prepare a detailed schedule of intermediate deliverables culminating in the Final Report, in addition to the milestones and deliverables discussed below. Specific areas where MRW is likely to require City staff support include: 1) in obtaining relevant load data from SCE and obtaining data from SCE, the City, or other entities (e.g. hospitals) about MRW& Associates, LLC 9 1117 Response to Huntington Beach RFI the specific loads for which the City has requested analysis; 2) specific energy supply options desired by the City; 3) City plans to enact energy efficiency or distributed generation programs; and 4) City forecasts of economic activity during the study period and/or other economic data that would inform MRW's load analysis. MRW also recommends weekly or biweekly status calls/webinars between MRW and City Staff. In those calls, MRW would update City Staff on the task status, provide interim work products, and allow for course corrections to best meet the evolving needs of the City. This process will ensure that MRW satisfies the City's needs and performs the requested Scope of Work in accordance with the City's expectations. Even outside of these structured calls, MRW staff will be available to respond to questions via telephone, email or, if needed, in person in Huntington Beach to ensure client satisfaction. MRW proposes three on-site meetings and presentations with City Staff, the City Council (or other decisionmakers), and other stakeholders. Based on prior experience, MRW recommends the following: Meeting 1: Kickoff meeting with City Staff to finalize the project plan. Meeting 2: MRW would present its draft results to City Staff for questions and comments. This would allow MRW to incorporate comments from the Staff or other stakeholders into the final report and business plan. Meeting 3: MRW would present its final results to the City Council during a Study Session. F. Schedule of Milestones, Associated Deliverables, and Payments MRW's anticipated schedule for the tasks and deliverables are shown in Figure 1, below. Meetings and the anticipated dates of those meetings are shown in orange. MRW recommends that the three meetings be held on December 2 (Kickoff meeting); February 18 (presentation of draft results); and March 10 (presentation of final results). Anticipated task competition dates consistent with the figure below are shown in the last column of Table 2 on page 19. MRW& Associates, LLC 10 1118 Response to Huntington Beach RF| Figure 1. Anticipated Project 5chedu|eandQe|iverab|es Weeks From Kickoff(Assumed December 2,mo) o 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 , o o m o u o 1^ o 16 o^:wu,rw« | | �om"Nvs MWOMMOMM xru/*,^m,"°v,�,*+` SCE Rate^oAy,,wxwmp*w w°,or°^cos=".ia/^=*^. | swnm"oaStwuwrwww/`woox,- u,*�p,xcnuud,^w*t, | | m/wmyvEvu:x,poru"cr, | | Gvjx�e,�smmRecort Pe,,oReport ocummmun°*xwmxwcit, SupportComm ~a w E^x"w"e* MRN/& Assuciotos, LL[ 1l Response to Huntington Beach RFI 4. MRW Qualifications A. MRW Background MRW is internationally recognized for its broad expertise in electric power and fuel markets. We combine an in-depth knowledge of these markets with rigorous economic and technical analysis to help our clients assess market opportunities, develop business strategies, and address regulatory issues. MRW offers its clients a comprehensive portfolio of consulting services in the areas of power market analysis, regulatory and litigation support, natural gas market analysis, and retail market support. Because we maintain a singular focus on the energy industry, our industry expertise is both deeper and broader than many other consulting firms. We understand the strategic implications of evolving regulatory models, emerging technologies, and changing market dynamics and we put this knowledge to use to serve our clients' interests. Practical research, qualitative and quantitative analysis, and industry expertise underpin all of MRW's work and ensure that our client recommendations are sound. Established in Oakland, California, in 1986, MRW has built a solid reputation for delivering local insights on power and fuel markets in the western United States and successful intervention in legislative and regulatory proceedings on clients' behalf. MRW continues to deliver high-quality market insights, analysis, and client support on a national and international level. The company has undertaken engagements in more than 20 different states, including nearly every state in the western United States. The company maintains a strong focus on California markets and regulatory structures. The location of the company office in Oakland, California, facilitates our active participation in proceedings at the CPUC, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). MRW's client base includes municipalities, consumer advocates, major financial institutions, private power developers, power marketers, Fortune 500 industrial companies, commercial end-users, natural gas pipelines and storage service providers, regulatory agencies, and other strategic players in the energy sector. MRW's team of professionals includes specialists in renewable energy, power market modeling, financial analysis, regulatory processes, utility rate design, legislative analysis, commodity procurement, energy use analysis, contract negotiations, transmission planning and pricing, and strategic planning. As discussed in greater detail below, MRW has been deeply involved in the development of CCEs in California. Table 1, below, shows the cities and counties MRW has advised on joining or forming a CCE. The table highlights MRW's, primarily Mr. Fulmer's, experience presenting results and options to local decision makers and the impacted communities. MRW& Associates, LLC 12 1120 Response to Huntington Beach RFI Table 1. MRW CCE Formation Experience Presentations to Decision Presentations to Client CCE Products makers Community City of Long TBD Feasibility 121 Beach Risk Analysis Implementation City of San SDRCCEA Plan El O Diego Business Plan Peer Review Feasibility City of Corona TBD Risk Analysis City of CCEA Org_ Options El Palmdale Risk Analysis Contra Costa Feasibility MCE Org. Options [Q [J_( Co. Risk Analysis Feasibility Alameda EBCE Org. Options El 0 County Risk Analysis Santa Barbara Multiple and Peer Review Risk RI County ongoing Analysis CleanPowerSF CleanPowerSF Business Plan 0 Santa Clara SVCE Peer Review Risk El County Analysis San Mateo Peer Review Risk El County PCE Analysis Santa Cruz MBCE Peer Review Risk County Analysis Peer Review Risk Sonoma County SCP Analysis Peer Review Risk City of Benicia MCE ElAnalysis City of MCE Peer Review Risk a Richmond Analysis Marin County Cities of: Novato, San Peer review Rafael, Ross MCE El 0 Risk Analysis Sausalito, Larkspur, San Anselmo MRW& Associates, LLC 13 1121 Response to Huntington Beach RFI 1. MRW Knows CCE Issues MRW has been working on CCE issues since they were authorized by the California State Legislature in 2002. MRW staff, including Mr. Fulmer, were key witnesses at the CPUC regarding the rules of conduct that govern the relationships between the CCE, the host utility and the CPUC. MRW has two ongoing CCE-related projects in Southern California. The first is with MRW's long- term client, the City of San Diego. For San Diego, MRW drafted a CCE Business Plan. For the newly-formed San Diego Regional Community Choice Energy Authority (SDRCCEA), MRW is providing input into the selection of key vendors such as the recently-released RFP for financial services; is monitoring and advising on CCE-related activities at the CPUC (including SDG&E's General Rate Case and the ongoing PCIA Rulemaking); and is on the team drafting SDRCCEA's Implementation Plan. MRW is also currently working with the City of Long Beach on its CCE feasibility study. This work addresses Long Beach's unique customer mix (significantly more large industrial customers than the typical CCE), assess the scope of possible in-city solar development, quantities the economic and employment implications of CCE, and lays out in greater detail than has been seen in other feasibility plans the risks that the City might face with CCE formation, along with ways that those risks can be addressed. Going back to the beginning, in late 2008, MRW conducted an independent review of the reports and documents associated with Marin County's CCE efforts. This review focused on the 2008 "Marin CCA Business Plan," an expert's professional peer review of the plan, PG&E's comments on the plan, and responses to the peer review and comments. MRW's analysis and review concentrated on two main areas: the critical factors that would lead to a financially viable CCE program, and the major risk factors that would affect potential participants in the CCE. In late 2009, Marin County and city/town managers again retained MRW to review the draft service agreements that MEA was proposing to enter into with Shell Energy North America. This review concentrated on identifying the risks to MEA, the cities, the towns, and the County that were not sufficiently addressed in the MEA-Shell agreement. MRW provided suggested changes and amendments to the agreements to mitigate those risks. Many of MRW's suggestions were subsequently incorporated into the final contract. In 2011, MRW worked with Sonoma County Water Agency as it assessed the feasibility of forming a CCE. MRW's role was to provide a due diligence review of the financial, rate and power procurement assumptions and analysis of their draft feasibility study. MRW found that the general approach used to examine the feasibility of a CCE was sound and all major cost components were addressed. However, MRW found that the manner in which the results were presented, while not unreasonable, tended to be more favorable toward CCE formation and the risks and downsides of CCE formation were not highlighted. MRW also found that some of the MRW& Associates, LLC 14 1122 Response to Huntington Beach RFI results were presented in a way so as to minimize the appearance of cost differences between the CCE and PG&E. In 2015 and 2016 MRW drafted CCE Technical Studies for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These studies answered the same fundamental questions being asked by Huntington Beach: what are the costs, benefits, and risks of CCE formation? MRW responded to questions and comments from numerous stakeholders, as well as city councils in the two counties as well as both Boards of Supervisors. From 2014 through 2017, MRW has continued to provide professional peer reviews and advice to cities and counties considering CCE formation. These include the counties of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura and the City of San Diego. MRW also continues to be active advocating for CCE positions at the CPUC. Mr. Fulmer provided expert testimony on behalf of the CCE trade association, CalCCA regarding the level of financial security requirements that CCE's should have to provide to the host utility and is actively participating the in the current CPUC proceeding addressing exit fee reform. 2. MRW Knows Renewable Energy Even beyond the analysis and research into renewable power costs and output profiles needed to support the CCE feasibility studies discussed above, MRW regularly works in the renewable energy space. For a large private landholder, MRW examined the solar resource and performance of different solar PV plant configurations (fixed or tracking, flat or tilted). MRW also developed pro forma financial models to provide the client with an indication of potential costs and returns associated with a solar PV project located on its land. MRW also worked with the landholder's attorney to identify key potential fatal flaws in the project. Finally, MRW identified several potential development partners for the landholder. For an Independent Power Producer looking to develop one or more solar PV projects at different locations in California's Central Valley, MRW developed estimates of the solar resource and plant performance for different plant configurations using simulation modeling tools developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. MRW also assisted the developer with translation of generation estimates into revenue estimates. For a large agricultural interest in California's Central Valley, MRW performed a fatal flaw assessment of a potential 1 MW "behind the meter" solar PV project. MRW also identified and helped the client to quantify key project risks. MRW helped the client with identification of experienced project developers/installers in order to minimize construction risk and warranty performance. 3. MRW Understands Resource Planning and Energy Procurement Utility resource planning entails acquiring the right power resources to meet the current and future needs of a utility—or a CCE—in a least-cost fashion, subject to certain constraints. These constraints include limiting rate volatility, meeting state and/or federal requirements, and in MRW& Associates, LLC 15 1123 Response to Huntington Beach RFI the case of CCEs, reflecting the local values of residents and businesses in the CCE area; these values could include increased renewable energy and decreased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. MRW has seen resource planning from both sides. As part of CCE contract reviewers for Marin Clean Energy and Sonoma Clean Power, we know the unique positions that new CCEs face when setting resource portfolios for immediate as well as future service. As part of the Alameda CCE Study, MRW crafted resource portfolios for analysis and review. Furthermore, MRW team members have also served clients by reviewing and critiquing California investor-owned utility short- and long-term resource plans, including those of Southern California Edison. Finally, MRW assisted both Desert Clean Energy CCE and an Energy Service Provider (ESP) in preparing and filing Integrated Resource Plans that were approved by the CPUC. 4. MRW Understands Utility Rates and What Drives Them MRW regularly provides clients with short-, medium-, and long-term forecasts of Southern California Edison (SCE) retail rates. These forecasts are performed on a bottoms-up basis and incorporate wholesale gas, power, and GHG emissions coefficients based on power content, SCE rate cases, resource plans, and other regulatory filings so as to best reflect future rates. As such, we are well positioned to accurately forecast SCE rates as well as ensure that the CCE costs are prepared on a consistent basis (i.e., same underlying wholesale market conditions). A particularly challenging element to forecast is the Power Charge Indifference Amount (PCIA or "exit fee") that SCE charges to all CCE and direct access customers, The PCIA value changes from year to year and can vary from nil to over 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). For example, SCE's PCIA fee for residential customers was -0.015 cents per kWh in 2016, but prior to that the fee was 2.9 cents per kWh in 2011. Mr. Fulmer, who will head MRW's team, is one of California's primary experts on these matters and has been involved with the development of exit fees since their inception in 2002. In addition, Ms. Casas at MRW regularly provides PCIA forecasts to clients. B. MRW References Below are five references for MRW CCE feasibility and implementation plan projects. Client Name: City of Long Beach Contact Person: Tony Foster, Business Operations Manager (562) 570-2015 tonv.foster nilongbeach.gov Services Provided: CCA Technical Study Dates: 2019 (ongoing) MRW, is nearing the end of the preparing a feasibility study for the formation of a CCA in the City of Long Beach. MRW considered such factors as the feasibility and extent of possible local renewable development, multiple generation portfolios, economic and employment impacts, MRW& Associates, LLC 16 1124 Response to Huntington Beach RFI and strategic phase-in of CCA accounts. MRW is scheduled to present the results to the County Board of Supervisors and numerous City Councils. Client Name: Alameda County Contact Person: Bruce Jensen, Alameda County Planning Department (510) 670-5400 bruce.jensen@acgov.org Services Provided: Technical Study for Community Choice Aggregation Dates: 2015-2016 In fourth quarter of 2015 and the first half of 2016, MRW, along with EDR Group, prepared a feasibility study for the formation of a CCA in Alameda County. MRW considered such factors as the feasibility and extent of possible local renewable development, multiple generation portfolios, and energy efficiency. MRW worked with the County's 39-member steering committee to ensure that the diverse community perspectives (e.g., local environmental and business development advocates, labor, local government) were included. MRW presented the results to the County Board of Supervisors and numerous City Councils. The project report can be found at: https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/cca/documents/Feas- TechAnalysisDRAFT5312016.pdf Client Name: City of San Diego Contact Person: Cody Hooven, Director/Chief Sustainability Officer (619) 236-6563 chooven@sandiego.gov Services Provided: Peer Review of CCA Feasibility Plan Business Plan for Community Choice Aggregation CCA Implementation Plan Dates: November 2017-Present In late 2016, the City of San Diego commissioned a study to understand the feasibility of using a CCA program to assist in meeting its goal of achieving 100% renewable energy city-wide by 2035. In April 2017, the City requested MRW to provide a professional peer review of the Study. MRW found that the Study was detailed and comprehensive but that there were a few reasons for concern with the results of the initial study: • The assumptions for the forecast of SDG&E rates were inconsistent with those used in the forecast of CCA rates because the SDG&E rate forecast was simply an extrapolation of current rates, while the forecast of CCA rates was based on market and operational assumptions; • The initial study did not clearly differentiate between generation rates and delivery rates when comparing SOG&E rates and CCA rates; and MRW& Associates, LLC 17 1125 Response to Huntington Beach RFI • The initial study made overly conservative assumptions about contributions to reserve funds. In 2018, MRW supported the City in its review of SDG&E's proposal to supply the City with a 100% renewable energy option for the residents and businesses in the City. Also, in 2018, MRW prepared the Draft CCA Business Plan for the City of San Diego. This Business Plan provided a framework to the City for moving forward with CCA formation. The Peer Review of the CCA Feasibility Study can be found at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/final cca feasibility study peer review 040617 pub feb 22 2018.pdf The Peer Review of the SDG&E Proposal can be found at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/final review of sdge proposal 2018-03- 15 0.pdf The CCA Business Plan can be found at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/draft final cca business plan city of san dieg o october 2018.pdf Client Name: County of Contra Costa Contact Person: Jason Crapo, Deputy Director Conservation and Development (925) 674-7722 Jason.Crapo@dcd.cccounty.us Services Provided: CCA Technical Study Dates: 2016 In 2016, MRW prepared a feasibility study for the formation of a CCA in Contra Costa County. MRW considered such factors as the feasibility and extent of possible local renewable development, multiple generation portfolios, and energy efficiency. In addition, MRW also laid out the benefits and drawbacks of not only forming their own CCA but joining with Marin Clean Energy (MCE) or East Bay Clean Energy (the CCA being formed in neighboring Alameda County). MRW presented the results to the County Board of Supervisors and numerous City Councils. The project report can be found at: http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/43588 MRW& Associates, LLC 18 1126 Response to Huntington Beach RFI Client Name: Clean Power San Francisco Contact Person: Mike Hyams (415) 554-1590 mhyams@sfwater.org Services Provided: CleanPowerSF Business Plan Dates: 2015 In December 2015, MRW assisted CleanPowerSF in drafting its Business Plan. The plan addressed such factors as CleanPowerSF's program goals, risk management strategies, operations, financial structure and management, and performance reporting and policy metrics. C. MRW Staff Below is a brief description of the key members of the MRW team. Résumés for all personnel likely to work on this project are attached as Appendix A. Mark Fulmer is a Principal and partner at MRW with over 25 years of experience in the energy industry. Much of this work has been in the regulatory arena, advising customers, trade groups, municipalities, utilities, and state public utility commissions on resource planning, energy efficiency, and rate matters. He has submitted testimony before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and utility commissions in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington, as well as supporting testimony in ten other states and Canadian provinces. With respect to CCE matters, Mr. Fulmer was the lead author of the CCE feasibility assessment in San Diego Gas & Electric Southern service area and contributed to the peer reviews of the CCE feasibility studies for Marin, Berkeley, Oakland, Emeryville, and the Kings River Conservation District. Mr. Fulmer was also the principal investigator for risk assessments performed by MRW on behalf of several cities considering participation in the Marin Clean Energy CCA program. He also served as an expert witness before the CPUC on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco on CCE matters, including the rules under which CCEs would operate, and the fees that IOUs would be allowed to charge CCEs for the various services the utility would have to provide. Mr. Fulmer was also one of three witnesses sponsored jointly by the MEA, the City and County of San Francisco, and the DA parties in the CPUC proceeding addressing the correct calculation of the Cost Responsibility Surcharge for departing load (CCE and DA) customers. Most recently, Mr. Fulmer sponsored testimony on behalf of the City of Lancaster concerning the fees that Southern California Edison proposes to charge CCEs for the various services the utility would have to provide. Mr. Fulmer holds a master's degree in engineering from Princeton University, where he conducted graduate research at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, and a bachelor's degree in engineering from the University of California, Irvine. MRW& Associates, LLC 19 1127 Response to Huntington Beach RFI David Howarth is a Principal and partner at MRW with 25 years of experience in the energy industry. Mr. Howarth specializes in quantitative and qualitative analysis of energy economics, policy, and technology issues. Clients include energy project developers, owners, lenders, public agencies, and end-users. His current focus is on utility procurement issues and energy project development. He is an expert on renewable energy policy and has worked with a number of renewable energy project developers in the western states and Hawaii, providing analytical support to their development efforts. Activities have included construction of pro forma financial models, bid support for utility Request for Offers, and analysis of qualifying facilities energy pricing for existing projects. He has also worked with customers and distributed generation suppliers to analyze supply options and utility bill impacts. Mr. Howarth holds a master's degree in energy and resources from the University of California, Berkeley, and a bachelor's degree in economics and biology from Wesleyan University. Anna Casas Llopart is a Senior Consultant at MRW. Ms. Casas Llopart provides modeling support for MRW's team. Her work focuses on researching and analyzing energy data and related policy, with an emphasis on California electricity markets. She develops MRW's forecasts and analyses pertaining to electricity rates, rate design, and other energy matters. She also develops expert testimony for regulatory proceedings and litigation. Prior to her work at MRW, Ms. Casas Llopart worked for Nexus Energia, an Electricity Service Provider (ESP) based in Spain. There she created analytical models to forecast production for renewable technologies, customer energy demand, and spot market prices, modeled cost of electricity procurement and generation, managed scheduling and settlements, and developed and implemented new technology to optimize billing operations. Carlo Bencomo-lasso is a Senior Associate at MRW. Mr. Bencomo-Jasso work focuses on data analysis and policy research. Prior to joining MRW, Mr. Bencomo-Jasso worked for consulting firms specializing in energy and economics. His previous work experiences include load forecasting, capacity market modeling, cost-benefit analysis and econometric modeling. Mr. Bencomo-Jasso holds a master's degree in energy and environment from Boston University, a master's degree in environmental science and management from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a bachelor's degree in history from Princeton University. MRW& Associates, LLC 20 1128 Response to Huntington Beach RFI 5. Fee Information A. Fixed Price Quote MRW will compete the tasks listed in the City's RFI and presented here for fees and expenses not to exceed $66,000, to be billed on a time-and-materials basis. MRW proposes to provide monthly detailed invoices. B. Billing Rates for All Personnel The following hourly billing rates will apply. Consultant Level Rate, $/Hour Key Personnel Fulmer Principal $330 Howarth Principal $330 Casas Senior Consultant $230 Bencomo-lasso Senior Associate $224 Additional Personnel who may contribute Neal Senior Project Manager $299 Charles _ Senior Project Manager $252 Associate $167 C. Personnel Hours and Delivery Table 2 below shows MRW's anticipated personnel, hours per tasks, and task completion. This table presupposes that the authorization to work is on or about December 2. Table 2. Personnel assignment, anticipated hours and task completion Estimated Hours by Task and Key Consultant Anticipated Fulmer Howarth Casas Bencomo- Completion Tasks I lasso Total Date Kickoff meeting 8 8 2-Dec Load Forecast/Study 2 4 24 30 20-Dec Economic Analysis of Load 40 40 7-Jan Savings Analysis 8 40 16 64 18-Feb Governance Structure 14 4 18 18-Feb CPUC CCE Implementation Plan 2 2 18-Feb Requirements Public Meeting Support/Presentations 16 4 20 Various Report Preparation 16 4 24 44 10-Mar Management 8 2 10 Various MRW& Associates, LLC 21 1129 Response to Huntington Beach RFI Appendix A: Resumes MRW& Associates, LLC 22 1130 Response to Huntington Beach RH MARK E. FULMER PROFESSIONAL. Principal EXPERIENCE MRW & Associates, LLC (1999 - Present) Conduct economic and technical studies in support of clients involved in regulatory and legislative proceedings and power project development. Advise clients on the economic issues associated with taking electricity service from non-utility sources or self-generating power. Work includes expert testimony on rate matters; economic analysis of end-use energy- efficiency projects, retail rate and wholesale price forecasting, and pro forma analysis of cogeneration and distributed generation facilities. Project Engineer Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall (1996 - 1999) Acted as project manager and technical advisor on energy efficiency projects. Work included management of PG&E program to promote innovative energy efficient technologies for large electricity users. Coordinated the implementation of an intranet-based energy efficiency library. Directed technical and market analyses of emerging technologies. Associate Tellus Institute (1990-1996) Advised public utility commissions in five states on electric and gas industry deregulation issues. Submitted testimony on the rate design of a natural gas utility to the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission. Testified before the Hawaii PUC on behalf of a gas distribution utility concerning a competing electric utility's demand-side management plan. Analyzed national energy policies for a set of non-governmental agencies, including critiquing the DOE's national energy forecasting model. Developed model to track transportation energy use and emissions and used the model to evaluate state- level transportation policies. Developed model to track greenhouse gas emission reductions resulting from state-level carbon taxes. Research Assistant Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University (1988-1990) Researched the technical and economic viability of gas turbine cogeneration using biomass in the cane sugar and alcohol industries. First researcher to apply "pinch" analysis and a mixed-integer linear programming model to minimize energy use in cane sugar refineries and alcohol distilleries. EDUCATION M.S.E., Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, 1991 B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Long Beach, 1986 MRW& Associates, LLC 23 1131 Response to Huntington Beach RFI DAVID N. HOWARTH PROFESSIONAL Principal EXPERIENCE 1IR1V & Associates, LLC (9/96 - Present) Specializes in quantitative and qualitative analysis of energy economics, policy and technology issues. Clients include energy project developers, owners, lenders, public agencies, and end users. His current focus is on utility procurement issues and energy project development. He is an expert on renewable energy policy and has worked with a number of renewable energy project developers in the western states and Hawaii, providing analytical support to their development efforts. Activities have included construction of pro forma financial models, bid support for utility RFOs and analysis of QF energy pricing for existing projects. He has also worked with customers and distributed generation suppliers to analyze supply options and utility bill impacts. He has participated in policy studies on the need to replace aging generation infrastructure in California and on the status of nuclear generation and waste storage facilities. Other work has included litigation support, market due diligence, and contract negotiation support. Associate RDC, Inc. (9/93 -9/94) Independent Consultant (9/94 - 9/96) Provided management consulting services, including strategic business planning and subcontractor management, to developer of a flywheel energy storage system for transportation and stationary applications. Performed market study for manufacturer of small, advanced gas turbines. Researched electric utility, oil and gas, and manufacturing industries to identify technical and market opportunities for small gas turbines. Completed assessment of emerging market for fiber optic communications installed along electric utility rights-of-way. Identified and characterized industrial processes for which electricity-to-gas energy substitution opportunities exist to support utility demand-side management efforts. Analyst Global Change Unit, ICF Incorporated (9/89 - 7/93) Performed quantitative analyses and wrote reports and briefings for large consulting firm providing environmental and economic services to governmental and private-sector clients. Co-authored EPA study of the potential for renewable sources of electricity to reduce air pollution. Developed models to analyze the long-term impacts of U.S. government programs to increase carbon storage in forests and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural sources. Participated in a variety of regulatory studies of selected toxic substances for USEPA. Analyzed the operations and MRW& Associates, LLC 24 1132 Response to Huntington Beach RFI financial performance of multinational corporations to determine profit levels consistent with a fair treatment of transfers with their foreien subsidiaries. EDUCATION M.A., Energy and Resources Group. University ofCaliIornia, Berkeley. 1996 B.A.. Economics and high honors in Biology. Wesleyan University, 1959 MRW& Associates, LLC 25 ti33 Response to Huntington Beach RFI ANNA CASAS PROFESSIONAL Senior Associate ENTERIENCE MRW & Associates, LLC (2015-present) Research and analyze energy data and related policy, with an emphasis on California electricity markets. Develop forecasts and analyses pertaining to electricity rates, rate design, and other energy matters and develop expert testimony for regulatory proceedings and litigation. Monitor and analyze regulatory and policy developments affecting the California energy markets. Engineering Consultant (2013-2015) Designed engineering solutions for commercial and residential buildings, including in the areas of energy efficiency, electrical systems, fire protection, and environmental systems. Portfolio Manager Nexus Energia (2009-2013) Created analytical models to forecast production for renewable technologies, customer energy demand, and spot market prices. Modeled cost of electricity procurement and generation and managed scheduling and settlements. Developed and implemented new technology to optimize billing operations for a Spanish Energy Services Provider. Engineering Consultant Crisergas (2008-2009) Designed liquefied natural gas satellite plants, liquefied petroleum gas storage facilities, control stations, and receiving facilities. EDUCATION M.S. in Engineering and Management of Renewable Energy IL3 University • Barcelona, 2009 B.S./M.S. in Industrial Engineering, Polytechnic University of Catalonia. 2006 MRW& Associates, LLC 26 1134 Response to Huntington Beach RFI CARLO A. BENCOi\IO-JASSO PROFESSIONAL Senior Associate EXPERIENCE MRW & Associates, LLC Provide research and data analytics pertaining to electric-utility planning, regulation, and economics. Senior Associate Resource Insight, Inc (2019) Created energy price estimates and evaluated bids for power procurements. Assessed renewable resource build-outs for Integrated Resource Plans. Reviewed econometric models employed in utility load forecasts. Evaluated the economics of coal plant retirements. Analyst Daymark Energy Advisors (2017-2019) Performed data collection and statistical analysis of energy commodity pricing and power data. Developed data analytics reports, regulatory testimony, and other supporting analysis and documents. Performed load forecasting and capacity market modeling. Conducted economic impact and cost-benefit analyses for energy development projects. Teaching Fellow Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University (2013-2016) Taught weekly undergraduate discussion sections on international economics, environmental science, and energy. Assisted students with class material and graded class assignments and exams. Solar Rooftop Analyst Southern California Edison (2010) Aided in development of leasing agreements with commercial property owners for the installation of solar arrays I MTV and larger in size. Maintained program databases. Created presentations and weekly status reports on site acquisitions and leasing agreements for senior management. Supported development of marketing materials for program outreach. EDUCATION M.A.. Environment and Energy, Boston University, 2016 M.S., Environmental Science and Management, UC Santa Barbara, 2012 A.B., History, Princeton University, 2009 MRW& Associates, LLC 27 1135 Response to Huntington Beach RFI MARY NEAL PROFESSIONAL Senior Project Manager EXPERIENCE MRW & Associates, LLC (2018) Conduct technical analysis of electric and gas utility rate cases and other regulatory filings and serve as expert witness in regulatory proceedings. Construct and critique models for utility cost allocation, rate design, retail rate forecasts, and benefits of distributed generation facilities, Evaluate energy procurement options and provide analytical and strategic support for business decisions and litigation on electric and gas issues. Senior Consultant Daymark Energy Advisors, Inc. (2009-2017) Advised electric and gas industry clients on resource planning, utility rates, and market design issues. Testified before multiple state and Canadian provincial regulatory agencies on issues related to electric market modeling, fuel cost forecasting, cost allocation, rate design, and electric utility capital planning. Prepared and critiqued numerous electric and gas utility allocated cost of service, revenue requirement and rate design models. Led modeling team for Daymark Energy Advisors' AURORAxmp Northeast electric market model. Engineer Solar Turbines, Inc. (2005-2008) Designed dry low-emission combustion systems for Mars SoLoNOx gas turbines. Led development of fuel injectors for landfill gas and afiermarket retrofit applications. EDUCATION M.A., Energy and Environmental Analysis, Boston University, 2010 B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University ofCalifornia, Davis, 2005 MRW& Associates, LLC 28 1136 Response to Huntington Beach RFI BRANDON J. CHARLES PROFESSIONAL Senior Project Manager EXPERIENCE MRW & Associates, LLC (September 2008 — May 2013, March 2016 - present) Analyze electricity and natural gas market data with a focus on markets in the western U.S. Evaluate utility ratemaking issues, including cost of service, revenue allocation, and rate design. Develop and sponsor expert testimony on utility, ratemaking, budget, and various policy, and technical issues. Develop models forecasting retail and wholesale electricity prices. Research and interpret policy decisions and proposals affecting the energy market. Develop reports on energy policy and market issues, including the impact of policy changes on new project development. Senior Market Analyst Bloom Energy (June 2013 — March 2016) Analyzed electricity, and natural gas market prices and trends, regulatory policies impacting distributed generation markets, new market opportunities, stationary fuel cell addressable market size, and the economics of potential product offerings. Developed cash flow models and assumptions for distributed generation project economics for Fortune 500 customers and state policymakers. Coordinator, Economic and International Policy Biotechnology Industry Organization (B1O) (September 2006 — August 2008) Analyzed industry trends, legislative and regulatory policy developments, and economic issues in support of industry policy positions and related studies. Legal Assistant White & Case, LIP (July 2005 —June 2006) Managed U.S. litigation and international arbitration cases, including the arbitration of an international power plant development contract. EDUCATION A.R.. Economics, Dartmouth College, 2005 MRW& Associates, iiC 29 1137 ��y�1SIh6Ip`-_ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �� " � CityCouncil Interoffice Communication f44Uhr tI To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manag Date: January 31, 2020 Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION FOR AGENDA ITEM 21 This memorandum is to provide additional information in regards to Item #21. Please see attached Executive Summary of the California Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment prepared for the City of Irvine, Californ a by EES Consulting, and include this as part o` the Agenda for February 3, 2020 City Council Meeting. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION µeettng gate: N3/20.2 0 Agenda Rem No.: 01( 6 /3 ?5) City of Irvine, California Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment Prepared for: The City of Irvine, California FINAL January 16, 2020 EES 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, Spokane and La Quinta, CA Telephone: (425) 889-2700 Facsimile: (425) 889-2725 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: b2 3/,2020 www.eesconsulting.com Agenda lien)No.: 011 C2o- /3 5) EES Consulting, Inc. January 16, 2020 Mr. Mark Steuer City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 SUBJECT: Final Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment Dear Mr. Steuer: Please find attached the Final 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; Spokane,WA and La Quinta,CA Contents CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 KEY STUDY FINDINGS 1 RISKS AND 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 ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 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 4.4 CONCEPTUAL CCE LAUNCH PHASING 31 4.5 FORECAST CONSUMPTION AND CUSTOMERS 32 5. 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 41 5.5 RESOURCE STRATEGY 47 6. COST OF SERVICE: OPERATING COSTS FOR BASE SCENARIO 49 6.1 INTRODUCTION 49 6.2 COST OF SERVICE FOR CCE"BASE CASE"OPERATIONS 49 6.3 POWER SUPPLY COSTS 49 6.4 NON-POWER SUPPLY COSTS 50 6.5 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 51 6.6 OUTSIDE CONSULTANT COSTS 52 6.7 SCE BILLING&METERING COSTS 53 6.8 UNCOLLECTIBLE COSTS 53 6.9 FINANCIAL RESERVES 54 6.10 FINANCING COSTS 55 7. RATE COMPARISON 60 7.1 INTRODUCTION 60 7.2 RATES PAID BY SCE BUNDLED CUSTOMERS 60 7.3 RATES PAID BY CCE CUSTOMERS 61 7.4 RETAIL RATE COMPARISON 62 8. ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 65 8.1 INTRODUCTION 65 8.2 ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN THE COMMUNITY 65 8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RESOURCE PLAN ON GREENHOUSE GAS(GHG)EMISSIONS 68 8.4 LOCAL RESOURCES/BEHIND THE METER CCE PROGRAMS 69 9. SENSITIVITY AND RISK ANALYSIS 73 9.1 INTRODUCTION 73 9.2 RISK FACTORS 73 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 it 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 FOR JPA CCE 91 APPENDIX B-PRO FORMA ANALYSES 92 APPENDIX C-STAFFING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DETAIL 94 APPENDIX D-CCE CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 95 APPENDIX E-GLOSSARY 96 APPENDIX F- POWER SUPPLY DETAIL 102 WHOLESALE MARKET PRICES 102 ANCILLARY AND CONGESTION COSTS 102 SCHEDULING COORDINATOR SERVICES 104 Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study and Technical Assessment �� 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 • 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 $10.6 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 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 Exhibit ES-1 CCE Key Operating Figures First Year Operating Budget $81.0 Million First Year Revenues $87.7 Million First Year Net Income $6.7 Million _ First Year Load Served 1,475 GWh Average Operating Budget (2022-2030) $124.4 Million Average Revenues(2022-2030) $140.5 Million Average Net Revenue (2022-2030) $16.1 Million Average Annual Municipal Cost Savings $112,000 Average Load Served (2022-2030) 1,922 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%o 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 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 $16.1 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 forecasted. 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 Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:05 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW: Agenda item 21 From: Kathy Carrick<carrick92647@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31,2020 12:28 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda item 21 Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: At the last city council meeting, during a discussion regarding Item 31- Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 (3rd Street Commercial Building)Council member Carr eloquently spoke of her concern regarding government overreach. So it seems ironic that, when I examined the agenda for the upcoming city council meeting on February 3, 2020 I saw Agenda Item 21- Review and consider the Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study options. If anything would qualify as"government overreach" it would be the city taking over functions of a public utility. Other cities of comparable size to Huntington Beach have paid for feasibility studies. They show an upfront cost of$10 Million dollars with a"promised" savings of up to 2%. Where do you think that$10 million dollars will come from? That is the taxpayer's money. If you spend this money, you are violating the public trust. Even if you are convinced that you can finance the upfront costs with a bond measure, the money must be repaid with interest. And you are willing to put our city at risk for what? A 2% savings which I suspect we will never see. [ urge you to vote for Option B on Agenda Item 21. I do not want you to continue this discussion for another minute! Best regards, Kathy Carrick Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Weft Dote: a/3/,21)20 Agenda Item Imo.; ( (a�D - 13 5) Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:06 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item #21 Original Message From: Elizabeth Esparza <elizabeth@executivesoundpros.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:37 AM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda Item #21 Dear Mayor Semeta and council members, As I've called the city about various items to be fixed, alleys, streets, park equipment, etc I'm constantly told it's not in the budget. The alley behind my house has been on the repair"list" for 20 years. So, when I see Agenda Item 21 on Monday night's city council agenda, I'm concerned. We don't have the money to do the most basic of functions expected of a city government, yet there is$66,000 for a feasibility study regarding a function that local government should have no part?That doesn't just seem troubling. It seems reckless. I urge you to vote for option B on Agenda Item 21. Thank you, Elizabeth Esparza SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dote: *2/31.2Uz U Agenda hem No.; ..1 (a0— t 3?5) Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:08 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 Importance: High From: Gary Tarkington <garytarkington@msn.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 5:53 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda item 21 Importance: High Dear Mayor Semeta and council members At the last city council meeting, during a discussion regarding Item 31- Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No 19-001 (3rd Street Commercial Building) Councilmember Carr eloquently spoke of her concern regarding government overreach So it seems ironic that, when I examined the agenda for the upcoming city council meeting on February 3. 2020 I saw Agenda Item 21- Review and consider the Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study options If anything would qualify as "government overreach" it would be the city taking over functions of a public utility. Other cities of comparable size to Huntington Beach have paid for feasibility studies. They show an upfront cost of$10 Million dollars with a "promised" savings of up to 2%. Where do you think that $10 million dollars will come from?That is the taxpayer's money. If you spend this money, you are violating the public trust Even if you are convinced that you can finance the upfront costs with a bond measure, the money must be repaid with interest. Arid you are willing to put our city at risk for what? A 2% savings which I suspect we will never see. I urge you to vote for Option B on Agenda Item 21. I do not want you to continue this discussion for another minute' Best regards. Ann Tarkington 92646 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION A tom. 02r 010 - �3-TS Switzer, Donna From: Fikes. Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:07 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 21 From: Pam Walker<pamw@brandingbusiness.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:47 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city,council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda Item 21 Dear Mayor Semeta and council members I am concerned about the feasibility study being considered regarding Community Choice Aggregation. This seems like a waste of$66.000 that could be used for better purpose. Examples I can think of are pothole repair and cleanup around the homeless population. Why don't you review studies done by other cities? Sharing of information should be a cost saving measure for all cities Please vote for option B on Agenda Item 21. Best regards. Pam Walker Huntington Beach Resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Date. N3— Agenda nets No.• al/(„- t375' Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:21 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: No CCE Original Message From: Phyllis Bailey<pbaileyhb@gmail_com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:15 AM To:CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No CCE Vote No! No CCE Phyllis Bailey Sent from my iPad SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting DErte: — 3 - ('D Agenda item No.`. ( ( 1) -13 s J Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:29 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE From:Jerry Barry<jbatqma@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:16 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE Dear Mayor Semeta and Council, I urge you to reject ANY further discussion of CCE and vote in favor of Item 21-B. Why do we want a middle man. Next thing someone will suggest we hire Hunter Biden. -Jerry Barry SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Date.minting c —3 - hem No/ ( t7T) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:28 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE vote for 21-B From: Rita Barry<rrbarry15@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:31 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE vote for 21-8 Dear Mayor Semeta and Council, I urge you to reject ANY further discussion of CCE and vote in favor of Item 21-B. This is fundamentally a BAD idea for city for many reasons, not the least of which we should NOT be in the energy business! Also: it's just another added agency and expense which will make our rates go up unnecessarily. Rita Barry Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: ,A 3 AO Agenda NMn No.;.21 6720 - /3 11-1 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:35 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE Feasibilty Study From: Janet Bean <janetbeandesigns@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 2:21 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.arg> Subject: CCE Feasibilty Study I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibilty Study. Please listen to the citzens you serve and not the lobbyists and those who will profit form this very bad policy! Thank you, Janet Bean 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: , - 3 - JO II sm iNo4 5/ l 014 -/3 7.0 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:42 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO TO CCA (CCE)!!! From:denise_benner<denise_benner@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 5:53 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO TO CCA(CCE)!!! Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: We are constantly told by you and Huntington Beach staff that there isn't money in the budget to do things that I'd like to see happen- repaving of roads, replacing worn playground equipment in our parks, hiring park rangers to patrol our parks and enforce regulations. So, when I see Agenda Item 21 on Monday night's city council agenda, I'm concerned. We don't have the money to do the most basic of functions expected of a city government, yet there is$66,000 for a feasibility study regarding a function that local government should have no part?That doesn't just seem troubling. It seems reckless. I urge you to vote for option B on Agenda Item 21 and put the discussion of this topic away for good. Best regards, Denise Benner (47-yr Resident) Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphonc SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 4.71 - - ;� U Agenda mere rvo.;.) ( J D —/3 7J ) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:31 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B - Vote NO on 20 From: csmk4ucla <csmk4ucla@verizon_net> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 3:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B -Vote NO on 20 Dear Mayor Semeta and Council, / I urge you to reject ANY further discussion of CCE and vote in favor of Item 21-B. This is fundamentally a BAD idea for city for many reasons, not the least of which we should NOT be in the energy business! Also: - The City Council will set power rates and can be increased with no oversight and whenever the city wants more of your money. CCEs bypass statutory requirements for pricing approval. Renewable energy costs will rise when state and federal subsidies are taken away. - Despite claims to the contrary CCE customers cannot directly buy renewable power. - CCE will create an very expensive new bureaucracy with pensions for all employees. City of HB currently has over$1 billion in unfunded liabilities, CCE will make that crisis worse. - CCE creates conflicts of interest between politicians, city employees, consultants and energy retailers. -The State of California has mandated use of renewable energy. There is no need to take this risk locally. - If the City Council guesses poorly signing long-term energy contracts the CCE could bankrupt the city. - The customer has no choice with CCE. I also urge you to vote NO on ITEM 20 - and do not reopen the Beach Edinger Specific Plan with Amendments to the Specific Plan. This action will undo all the protection to our community that we fought for in 2013. It will open the door to "By Right" development that will take away ALL LOCAL ZONING CONTROL. Please vote NO!! Sincerely, Stephanie and Craig Billington SUPPLEMENTAL.. 8322 Cade Circle COMMUNICATION Huntington Beach 92646 Meeting Date: -o f Sent fromAgenda Item No. ! /3 -7•S Samsung tablet 1 `1 AL Esparza, Patty roMMUNICATION From: Mark Bixby <mark@bixby.org> Heeling°gi„ —3 Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 7:05 PM To: Agenda Comment; CITY COUNCIL I —) Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL ''"' „' ' (A! ,( —1•37.5 Subject: YES on CC agenda item 21 action C - investigate CCE feasibility with Irvine AGENDA COMMENT Hi city council, I urge a YES vote on Feb 3rd agenda item #21 action C to investigate the feasibility of partnering with Irvine's CCE efforts. Partnering with Irvine makes the most sense because a larger customer pool will both lessen the startup costs apportioned to each customer as well as providing increased leverage for negotiating power supply contracts. The Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) model has failed California. Let's review some history.The CPUC regulators and the electric utilities (SCE, PG&E, SDG&E) became too chummy with each other, resulting in "regulatory capture" where the utilities drove the regulatory process,yielding fat paychecks for utility executives and handsome returns for shareholders while neglecting critical maintenance and upgrade needs. This failure has resulted in hundreds of deaths, thousands of homes destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of acres torched over the span of a few years, and millions of people plunged into preventative darkness when the winds blow. And electric rates customers have to pay only ever go up. None of this should be acceptable as business as usual. Customers always lose under a monopoly. In the absence of seller competition for a commodity critical to modern life, prices are guaranteed to always be as high as the monopoly can get away with (see "regulatory capture" above). Customers have no choice of provider, and the monopoly knows it.There is no incentive to provide top-notch service in a monopoly either, because dissatisfied customers have nowhere to flee to. Huntington Beach has the crappiest grid reliability of any place I've ever lived. We can do better with local control. Governor Newsom and others in Sacramento are threatening to take over bankrupt PG&E unless it makes substantive structural reforms. If the state makes a similar move against SCE, we won't have much of a voice in that. Lobbying, yes, but we don't get a vote, and we'll have no control over how the new public utility is run. Accountability is likely to be poor. We'd be in local control with a CCE. As a partner city we will have a vote in how it operates. Local electeds will be much more responsive to utility customers who are also voters. Green energy is cheap energy. Prices continue to plummet for green energy. Last year, LADWP negotiated a 25-year purchase contract for solar energy with four hours per evening of storage supply for the record-setting low price of 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than power from natural gas: https://www_latimes.cam/environment/story/2019-09-10/ladwp-votes-on-ela nd-solar-contract Expect green energy prices to continue to plummet. This has the potential to cause severe problems for the legacy IOUs, turning fossil fuel power plants and long-term fossil contracts into non-competitive stranded assets. The resulting write- downs will be brutal, and legacy IOU customers may be on the hook for another bailout. Leaving SCE in favor of a CCE will reduce our exposure to that. Cheap energy is good for economic competitiveness. Large, power-hungry employers absolutely do factor in the cost of electricity when making relocation or expansion decisions. CCE partner cities will have a leg up in growing their economies because cheaper power will attract new businesses. Green energy rates really do create more green energy. It's just basic economics. If I'm a seller of fossil-fuel electricity, there's no way I'm going to spend money to procure and then convert the fuel into electricity if there is no buyer for it and I would have to eat the loss. Sellers of green energy will expand facilities to meet increasing demand in pursuit of increasing profit.The grid will become greener over time. It really is that simple. CCE incentives for local solar generation and storage reduce the need to import electricity from far-off suppliers. Most residential solar generation systems have peak output well in excess of base loads.That excess production either goes into storage batteries or gets dumped onto the local grid. Having a CCE that offers incentives for solar and storage is smart business because you're essentially building mini local power plants that reduce the need to import energy, resulting in lower costs for the CCE and improving grid resilience to long-distance supply disruptions (San Andreas earthquake, etc). For example, I have 7.15 kW of solar panels on my roof, but the base load of my house (electronics plus refrigerator compressor running) is only 0.5 kW. At this time of year on a sunny day, my panels cover my base load by 9am (or by about 10am on a cloudy day). As production increases as the sun rises higher,the excess production charges my Tesla Powerwall batteries.Today my Powerwalls reached 100% by about 1pm. After that point, my remaining excess production was dumped onto the grid, supplying other local homes and businesses with clean local energy that didn't have to be imported. And as I type this after the sun has set, my home is battery-powered, drawing nothing from the grid, and so nothing had to be imported to supply my power. Green energy offers innovation not possible with fossil fuel energy. Today in certain jurisdictions in this country and others,Tesla Powerwall owners have the option of participating in so- called virtual peaker plants where in exchange for rebates or power discounts, local grid operators can draw on enrolled Powerwalls to beef up grid energy during peak periods when demand is high. I produce way more energy than I can use during the summer months of the year when peak demand can cause problems for the grid. My Powerwalls are at 100%at sunset on summer evenings, and it only takes 20-30%to run my house overnight. I'd be willing to personally enroll in a CCE virtual peaker plant program to be able to get more use out of my stored energy in exchange for reducing the cost of the grid electricity I do consume at times. Long story short, CCE is a no-brainer. It will reduce customer costs, improve grid reliability, increase economic competitiveness, and reduce our financial exposure to the collapse of legacy IOUs which have failed their customers. Please vote YES to pursue a feasibility study re partnering with Irvine in a CCE.Thank you! 2 Mark Bixby 714-401-4526 (cell) 3 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:41 AM To: Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty; Estanislau, Robin Subject: MyHB-#241902 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments p MyHB New Report Submitted -#241902 Status new Worts Order #241902 Issue Type Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Subtype City Council Meeting Notes Dear Mayor Semeta and City Council Members. My name is Jennifer Bledsoe. My husband, Michael and I are residents and voters in Huntington Beach.We do not support the formation of a CCA. nor the effort to join Irvine to form a JPA. Please vote for option B on Agenda Item 21. View the Report Reporter Name Jennifer Bledsoe Erna l SUPPLEMENTAL jenbledsoe66@gmail.com COMMUNICATION Phone Meeting Data: - - .214) 714-469-5174 Report Submitted Agenda ttem No.; G i (AO ^/6 7.-) FEB 03. 2020 -9:40 AM Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:30 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE and partnership with Irvine feasibility study. From: Denise Bletsos<dabletsos@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 6:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE and partnership with Irvine feasibility study. City Council members, My husband and I totally support the Irvine/Huntington Beach feasibility study to provide green energy to households in Huntington Beach and other local communities . This is a no- brainer given the speeding up prospects of global warming. I am delighted that you are moving out on this subject. It is vitally important for all of us to quickly make changes to reduce the impact. We are in wholehearted support of this project and will sign up for green energy the moment it is in place. Sincerely, Denise and Nikolas Bletsos SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting oete: _ a -3,o Agenda itemNo.. 620- 13 74) Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 4:54 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study . . . From: Gino J. Bruno <gbruno@socal.rr.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 4:25 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Chi,Oliver <oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org>; Hopkins,Travis<thopkins@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study . . Council members: Regarding Item #21 on Monday's City Council Agenda . . . Why gamble with the future of our City? I urge you NOTto go forward with any consideration of a Community Choice Energy (CCE) feasibility study, for reasons identified and laid out clearly by your own Staff in its Staff report, including. • The initial cost of the feasibility study is $66,000; • There are significant up-front costs associated with establishing a CCE. As an example, the City of Irvine's recently completed feasibility study found the start-up costs for establishing its own CCE would be $10.05 million [no wonder Irvine wants to share the bill with Huntington Beach]: • Fluctuations in electrical power cost structures could reduce or eliminate any potential ratepayer savings, and increased power supply costs could lead CCE rates to exceed SCE rates; • Future regulatory changes could diminish the competiveness of CCE's when compared with SCE related costs: and • When compared with SCE, the calculated savings for ratepayers are in the neighborhood of 1% or 2%, depending upon variables. Indeed, Attachment #2 to this Item in your Packet (''Joint Rate Comparisons") indicates that for residential, in a best-case, lowest-cost scenario, under SCE the monthly bill would be $111.75, while under CCE the bill would be $110.66, a savings of $1.09, or 0.975%. Utilizing so-called -green energy" is much more expensive, according to the provided Rate Comparison. This proposal is to gamble millions of taxpayer dollars in the hope of saving less than one percent on electricity bills! SUPPLEMENTAL We don't need it . . . we don't want it. COMMUNICATION Why gamble with the future of our City? Meeting Date: cA - _ (AO Agenda IMm No• r� / (dl0 Gino J. Bruno Huntington Beach 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:21 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B - Vote NO on 20 From: Nancy Buchoz <nancybuchoz@yahoo_com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:03 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B -Vote NO on 20 Dear Mayor Semeta and Council, / I urge you to reject ANY further discussion of CCE and vote in favor of Item 21-B. This is V fundamentally a BAD idea for city for many reasons. not the least of which we should NOT be in the energy business' Also: - The City Council will set power rates and can be increased with no oversight and whenever the city wants more of your money. CCEs bypass statutory requirements for pricing approval. Renewable energy costs will rise when state and federal subsidies are taken away. - Despite claims to the contrary CCE customers cannot directly buy renewable power. - CCE will create an very expensive new bureaucracy with pensions for all employees. City of HB currently has over $1 billion in unfunded liabilities, CCE will make that crisis worse. - CCE creates conflicts of interest between politicians, city employees, consultants and energy retailers. -The State of California has mandated use of renewable energy. There is no need to take this risk locally. - If the City Council guesses poorly signing long-term energy contracts the CCE could bankrupt the city. - The customer has no choice with CCE. I also urge you to vote NO on ITEM 20 - and do not reopen the Beach Edinger Specific Plan with Amendments to the Specific Plan. This action will undo all the protection to our community that we fought for in 2013. It will open the door to "By Right" development that will take away ALL LOCAL ZONING CONTROL. Please vote NO!! Sincerely, Nancy Buchoz SUPPLEMENTAL Tad Buchoz COMMUNICATION 9001 Rhodesia Dr S E H B 92646 Meeting ante: ,.� - Agenda ltern Ivo.; l (/37r) Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:11 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW: Agenda items...3 Feb 2020 From: Sylvia Calhoun<skc347@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:10 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda items...3 Feb 2020 STOP CCE YES on#21 B NO on #20 Sylvia Calhoun, Ht3 resident since 1982 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting o : 3 - AO Agenda lilem No.; ,-A I (de - /3 ?.S Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:31 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO on Agenda item 21-NO CCA! From: Sherry Daniels<sherryd628@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 3:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO on Agenda item 21-NO CCA! Dear Mayor Sentra and Councilmembers, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to Agenda item #21 . I believe in smaller government, and not only should our city not be in the energy business, it wouldn't manage it very effectively, if it was. The CCA is just another ploy for special interests to get taxpayer money. I'm strongly opposed to spending money $60k+ on a feasibility study, and furthermore, on the millions of dollars in start up costs,just to save a few pennies. In my almost 50 years of living in this city, this is one of the most foolish propositions I have ever heard of. I frequently hear from Council, on the lack of money for repairs, maintenance, unfunded liabilities, yet now there is $60,000 for a study? How many potholes can we fix with that? How many more workers can we hire to monitor our parks, clean the disgusting bathrooms at the beach? I'm so tired of council members who don't listen to the residents of HB, but have an ear and hand open for the special interests. I will be watching this vote closely, so will my family and friends. We are holding any council person who approves this, accountable at election time. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sherry Daniels SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meeting Date: = -- Agenda ►tam Ktn ONO -.37.1, Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:43 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Option B From:G-Ma Rosie<gmarosie2000@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 1:00 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Option B Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: At the last city council meeting, during a discussion regarding Item 31-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 (3rd Street Commercial Building) Council member Carr eloquently spoke of her concern regarding government overreach. So it seems ironic that, when I examined the agenda for the upcoming city council meeting on February 3, 2020 I saw Agenda Item 21- Review and consider the Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study options. If anything would qualify as"government overreach" it would be the city taking over functions of a public utility. Other cities of comparable size to Huntington Beach have paid for feasibility studies. They show an upfront cost of$10 Million dollars with a"promised"savings of up to 2%. Where do you think that $10 million dollars will come from?That is the taxpayer's money. If you spend this money, you are violating the public trust. Even if you are convinced that you can finance the upfront costs with a bond measure,the money must be repaid with interest. And you are willing to put our city at risk for what? A 2% savings which I suspect we will never see. I urge you to vote for Option B on Agenda Item 21. I do not want you to continue this discussion for another minute! Best regards, Rosie Dennis SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeeng Date: , O Agenda Ham No.; c .I (o2, ---(31-I 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:42 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: From:geri griffin<geri.griffin@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 7:53 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: We are constantly told by you and Huntington Beach staff that there isn't money in the budget to do things that I'd like to see happen- repaving of roads, replacing worn playground equipment in our parks, hiring park rangers to patrol our parks and enforce regulations. So, when I see Agenda Item 21 on Monday night's city council agenda, I'm concerned. We don't have the money to do the most basic of functions expected of a city government, yet there is $66,000 for a feasibility study regarding a function that local government should have no part? That doesn't just seem troubling. It seems reckless. I urge you to vote for option B on Agenda Item 21 and put the discussion of this topic away for good. Best regards, Geri Dixon SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meee„g Date: - 3--,AD Agenda ttem No.. 0Z0— 3 7S 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:36 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE Feasibility Study --Original Message From: ocsportynurse <ocsportynurse@aol.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 2:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE Feasibility Study To whom it may concern, I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility Study. Karen Escobar SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Data: r - - d O Agenda Item No. d/ (AO -- /:3 7�) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:26 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: YES vote on Feb 3rd agenda item #21 action C From: Michael J Fowler<playbackmike@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2,2020 10:32 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:YES vote on Feb 3rd agenda item#21 action C Council People: Please vote YES on Feb 3rd agenda item #21 action C to investigate the feasibility of partnering with Irvine's CCE efforts. A move to green electricity any away from fossil fuel produced electricity is the future. Thank you, Mike Fowler HB resident SUPPLEMENTAL +COMMUNICATION Agenda her, ems.: - 3 _ 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:35 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Electricity From:Craig Frampton<cframpton143@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 9:05 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Electricity 1 am writing to seriously oppose our city even considering that we take over the electricity. First off the start up cost is absurd. Secondly we not buying any green energy. Our city needs to stay out of this expensive government overreach. I'm sure the ones pushing this will blow the dog whistle like last time and hb huddle and outside activist will be speaking. Trying to push their agenda. I hope common sense prevails. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting late: ,2Z -3 Agenda Item No. — 7s 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:29 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Feasibility Study/Partnering with Irvine From: gillsbkmc@aol.com <gillsbkmc@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:14 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Feasibility Study/Partnering with Irvine Dear Council members, item #21 action C which will investigate the feasibility of partnering with Irvine's Community Choice Energy (CCE) efforts. Please vote yes for this important action. Thank you for your attention to our email. Kellie and Robert Gillespie Home and Business Owners in the city for over 35 years SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Agenda ttem No.;.- I (AO —l3 7.1) Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:32 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Community Choice Energy (CCE) From: Roger Gloss<rogergloss@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 2:09 PM To: Semeta, Lyn <Lyn.Semeta@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Community Choice Energy(CCE) Honorable Mayor Semeta: My name is Roger Gloss. I am a 50-year resident of Orange County and have lived in Rancho Santa Margarita for more than 22 years. I am an activist and an advocate for clean, sustainable energy for all of Orange County. I urge you to vote in favor of a CCE feasibility study for the City of Huntington Beach. Now is a particularly opportune time to move forward, as Irvine is seeking other Orange County cities to join them in a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA will be able to offer residents and businesses greater choice in purchasing electricity, with options for more renewable energy. There are many CCEs already operating successfully throughout California. CCE offers consumer choice and local control of electricity at competitive rates. Thank you for your leadership. Roger Gloss Rancho Santa Margarita rogergloss@gmail.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meeeng Date: - —de) Agenda 1fern No.t ;?2,/ (c)10 � 7� 1 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 10:58 PM To: Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty; Estanislau, Robin Subject: ® MyHB-#241554 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments [] MyHB New Report Submitted -#241554 Status new Work Order #241554 Issue Type Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Subtype City Council Meeting Notes City Council Meeting, February 3. 2020. Agenda item 21 -220-1375 Review and consider the Community Choice Energy(CCE) Feasibility Study options. Community Choice Energy (CCE) provides a path to lower energy costs for the residence of Huntington Beach as well as providing a positive revenue stream. Information from cities that have implemented CCE programs indicate that the return on investment is relativity short. CCE also provides flexibility in selecting power sources and creating energy saving programs. I would like to encourage the members of the City Council to adopt 20-1375 option A or option C. Option A is the bare minimum that should move forward and option C is similar but provides the experience of the City of Irvine. CCE's are a win-win for the residence and for the City of Huntington Beach. It is also in the best interest of other cities that have adopted CCE's for Huntington Beach to succeed. I understand there will be some negative dialog and maybe attacks on supporters of CCE. It is hard to understand this since there is evidence of positive outcomes. These attacks may come from those that just don't like change or possibly from outside forces that have other conflicting financial interest. I encourage the City Council reject the negativity and take a step into the future and at least study the feasibility of CCE, Thank you. View the Report Reporter Name Danny Gray SUPPLEMENTAL Email COMMUNICATION danny_gray@cox.net Meeting Date: rA - Phone Report Submitted —1 FEB 02, 2020 -10:58 PM Agee No, GA I L) / '3 /} Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:41 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Say NO to Reckless Spending From: Eileen Harris <eharris@windes.com> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 8:52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Say NO to Reckless Spending It is long past time to stop the reckless spending on feasibility studies that make no logical sense. Please vote NO to wasting taxpayer money on Agenda Item #21. Our City should NOT run its own electricity company for all the reasons identified and laid out by the Council's own Staff. Do something that matters for our community. Our parks are littered with stolen bikes, trash, needles, and drug addicts. Children can no longer play or have birthday parties in the parks because no one wants to subject their children to these drug addicts and diseases. The children's swings and slides are falling apart. Our Main Street and pier have homeless drug addicts passed out all over the place. Our pension liability is going to bankrupt the city. Stop making excuses as to why these issues cannot be solved and do something. Your job is to listen to what your constituents want. No one moved to Huntington Beach to live next door to recovering addicts. No one moved to Huntington Beach to have it filled with HDD or junkies breaking into our cars and stealing items off our porch. How about hiring a park ranger? Works for Irvine. Think of the money and time wasted on the shelter fiasco. This is not brain surgery This is common sense. A feasibility study is NOT what you should be spending our money or time on Saving 1% on an electric bill is not what the residents in Huntington Beach care about. Not even close' Use COMMON SENSE and vote NO on Agenda Item #21. Thank you, Eileen Harris CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error,you are advised that any disclosure,copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover,any such disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client,accountant-client, or other privileges as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error,please contact us by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Imo: - Agenda (tarn Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:26 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Vote No on Item 21 From: Taylor Haug<taylorhaug@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:21 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Vote No on Item 21 As an HB resident and homeowner, I urge you to vote no on item 21 Thank you, Taylor Haug SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION weeng Dater Agenda Item Mo. r — t Esparza. Patty From: Fikes,Cathy Sent Monday, February 3, 2020 10:30 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject FW:Agenda Item 21 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION From: Michael Hefter<prphan82@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 5:08 PM Meeting Date: c7 -' ` 1'� To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> / Subject:Agenda Item 21 Agenda Item No., A/ /C Ji_ /3 7r) Dear City Council, I urge a YES vote on Feb 3rd agenda item #21 action C to investigate the feasibility of partnering with Irvine's CCE efforts. Partnering with Irvine makes the most sense because a larger customer pool will both lessen the startup costs apportioned to each customer as well as providing increased leverage for negotiating power supply contracts. The Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) model has failed California. Let's review some history. The CPUC regulators and the electric utilities (SCE, PG&E, SDG&E) became too chummy with each other, resulting in "regulatory capture" where the utilities drove the regulatory process, yielding fat paychecks for utility executives and handsome returns for shareholders while neglecting critical maintenance and upgrade needs. This failure has resulted in hundreds of deaths, thousands of homes destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of acres torched over the span of a few years, and millions of people plunged into preventative darkness when the winds blow. And electric rates customers have to pay only ever go up. None of this should be acceptable as business as usual. Customers always lose under a monopoly. In the absence of seller competition for a commodity critical to modem life, prices are guaranteed to always be as high as the monopoly can get away with (see "regulatory capture" above). Customers have no choice of provider, and the monopoly knows it. There is no incentive to provide top-notch service in a monopoly either because dissatisfied customers have nowhere to flee to. Huntington Beach has the crappiest grid reliability of any place I've ever lived. We can do better with local control. Governor Newsom and others in Sacramento are threatening to take over bankrupt PG&F? unless it makes substantive structural reforms. If the state makes a similar move against SCE, we won't have much of a voice in that. Lobbying, yes, but we don't get a vote, and we'll have no control over how the i new public utility is run. Accountability is likely to be poor. We'd be in local control with a CCE. As a partner city, we will have a vote in how it operates. Local electeds will be much more responsive to utility customers who are also voters. Green energy is cheap energy. Prices continue to plummet for green energy. Last year, LADWP negotiated a 25-year purchase contract for solar energy with four hours per evening of storage supply for the record-setting low price of 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour,which is cheaper than power from natural gas: Los Angeles OKs a deal for record-cheap solar power and battery storage Expect green energy prices to continue to plummet. This has the potential to cause severe problems for the legacy IOUs, turning fossil fuel power plants and long-term fossil contracts into non- competitive stranded assets. The resulting write-downs will be brutal, and legacy IOU customers may be on the hook for another bailout. Leaving SCE in favor of a CCE will reduce our exposure to that. Cheap energy is good for economic competitiveness. Large,power-hungry employers absolutely do factor in the cost of electricity when making relocation or expansion decisions. CCE partner cities will have a leg up in growing their economies because cheaper power will attract new businesses. Green energy rates really do create more green energy. It's just basic economics. If I'm a seller of fossil-fuel electricity, there's no way I'm going to spend money to procure and then convert the fuel into electricity if there is no buyer for it and I would have to eat the loss. Sellers of green energy will expand facilities to meet increasing demand in pursuit of increasing profit. The grid will become greener over time. It really is that simple. CCE incentives for local solar generation and storage reduce the need to import electricity from far-off suppliers. Most residential solar generation systems have peak output well in excess of base loads. That excess production either goes into storage batteries or gets dumped onto the local grid. Having a CCE that offers incentives for solar and storage is smart business because you're essentially building mini local power plants that reduce the need to import energy, resulting in lower costs for the CCE and improving grid resilience to long-distance supply disruptions (San Andreas earthquake, etc). For example, I have 7.15 kW of solar panels on my roof, but the baseload of my house (electronics plus refrigerator compressor running) is only 0.5 kW. At this time of year on a sunny day, my panels cover my baseload by 9 am (or by about 10 am on a cloudy day). As production increases as the sun rises higher, the excess production charges my Tesla Powerwall batteries. Today my Powerwalls reached 100% by about 1 pm. After that point, my remaining excess production was dumped onto the grid, supplying other local homes and businesses with clean local energy that didn't have to be 2 imported. And as I type this after the sun has set, my home is battery-powered, drawing nothing from the grid, and so nothing had to be imported to supply my power. Green energy offers innovation not possible with fossil fuel energy. Today in certain jurisdictions in this country and others, Tesla Powerwall owners have the option of participating in so-called virtual peaker plants where in exchange for rebates or power discounts, local grid operators can draw on enrolled Powerwalls to beef up grid energy during peak periods when demand is high. I produce way more energy than I can use during the summer months of the year when peak demand can cause problems for the grid. My Powerwalls are at 100% at sunset on summer evenings, and it only takes 20-30% to run my house overnight. I'd be willing to personally enroll in a CCE virtual peaker plant program to be able to get more use out of my stored energy in exchange for reducing the cost of the grid electricity I do consume at times. Long story short, CCE is a no-brainer. It will reduce customer costs, improve grid reliability, increase economic competitiveness, and reduce our financial exposure to the collapse of legacy IOUs which have failed their customers. Please vote YES to pursue a feasibility study re partnering with Irvine in a CCE. Thank you! 4.. t ,4 $ ac ! { , V / - wry ) 4 .„ v „r .111111001.14111f.7., EA Los Angeles OKs a deal for record-cheap solar sla power and battery storage The Eland solar contract had been delayed due to concerns raised by the city electrical workers union. Michael Heiter "The modem conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith 3 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:39 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCA From:William HennertyJr.<billhennerty@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 1,2020 6:13 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc:Gates, Michael<Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Chi, Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:CCA City Council, NO to CCA There are many reasons why this is not the right move for our city. I encourage council to vote "NO" on agenda item 21 (CCA) Thank you, Bill Ilennerty Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: -,i - Agenda ttiam No.; (ozc 1-� 7f Esparza. Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 4:26 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: I AM AGAINST MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CCE FEASIBILITY STUDY From:volkswgngrl@aol.com <volkswgngrl@aol.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 2:44 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: I AM AGAINST MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CCE FEASIBILITY STUDY I AM AGAINST MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CCE FEASIBILITY STUDY! We should not be wasting$66K to do a study when there are far better things to use that money for in HB. Please use our tax dollars wisely. Thank you! Jaclyn Homan SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeeng Date: A - G2V) Agends Ilan No4 A / (io -13 I-S" t Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:39 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: HB/Irvine Community Choice Energy SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting lam: 03 -. - } From:Michael Hoskinson<mikehosk@me.com> .,]()�, I Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:17 PM Agenda rtem No.�al)/rI a. -13 7 S To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hborg> Cc:Chi,Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org>; Gates, Michael<Michael.Gates@surfcity-hb.org>; Vigliotta, Mike <MVigliotta@surfcity-hb.org>; irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine.org;CityCouncil@tustinca.org; citycouncil@costamesaca.gov; citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov; Susan Goulding<sgoulding@scng.com>; Julia.Sclafani@latimes.com; Katy Grimes<katy@californiaglobe.com> Subject: HB/Irvine Community Choice Energy Once again the disaster that is Community Choice Aggregation(or Energy) rears its head in Huntington Beach, now in the form of an invite from Irvine to join a co-op of cities forming a new and expensive bureaucracy called a JPA* (Joint Powers Authority). CCA was first brought to our city council in 2017*. During that time a compelling case was made that implementation would end in financial disaster for HB. CCA was scrapped because of that effort. 2 years later the truth of CCA is worse, not better. While this issue of CCA is complex it boils down to these points: • The City Council will set our power rates. Rates can be increased with no oversight and whenever the city wants more of your money. CCAs bypass statutory requirements for pricing approval. • The customer has no choice with CCA. • Renewable energy costs will rise when state and federal subsidies are taken away. • Despite claims to the contrary CCA customers cannot directly buy renewable power. • CCA will create an very expensive new bureaucracy with pensions for all employees. City of HB currently has over $1 billion in unfunded liabilities, CCA will make that crisis worse. • CCA creates conflicts of interest between politicians, city employees, consultants and energy retailers. • The State of California has mandated use of renewable energy. There is no need to take this risk locally. • If the City Council guesses poorly signing long-term energy contracts the CCA could bankrupt the city. Viewed through the prism of Risk Management CCA's dangers far outweigh the benefits. No issue ever before council has the destructive possibilities that Community Choice Energy does. CCA is an Enron-Level disaster in the making. As CCA is technical and complex it requires a deep dive to understand exactly how the sausage is made and the public's money is stolen. Read on for the details. i Sometimes bad ideas die, killed by the weight of their misconceptions. But sometimes bad ideas thrive by hope, platitudes, greed and outright lies. That is Community Choice Aggregation (Energy). Lets review the talking points and uncover the underlying truth. What is Community Choice Aggregation? Here's how it works. Local government agencies form a new, semi-invisible government agency to purchase and sell electricity. The local utility company, such as SCE,provides transmission, distribution and customer billing services for a fee paid by the new agency's customers. All people who live and do business in the area become customers of the new agency unless they ask to "opt out. " Lets begin with the lynchpin of CCA-Energy Subsidies. "A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive" From Force'.: "There is no doubt that (these)subsidies incentivize renewables, but what do they do to the cost of the electricity generated by them? They actually increase the cost. However, this cost is transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and so goes unnoticed by most Americans. Using the per-kWh subsidy numbers from EIA and UT in the figure above, each kWh of solar produced in 2010 received 88¢, more than ten times the actual cost of any other energy source. These subsidies have to be added to the retail cost of that energy to determine total costs since that's what was actually spent to produce it. So in 2010 and 2011, solar cost about 100¢per kWh, and in 2013 and 2014, solar cost about 80¢per kWh. For comparison, nuclear energy cost between 4¢ and 5¢per kWh to produce over this time period. Remember, though, the cost to produce energy is not the same as the price charged for it. Price is set by the region and the market, and has add-ons for transmission, grid maintenance and other non production costs. Subsidies decrease the price while increasing the cost. " 1) Because renewable energy is always more expensive* than"system power" (fossil power sold through CAISO daily markets and hour-ahead markets) CCA's ability to offer competitive energy is solely dependent on taxpayer subsidies. These subsidies are now on the chopping block. "The Trump administration is again seeking severe cuts to the US. Energy Department division charged with renewable energy and energy efficiency research, according to a department official familiar with the plan. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would see its $2.3 billion budget slashed by about 70 percent, to $700 million, under President Donald Trump's fiscal 2020 budget request." "Without that cash infusion, the wind and solar industries will need to become even more efficient, competing with energy sources such as natural gas and nuclear that will continue to receive federal subsidies. Under federal tax law, oil and natural gas drillers are singled out for lucrative deductions based on the amount of energy they produce.And nuclear power plants receive a long list offederal benefits, including a $500 million cap on liability in the event of a meltdown." Choice. Proponents of CCA say "consumers want choice" 1) The customer has no"choice" under CCA. The city council or JPA makes all energy purchases. All of SCE's former customers are forced to become the CCA's customers and must"Opt-Out" if they want remain an SCE customer. If CCA is such a good deal why are customers automatically enlisted? because the consultants that implement CCAs realized a much higher retention rate when they do. If given an actual choice and the facts people do not willingly choose CCA. 2 Cost. Proponents say "ratepayers bills will go down" 1) When I began researching CCA four years ago I attended or watched over a dozen presentations including the meeting at our main library on March 20th, 2017. At the time all of the presentations quoted that ratepayers could "possibly receive 5%savings through CCA".Now, CCAs are claiming possible savings of 2%. That's a 3%drop in the promoted,not actual, savings in just 2 years. The CCA pricing propaganda is going in the wrong direction. 2) CCAs claim that they will buy power"more competitively"than SCE or other IOUs. This is impossible as SCE's scale is massive compared to any particular city or JPA and thus cities will always have less buying power,not more than the SCE. The proposed Irvine group would encompass Irvine, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach,Newport Beach and Tustin; of which the combined population is 763,182. SCE's coverage area has a population of 20,549,812. To put that in perspective the proposed Irvine joint CCA would be just 3.71% of SCE's coverage area...Kern County alone has more people than all of the proposed Irvine CCA combined. It's like your corner grocer claiming he can sell Corona cheaper than Costco...economies of scale and common sense tell us that cannot be true. r $0. Southern California Edison l �� ■ServkeArea 111 1..+.. .r. , (. ......a a w'r.Cr 11111;ip c. 3) How exactly do CCAs offer lower rates than IOUs? SCE, PG&E and SDG&E must go before the PUC's Energy Resource Recovery Account(ERRA) and General Rate Case(GRC) and disclose their future pricing. CCAs get to sit there and take note. Then they price their power fractionally less than the IOUs. It's like having to disclose your cards at poker but the other guy doesn't. This way CCAs can always appear competitive. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Costs Rates/s 4) You're never free from SCE. CA energy regulators increased the fees (PCIA-Power Charge Indifference Adjustment,the charge that SCE levies for every customer lost to CCA)by 1.68%,topping 5%overall. This comes directly out of any proposed "savings"CCAs might offer. From the Newport Beach Independent: "Laguna Beach decided not to participate in the proposed clean energy authority,partly because of a recent ruling by the California Public Utilities Commissions that allows investor-owned utilities to recover costs (PCIA)from customers leaving their system, Shohreh Dupuis, assistant city manager and director of public works said in a statement to the Daily Pilot. ". We strongly suspect that the Irvine CCA is being rushed right now because of the PCIA increase. Quote from Dawn Weisz, Mann Clean Energy CEO March 20th, 2017 "We must make SCE whole (with PCIA), we have no idea what that costs, SCE working on model now, biggest unknown for CCA" 3 5) Recently a former energy executive with deep knowledge of CCA reviewed Irvine's feasibility study and found that, at best, a$.88 per month savings for the average household. 6) Startup costs. $10 million for 1-1B alone. 7)During the CCA meeting held at HB's main library on March 20th, 2017 Lancaster junior city manager Jason Caudle(current CEO of the Lancaster Ca Choice Energy Authority) said `you can't do it cheaper and greener than SCE, We have not seen cheaper energy" CalcilOiCe NOME OE NUM OF CCA CCA HISTORY OUR SF RVICFS MEO A ABOUT CAI CHOICE • ^ F r afar JASON ' -• CAUDLE + ! c Green Energy Fraud. Proponents of CCA say "you will be able to buy Green Energy" 1) CCAs purchase fossil fuel energy and sell it as"green"by a process known as"Greenwashing". Greenwashing happens when a renewable energy provider like a solar farm, which receives massive taxpayer subsidies, produces energy. When 1 megawatt of clean energy is produced the solar farm operator can issue a REC (renewable eneru certificate),they can then sell the REC to a CCA which purchases fossil fuel energy and applies the REC to the purchase,thereby "greenwashing" that megawatt of power allowing the CCA to call it "renewable", or "green" energy. Think of RECs as a taxpayer subsidized "discount coupon"allowing CCAs to purchase cheap fossil fuel and fraudulently pass it off to ratepayers as "Green" energy. The RECs game,and the profits derived from misleading consumers, is over with the implementation of AB 1110 in late 2019. 2) Because of the physical reality of the grid the consumer cannot *buy* green,or renewable, energy. Our grid system delivers power to customers, it wouldn't know what energy is green or otherwise. All CCAs claim that consumers can, in fact, directly buy renewable power through the CCA and they even sell tiered plans where the consumer is offered increased amounts of"green energy" if they pay more. This is fraud. There is no way to 4 take power produced from a renewable source and separate it from the power produced by SCE and send it to a customer. "When electricity is generated—either from a renewable or non-renewable power plant—the electrons added to the grid are indistinguishable".NREL 3) Because they are always subsidized by the taxpayers renewables are always more costly and when subsidies are decreased or removed will massively increase consumer costs. The concept and pricing are a scam and will only continue to be viable as long as renewable energy is subsidized. After that the game is over and taxpayers will be stuck with wildly escalating energy bills. 4) The state of California already mandates the use of renewables, fully 50%of the state's energy must come from renewables by 2030. Because of this there is no need to take the risk of CCA. Accountability and Potential Misuse. 1) IOUs must go before the Public Utility Commission(PUC) to ask for rate increases. CCAs are under no such burden, a rate increase can be made at the whim of a city council or the JPA. 2) Every time the city needs an infusion of cash the urge to raise energy rates will be irresistible for unprincipled leaders. In a city with 200k residents and 1000s of commercial ratepayers raising their rates even 1%would result in massive revenue increases. To politicians who are constrained by the fiscal realities of CA this ability will be like catnip. It is a tool that should never be in the hands of politicians. 3) Joint Powers Authority. A JPA is simply a legal formation allowing cities to collude on CCA. The JPA will be populated with council people. 4)No actual choice. Although billed, literally, as"choice" the customer's only possible decision is whether they stay or exit the CCA. SCE. 1) Power Generation is the riskiest part of the retail energy business due to fuel and maintenance costs. IOUs want out of the generation business. CCA gives SCE a way to get out of long-term contracts. Then SCE charges CCAs for energy transport and billing and keeps all customers on the hook with monthly PCIA fees. With CCA SCE literally has their cake and eats it all up. New Bureaucracy and Fiscal Danger. 1) CCAs will create a massive new bureaucracy with new upfront costs($10 million), pensions and ongoing liabilities. And, because no one in local government has any experience buying power in the energy markets any choices they make could have disastrous consequences for the taxpayers of HB. CCAs will sign long-term energy contracts that will be irrevocable. If cities guess wrong they will fiscally encumber their towns, at a time that all CA cities are scrambling to increase revenue and decrease costs. Implementation of CCA could be catastrophic. Think Enron. 2) Irvine CCA will be in precarious financial situation because CPUC (Rulemaking 18-07-003: "DECISION ON 2019 RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD PROCUREMENT PLANS") upholds SB350, which requires all energy providers to have executed long-term contracts for their renewable energy. This means that Irvine, like all CCAs, will (i)need tens of millions of dollars as collateral to execute these energy contracts... or (ii) Irvine will keep this liability secret while launching its CCA, and then escalate its retail electricity prices to attempt to raise tens of millions of dollars to fund its looming contract liability. The consultants operating Irvine's CCA will likely tell few, if any City of Irvine staffers about this (assuming they know), and will attempt to push Irvine into figuring out how to make things work down the road, after the Irvine CCA launches. Unlike MCE and SCP,which have on hand $217 MM and $60 MM in cash& securities, respectively, and have already executed much of their req'd long term energy contracts,this is not a smart time to be launching a new CCA because new CCAs don't have the requisite financial strength to execute long-term energy contracts. As s things progress, the consultants will be taking their fee money from Irvine while claiming the financial calamity was beyond their knowledge. 3)The danger of a city or JPA's insolvency because of starting and running a CCA cannot be overstated. CCAs sales points are false, startup costs are huge, bureaucracies are increased and ratepayers are put in fiscal and actual danger from the implementation of CCA. 4) Looking over Irvine's feasibility study it appears to rely heavily on existing CCAs (Marin Clean Energy et al...) cash on hand. From energy expert Jim Phelps: "... the early CCAs all benefitted from massive use and abuse of RECs. RECs allowed early CCAs to sell "clean"energy that was little more than inexpensive system power (fossil power sold through CAISO daily markets and hour-ahead markets)plus a certificate. CCAs then benchmarked their prices against PG&E's (high)prices, and sold this clean energy at a premium to consumers. In other words, NorCal CCAs sold high-profit-margin "REC clean energy"against an incumbent utility whose prices were high, and in the process banked millions of dollars. " 4) The unbundled RECs game, and the profits derived from misleading consumers, is over with the implementation of AB 1110(Greenhouse gases emissions intensity reporting) in late 2019. 5) Jim Phelps "The schism between old CCAs and new CCAs—the haves and the have nots—is seen by many in the energy industry. We all believe that newer CCAs will fail financially, while older CCAs with large cash holdings survive—these guys are getting credit ratings as they prepare to float bonds. That—$47 million reserve fund that Irvine's consultant shows in its pro forma table for CCA is...fiction. Cities may have a "financial firewall"that insulates them from PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) liabilities, but they will STILL incur on-going costs for bonds, Feed-in Tariffs, etc. Failures will be messy& expensive for cities. " Physical Danger. 1)Ratepayers enjoy stable electricity with IOUs like SCE. Recent intentional blackout events highlight the danger of the CA government involving themselves in the energy business, with disastrous results. CA is in the grip of environmental regulatory insanity forcing costs to skyrocket and reliability to plummet. CCAs are the local extension of those regulatory overreaches. Ask any of the 800,000 PG&E customers who recently had their lights turned out how they feel about energy reliability. 2) Our grid was not designed to handle renewables. Renewables like solar power overload the grid with energy that must sometimes be offloaded to other states or risk overload. This puts great stress on the CA grid. 3)"Besides having the most expensive electricity west of the Mississippi River in the continental U.S., California already has the least reliable electricity,"Forbes reported. "California easily leads the nation with nearly 470 power outages a year, compared to 160 for second place Texas, which is really amazing because Texas produces 125%MORE electricity! (here)." "California's reliability problems will be multiplied as more wind and solar enter the power mix, intermittent resources located in remote areas that cannot be so easily transported to cities via the grid." Conflicts of Interest. 1)Irvine's CCA feasibility study was performed by EES Consulting. From EES' CCA page "EES Consulting, Inc. (EES) is currently providing technical energy consulting services such as feasibility assessment,feasibility peer review services, and implementation and launch services to numerous CCA initiatives in California". So the company tasked with giving a non-biased opinion on whether the CCA would be viable is also the company that would likely run and operate it and be involved in energy purchases profiting handsomely from the commissions received. What is the likelihood that EES would recommend denial of the potential CCA ?Zero. 6 2) During the CCA debate held at HB city hall on 2017 the CCA advocate was Howard Choi, (former Board Chair/General Manager, Office of Sustainability, County of Los Angeles) Mr. Choi left soon after for consultancy job at EES. In conclusion, The HB City Council would be locking our town into a program based on taxpayer-funded subsidies, and massive accounting tricks; in that way CCA is more akin to a Ponzi scheme than an energy program. Government takes taxpayer money to subsidize renewables then mandates program that REQUIRE those same renewables. When(not if)subsidies for renewables are stopped energy prices will naturally skyrocket. Huntington Beach City Council members were elected to lead,to look deeply into the issues that affect its citizens and make the most informed decisions possible. With that in mind please vote NO ON CCA. Yours, Michael Hoskinson Former HB Planning Commissioner 2014-16 http://www.michaelhoskinson.com/community-choice-energy-hbs-enron/ 7 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 5:51 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:CCE Feasibility Study From: Lily Jacinto<lilycabrera@msn.com> Sent: Friday,January 31,2020 5:40 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:CCE Feasibility Study City Counsel Members, On Monday, February 3rd meeting item (21) is on the agenda to consider a large payment to another consulting firm. I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility Study. I'm asking for a NO vote. In no way should the city of HD be our energy provider. Kind regards, Lily Jacinto Sent from my iPad SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date. - -3 -c Agenda ItemNo.: k1 (AoJ37 )S Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:35 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE Feasibility Study From: Tina Jersey<tinamjersey25@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE Feasibility Study To Whom it May Concern: I am against moving forwrad with the CCE Feasibilty Study. Tina Jersey Tina Jersey BANK Code Affiliate 714-321-9479 Live Better By Design Tinar iLiveBetterBvDesian.org LiveBetterByDesign.org SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dade: -.3 - A v Agenda Rem No.: j 1 (41.0 -1,3 7,0 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 8:56 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B - Vote NO on 20 From: Lanee Junghans-Verdugo <Ianeejunghans@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 8:24 AM To: CITY COUNCIL <city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B -Vote NO on 20 Dear Mayor Semeta and Council, I urge you to reject ANY further discussion of CCE and vote in favor of Item 21-B. This is fundamentally a BAD idea for city for many reasons, not the least of which we should NOT be in the energy business! Also: - The City Council will set power rates and can be increased with no oversight and whenever the city wants more of your money. CCEs bypass statutory requirements for pricing approval. Renewable energy costs will rise when state and federal subsidies are taken away. - Despite claims to the contrary CCE customers cannot directly buy renewable power. - CCE will create an very expensive new bureaucracy with pensions for all employees. City of HB currently has over $1 billion in unfunded liabilities, CCE will make that crisis worse. - CCE creates conflicts of interest between politicians, city employees, consultants and energy retailers. -The State of California has mandated use of renewable energy. There is no need to take this risk locally. - If the City Council guesses poorly signing long-term energy contracts the CCE could bankrupt the city. - The customer has no choice with CCE. I also urge you to vote NO on ITEM 20 - and do not reopen the Beach Edinger Specific Plan with Amendments to the Specific Plan. This action will undo all the protection to our community that we fought for in 2013. It will open the door to "By Right" development that will take away ALL LOCAL ZONING CONTROL Please vote NO!' Sincerely, Lanee Junghans-Verdugo SUPPLEMENTAL (714) 800-0544 COMMUNICATION Meeting Date' A - 3 - , Agenda NemNo 2 7 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:32 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE for HB residents From: Pam Kamps<pamkamps@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 3:04 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE for HB residents City Council Representatives, I am a long time HB resident and an environmentalist. I know you are aware of the City of Irvine CCE program. This program is available for us to join and needs to be seriously considered. What do we have to loose by giving the residents of HB the choice CCE offers? I know you all agree that you want to save our environment in any way we can. Our Earth needs our help and every little bit counts. Please vote to make HB a partner in the CCE program that has already been thoroughly researched and voted on by Irvine. Surf City certainly wants to be on the right side of the Climate Change issue we are currently facing. Voting to join with Irvine make sense for our community. Please vote to partner with Irvine. Sincerely, Pam Kamps 21861 Summerwind Ln, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeeng Data: Agenda tem No.; a/ ( _i7r) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 6:14 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:CCE Feasibility Study Original Message From: kathyell<kathyell@verizon.net> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 6:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE Feasibility Study _I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility StudyI m SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: ,Z — - - A,D ► +d•Nem No.;, 1 OD /3-2.1 J Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:30 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item #21 Action C SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION From:Anne Smith Kim <anne_sk@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 7:55 PM Wieling Date: ( — 3 - r7 To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> (*1) Subject:Agenda Item #21 Action C tem N+o c/ _/3 7; Dear City Council, I urge a YES vote on Feb 3rd agenda item #21 action C to investigate the feasibility of partnering with Irvine's CCE efforts. Partnering with Irvine makes the most sense because a larger customer pool will both lessen the startup costs apportioned to each customer as well as providing increased leverage for negotiating power supply contracts. The Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) model has failed California. The CPUC regulators and the electric utilities (SCE, PG&E. SDG&E) became too chummy with each other, resulting in "regulatory capture"where the utilities drove the regulatory process, yielding fat paychecks for utility executives and handsome returns for shareholders while neglecting critical maintenance and upgrade needs. This failure has resulted in hundreds of deaths, thousands of homes destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of acres torched over the span of a few years, and millions of people plunged into preventative darkness when the winds blow. And electric rates customers have to pay only ever go up. None of this should be acceptable as business as usual. Customers always lose under a monopoly. In the absence of seller competition for a commodity critical to modern life, prices are guaranteed to always be as high as the monopoly can get away with (see "regulatory capture" above). Customers have no choice of provider, and the monopoly knows it. There is no incentive to provide top-notch service in a monopoly either, because dissatisfied customers have nowhere to flee to. Huntington Beach has the crappiest grid reliability of any place I've ever lived. We can do better with local control. Governor Newsom and others in Sacramento are threatening to take over bankrupt PG&E unless it makes substantive structural reforms. If the state makes a similar move against SCE, we won't have much of a voice in that. Lobbying, yes, but we don't get a vote, and we'll have no control over how the new public utility is run. Accountability is likely to be poor. We'd be in local control with a CCE As a partner city we will have a vote in how it operates. Local electeds will be much more responsive to utility customers who are also voters. Green energy is cheap energy. 1 Prices continue to plummet for green energy. Last year. LADWP negotiated a 25-year purchase contract for solar energy with four hours per evening of storage supply for the record-setting low price of 3.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than power from natural gas: https://www latimes comlenvironmentlstorv/2019-09-10lladwo-votes-on-eland-solar- contract Expect green energy prices to continue to plummet. This has the potential to cause severe problems for the legacy IOUs, turning fossil fuel power plants and long-term fossil contracts into non-competitive stranded assets. The resulting write-downs will be brutal, and legacy IOU customers may be on the hook for another bailout. Leaving SCE in favor of a CCE will reduce our exposure to that. Cheap energy is good for economic competitiveness. Large, power-hungry employers absolutely do factor in the cost of electricity when making relocation or expansion decisions. CCE partner cities will have a leg up in growing their economies because cheaper power will attract new businesses Green energy rates create more green energy It's just basic economics. If I'm a seller of fossil-fuel electricity, there's no way I'm going to spend money to procure and then convert the fuel into electricity if there is no buyer for it and I would have to eat the loss. Sellers of green energy will expand facilities to meet increasing demand in pursuit of increasing profit. The grid will become greener over time. It really is that simple. CCE incentives for local solar generation and storage reduce the need to import electricity from far-off suppliers. Most residential solar generation systems have peak output well in excess of base loads. That excess production either goes into storage batteries or gets dumped onto the local grid. Having a CCE that offers incentives for solar and storage is smart business because you're essentially building mini local power plants that reduce the need to import energy, resulting in lower costs for the CCE and improving grid resilience to long-distance supply disruptions (San Andreas earthquake, etc) Green energy will reduce customer costs, improve grid reliability, increase economic competitiveness, and reduce our financial exposure to the collapse of legacy IOUs which have failed their customers. Please vote YES to pursue a feasibility study re partnering with Irvine in a CCE. Thank you! Anne Kim 2 Espa rza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:26 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item #21 action C Original Message From: Greg Kordich <IIkS@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 10:22 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda Item#21 action C Honorable Council Members, I am asking you to support item 21 action c this will attract more business, keep local control away from Sacramento and generate income for the city and residents. THANK YOU sincerely Greg Kordich 40yr. resident of H,B. WIN WIN. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Date: ` 3 - .) Agenda Item No. oZI (_74 3 f Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:43 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Please Vote for Option B!! From: Jan Kubica <hbjan98@yahoo_com> Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 2:27 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Please Vote for Option B!! Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: We are constantly told by you and Huntington Beach staff that there isn't money in the budget to do things that I'd like to see happen like repaving of roads, replacing worn playground equipment in our parks, hiring park rangers to patrol our parks and enforce regulations. So, when I see Agenda Item 21 on Monday night's city council agenda, I'm very concerned! We don't have the money to do the most basic of functions expected of a city government, yet there is $66,000 for a feasibility study regarding a function that local government should have no part? That just doesn't seem troubling, it seems reckless. I really urge you to vote for option B on Agenda Item 21 and put the discussion of this topic away for good. Sincerely, Jan Kubica SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: , , - -3 *4 mNoy c ►L ( o - 3isJ I Esparza, Patty From: Estanislau, Robin Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 10:19 PM To: vanessa martinez Cc: CITY COUNCIL; Chi, Oliver;Gates, Michael; Esparza, Patty Subject: Re: Hello, Vanessa, Our process provides for release of the City Council agenda on Wednesday evenings prior to regularly scheduled meetings on the first and third Monday of each month. The City Council agenda for tomorrow night's meeting was released to the City Council at approximately 6:00 PM last Wednesday evening, January 29th, and immediately following was posted to the city's website at www.huntingtonbeach.legistar.com. Supplemental communications received after distribution of the agenda packet on Wednesday were distributed to Council and made public on the website late Friday afternoon, January 31 st, and any additional information received for tomorrow night's meeting will be distributed tomorrow afternoon after 2:00 PM. I cannot speak to the information sharing practices in Irvine as described below. As for the request that residents identify their City of residence during public comments,the Brown Act states "members of the public cannot be required to register their names, provide other information, complete a questionnaire,or otherwise 'fulfill any condition precedent' to attending a meeting." Public speakers can certainly volunteer that information on their own, but could not be required to do so. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMIJNI1C.ATION Robin Estanislau 3 City Clerk Meeting Date: _ alb Sent from my iPad Agenda / (7.(20 Item No.: On Feb 2, 2020, at 2:31 PM, vanessa martinez <rockonbaileybailey( yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Robin, Please read the below email. I would like to have clarification as to when we can pick up the meeting agenda? Irvine was notified before Huntington Beach residents regarding item 21.The poster posted at 11:29 a.m., yet the city did not post this until the evening? Thank you, Vanessa Martinez Hennerty —Forwarded Message— From: vanessa martinez <rockonbaileybailey@yahoo.com> To: HB City Council <citv.councilasurfcity-hb.orq>; Oliver Chi <oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.orq> Cc: Susan Goulding <sgouldinqAscnq.com>; OC Insider News <ocinsidernews@gmail.com>; Julia Sclafani <julia.sclafanialatimes.corn> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020, 10:03:09 AM PST Subject: Good Morning, 1 Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, I would like the council to reconsider the following for many reasons: . The Agenda Item is 21 and has 3 options: . highly concerned with the release of info given to Kathleen K Treseder and the Irvine community. . Why is our city council sharing information. that our own community had yet received? . Can you please clarify what time agenda's are released per the Brown Act? Can we pick up agenda's before 11 :00 a.m.? Can we reach out to council members asking them to release this information prior to it being posted? Quote from a local resident: "As far as outside influences, this seems like Russia/Ukraine influencing USA elections, but on a local scale. Normally, when you get up and speak at City Council, you fill out a card with your issue, and you identify your city of residence." Mayor Lyn Semeta, can you please request that speakers identify their city of residence before public comments. Thank you, Vanessa Martinez Hennerty <Kim Carr.png> Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:19 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Vote YES tonight on Agenda item 21, Action C From: Judith <judithinhb@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:16 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Vote YES tonight on Agenda item 21, Action C Dear Council Members, I am writing to urge you to vote YES tonight on Action C of Agenda Item 21 to investigate the feasibility of partnering with the City of Irvine's CCE efforts. Like most of my neighbors here in Huntington Beach, I am vitally concerned about our environment and the future economic impact of good decisions. If you have read through the proposal, then you know the obvious advantages to this action: • Existing regulators have failed to perform critical maintenance and necessary upgrades= fires, deaths and lose of homes. • A larger customer pool reduces startup costs to customers—and increases leverage for negotiating our power supply contracts. • Green energy is cheaper and good for economic competitiveness. • Green energy offer innovations not possible with fossil fuel energy. • CCE will reduce customer costs, improve grid reliability, increase economic competitiveness. You have the power to make a strong start on our environmental improvement. PLEASE VOTE YES!!! Thank you. Judith K. Larson, owner resident 8816 Yuba Circle SUPPLEMENTAL Huntington Beach, CA 92646 COMMUNICATION 'sleeting Date: A - 3- AD Aionde uemn No nA l (. 100 ./5 7 d Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:28 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 21 February 3rd Council meeting From: EVENT EXPOS <eventexpos@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:23 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda Item 21 February 3rd Council meeting Dear Mayor Semeta and Council Members: I respectfully request you vote Agenda item 21 : B)Direct staff not to move forward with the CCE Feasibility Study Attached is a screen shot of change.org petitions results at 11 -00am February 3. along with a link to the REAL Huntington Beach residents petition for your perusal of the comments.. Tell Huntington Beach City Council: YES to Choice (CCE) Now CCE will bring_Reed n' tt, lik rtrpton Fein.M Crarww.r Choice 79 wpportaa C•ecc:,an Y; :7.) ar+r<r -►ikrnwgeon B4.d rwy Cou, r VOTE NO to Huntington Beach Spending yam• $66,000 on CCE/CCA Study vote NO to CCE/CCA _Tell Huntirigton Beach City Council VOTE NO,Monday February 3.2020_on agenda item 21 to wasting... Huntington I • l P•op+o's action Committoo L 24.9 iApportw 0 Created Fab l 2020 http://chng.it/QLQCcSYFy9 SUPPLEMENTAL Thank you Yvonne Mauro COMMUNICATION Huntington Beach Resident Meeting Date: 1 Agenda Item No.*, ; / (724) —/.3 7 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:41 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: No CCE feasibility study From:Joelle McNamara <happyinhb@verizon.net> Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 9:12 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No CCE feasibility study I am against moving forward with the CCE feasibility study. It doesn't make sense and seems to be a move to put money in someone's pockets, and will not benefit our city. Joelle McNamara Sent from A01 Mobile Mail Get the new AOI app:miglatstile.aot.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting late: —3— c40 Agenda Item No.; / (cO — 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 4:58 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 From: larry mcneely<Imwater@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 4:57 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda item 21 Vote NO on the study and the effort. lets stay out of the electricity business One more item our city is not in the Real Estate Speculation business vote no on the purchase of the lot on Beach Blvd. Less government the better SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mooing Dale: - -3 - akC Agenda Item No.; -,I ( /37s 1 Esparza, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:41 AM To: Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty; Estanislau, Robin Subject: ® MyHB-#241955 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments [] MyHB New Report Submitted -#241955 Status new Work Order #241955 Issue Type Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Subtype City Council Meeting Notes Oppose Item 21:Review and consider the Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study options. I stand opposed to the City of Huntington Beach becoming a Power Utility. We have enough issues facing our city. Homeless, crumbling roads/wall, public restrooms, and other issues need priority for funds and focus. I strongly encourage you to vote NO on Item 21. Thank you for your attention View the Report Reporter Name Nicholas Mestanas Email nmestanas@gmail.com Phone Report Submitted FEB 03, 2020 - 10:40 AM Please do not change subject line when responding. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mewing Date: Agenda Item No. ' ci — 3 IJ 1 Esparza, Patty From: Estanislau. Robin Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 10:24 AM To: Carr, Kim Cc: Esparza, Patty Subject: Re: 20-1375 Please support Community Choice Energy and 19-1289 Prohibit Weapons at parades and protests Thank you! Sent from my iPad On Feb 1, 2020, at 8:23 PM, Carr, Kim <Kim.Carr@surfcity-hb.org> wTote: FYI... Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Linda Moon <Ismoon4,c msn.com> Date: February' 1. 2020 at 3:30:16 PM PST To: "kim.carrnsurfcity-hb.org" <kim.carrsurfcity-hb.org> Subject: 20-1375 Please support Community Choice Energy and 19-1289 Prohibit Weapons at parades and protests Sustainable energy is essential to our environment and our economy. Please don't hold us hostage to Southern California Edison. Allow Huntington Beach to independently negotiate for sustainable sources of energy. Please support Community Choice Energy Please also support the prohibition of weapons at parades and protests and allow our police to keep the public safe. Linda Sapiro Moon (714)846-1674 5861 Liege Or. Huntington Beach, CA 91649 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meeting Date: — 3 -AO Agenda Item No.; al l (?D l/3 7 s Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:35 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B - Vote NO on 20 From: Russell Neal <russneal@ieee.org> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 12:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B -Vote NO on 20 1 think the City has enough on its plate without taking on the running of a power company. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION meeting Dee. ch - - Jv t? Agenda Item No.; 021 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:37 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO CCE PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF ITEM 21 B- VOTE NO ON 20 From: SHARON OTT<ottcamp@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 9:27 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO CCE PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF ITEM 21 B-VOTE NO ON 20 Dear Mayor Semeta and Council, urge you to reject ANY further discussion of CCE and vote in favor of Item 21-B. This is \ fundamentally a BAD idea for city for many reasons, not the least of which we should NOT be in the energy business! Also: - The City Council will set power rates and can be increased with no oversight and whenever the city wants more of your money. CCEs bypass statutory requirements for pricing approval. Renewable energy costs will rise when state and federal subsidies are taken away. - Despite claims to the contrary CCE customers cannot directly buy renewable power. - CCE will create an very expensive new bureaucracy with pensions for all employees. City of HB currently has over$1 billion in unfunded liabilities, CCE will make that crisis worse. - CCE creates conflicts of interest between politicians, city employees. consultants and energy retailers. -The State of California has mandated use of renewable energy. There is no need to take this risk locally. - If the City Council guesses poorly signing long-term energy contracts the CCE could bankrupt the city. - The customer has no choice with CCE. I also urge you to vote NO on ITEM 20 - and do not reopen the Beach Edinger Specific Plan with Amendments to the Specific Plan. This action will undo all the protection to our community that we fought for in 2013. It will open the door to "By Right" development that will take away ALL LOCAL ZONING CONTROL. Please vote NO!' Thank you for your time. Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL Sharon Ott, 20371 Mansard Ln Huntington Beach COMMUNICATION 1 ', �ieeting Date: r� - � z']1''("J\ (AI --/ 1-4) Agenda Item No., 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:44 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Community Choice Energy (CCE) From: David Parikh <davidparikh@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31,2020 8:17 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Community Choice Energy(CCE) I believe the time spent on theis by the City Council and city staff would be put to better use by focusing on local issues in our city like insuring we have clean streets and safe parks. Southern California Edison is has proposed becoming 80%of energy delivered will be Carbon-free by 2030. I would encourage the city to work with our representatives in Sacramento to help them achieve this goal rather than setting up a complicated city program. I don't think establishing a CCE sounds like a good use of city time. Thanks, David Parikh MagnoliaCenter.com 16835 Algonquin St., 283 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714-761-8884 dave@magnoliacenter.com SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dom: - Agenda Item Na.: 021 ( -/3 7.1) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 4:55 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Say no, please! From: Deby Pierce<deby.pierce@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 4:53 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Say no, please! Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: At the last city council meeting, during a discussion regarding Item 31- Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 (3rd Street Commercial Building) Council member Carr eloquently spoke of her concern regarding government overreach. So it seems ironic that, when I examined the agenda for the upcoming city council meeting on February 3, 2020 I saw Agenda Item 21- Review and consider the Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study options. If anything would qualify as "government overreach" it would be the city taking over functions of a public utility. Other cities of comparable size to Huntington Beach have paid for feasibility studies. They show an upfront cost of$10 Million dollars with a"promised" savings of up to 2%. Where do you think that $10 million dollars will come from? That is the taxpayer's money. If you spend this money, you are violating the public trust. Even if you are convinced that you can finance the upfront costs with a bond measure, the money must be repaid with interest. And you are willing to put our city at risk for what? A 2%savings which I suspect we will never see. I urge you to vote for Option B on Agenda Item 21. I do not want you to continue this discussion for another minute! Best regards, Sign Your Name Here SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date:_ep -..A4) Agenda Item No.; JJ (210 /e 7s) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 5:09 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Say no please From: Deby Pierce<deby.pierce@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31,2020 5:05 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Say no please Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: We are constantly told by you and Huntington Beach staff that there isn't money in the budget to do things that I'd like to see happen- repaving of roads, replacing worn playground equipment in our parks, hiring park rangers to patrol our parks and enforce regulations. So, when I see Agenda Item 21 on Monday night's city council agenda, I'm concerned. We don't have the money to do the most basic of functions expected of a city government, yet there is $66,000 for a feasibility study regarding a function that local government should have no part? That doesn't just seem troubling. It seems reckless. I urge you to vote for option B on Agenda Item 21 and put the discussion of this topic away for good. Sincerely, Deby Pierce SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dete: ) - J - ✓ Agenda rtoem No.; 1 (620 - I-3 7-1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:38 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: SAY NO TO CCA From: berreprincess@aol.com <berreprincess@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 11:24 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: SAY NO TO CCA I see that we have people being told by our city council member, Kim Carr ahead of our city council meetings about items coming up. Next thing we see is out of town people rallying to get others to show up at Huntington Beach's city council meeting for Feb 3rd, 2020 and try to push for a yes vote on the CCA This is disgusting that it is possible that not only is a council member telling these "activist" such things but that they feel they have a right to dictate to a city they do NOT live in on how to do things. SAY NO TO CCA or you are going to cost us money our city does NOT have to waste. This is especially disturbing when residents in our city our being told that there is no money to fix park equipment or anything else. Where is the money going'? So if there is no money for things that our residents would be using with their families than there is NO money to spare for looking into and buying into this CCA scam! Thank you. Anna Plewa SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Derr: c - " o Agenda Item No,� f ( ° /37d Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:41 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda Item 21 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION From: rob.pool.oc@gmail.com <rob.pool.oc@gmail.com> Date; /, ab Meeeng �/ ' — --- --- Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 10:21 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda Item 21 Agenda IIBm NO - /373) Dear Mayor Semeta and City Council Members: I'm writing today to urge you to vote for Option B on Agenda Item 21. Six months ago, after the topic of Community Choice Aggregation was placed before our city for the second time, I did much research. What I learned was troubling. As smaller government is a foundational principle for me, I was troubled by the desire, of some, for our city to jump so quickly into controlling an important utility. As I listened to those in favor of Community Choice Aggregation, it seemed there were two driving factors. The first was income generation for the city while the second involved using a higher proportion of renewable energy. Let's first look at the idea of Community Choice Aggregation as an income stream for our city. I'm very concerned with this concept. I'm not sure if our city should be generating revenue on the backs of its citizen's energy usage. I have read that CCA's in California are not regulated by the CPUC- California Public Utility Commission. As such, a governing body will be setting the rates. Those rates, I assume, will be approved by our city council. Honestly, that troubles me. And I'd hope that would trouble you as well. That leaves the door open for rate increases, not based upon increased energy costs alone, but also based upon the revenue needs of our city. This could serve as an additional form of taxation- and an extremely regressive one at that. No, I'm convinced that our city should not be entering into any arrangement of providing a utility with the expectation of revenue generation. Let's look at what seemed to be the second driving force- renewable energy. The state mandates the use of renewable energy by the IOU's (investor owned utilities) and has a timeline for achieving 100% usage. So the question becomes whether we feel it necessary to be using 100% renewable energy sooner than the state mandates. Bear in mind, the use of increased renewable energy is problematic. We either play a game where we buy RECs (renewable energy certificates) from solar and wind farms, or we go the direct route and develop our own solar and wind farms. As I don't see the open land needed to develop solar or wind farms, I'm going to assume we are going to be purchasing the RECs. RECs don't guarantee that our city is using renewable energy- only that we are subsidizing a particular solar or wind farm's production. All their electricity goes to the grid. Once there. electricity is electricity is electricity. Further, you may not be aware, but Southern California Edison has several alternative methods for their customers, if they so choose, to use higher portions of renewables. These programs are available to both homeowners and businesses. Respond to my email if you'd like the link. Be aware that these programs are at a higher cost. I suspect that is because, in addition to the actual cost of the renewable energy, they are buying RECs. The RECs would increase their cost- just as it would for us. Lastly. If you aren't already familiar with the concept of resource shuffling, you need to be. Now I'd like to discuss some problematic areas of setting up and maintaining CCAs. First, there is the problem with customers opting out. The numbers can change dramatically based upon the percentage of people opting out and staying with their existing IOU. Please don't discount that from happening. Should you decide to move forward I, for one, will be opting out. Second. in 2018 the CPUC increased the PCIA charge. The Power Charge Indifference Adjustment, also commonly known as the "exit fee" is applied to each kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed by the customer and it shows up as a separate charge on every monthly bill. It is critical in determining the viability of a CCA, AND IT CAN CHANGE. With all these concerns. I hope you realize why I'm not in favor of our city even exploring the idea of forming- or joining- a CCA. We do not need a feasibility study. Everything we need to learn can be gathered from looking at the feasibility studies purchased by other cities in our state. Have staff first do an analysis of those, if you must. Citizens are told nearly every day that our city doesn't have the finances to fix this or that. Recently, at the SE meeting, when asked why an upgraded playground has been promised for years and never been completed, Travis had no other response but to shrug his shoulders and say that it wasn't in the budget. wonder if $66K would have helped. As I mentioned before, we can learn a lot by looking at feasibility studies purchased by other cities. Nearly every feasibility study I reviewed promised savings of 1-3%. Most were in the neighborhood of 2%. While those were the promises, one report I read reported the average savings to residents as a result of CCAs in California was .89%. Looking at the Irvine feasibility study and extrapolating the numbers. our upfront cost would be between 8.5-10 million dollars. I ran the numbers tonight and determined that the breakeven point for a household with a family size of three would be just over 6 years. That was based on a cost of 10 million, 200K residents and 2% savings. If the savings are 1% that number rises to 12 years. We are spending an enormous amount of money that we don't have with very real risks, both known and unknown. I don't see this as having a good result for our city. We need to begin doing a better job of prioritizing needs in our city and not be swayed by every shiny bauble that comes along. If asked about priorities in our city, you and I both know CCA wouldn't hit the top ten. It's not wanted. It's not needed. Please vote for option B. Best regards, Rob Pool 2 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 4:23 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Item 21 CCE From: pacj <pacj_03@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 3:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org>; Estanislau, Robin <Robin.Estanislau@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Item 21 CCE Please direct staff to NOT move forward with the feasibility study Thank you Pat Quintana SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meet ng Date: pA 1 1/ l J Agenda Nam No.; Ai (do -/3 7., ) 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:37 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: From: Yvonne Redford <yvonne@2prime.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 8:53 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Dear Mayor Semeta and council members We are constantly told by you and Huntington Beach staff that there isn't money in the budget to do things that I'd like to see happen-repaving of roads. replacing worn playground equipment in our parks, hiring park rangers to patrol our parks and enforce regulations So, when I see Agenda Item 21 on Monday night's city council agenda, I'm concerned. We don't have the money to do the most basic of functions expected of a city government, yet there is S66,000 for a feasibility study regarding a function that local government should have no part? That doesn't just seem troubling. It seems reckless. I urge you to vote for option B on Agenda Item 21 and put the discussion of this topic away for good. Regards, Yvonne Redford SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: ,3 - d Agenda ►tee, / as -- / Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:40 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 for Monday's city council meeting From: ARoyalty-Hanavan <clanhanavan@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 1:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda item 21 for Monday's city council meeting I am asking that the council vote NO on going forward with a feasibility study for establishing HB's own CCE. The cost is high and there is no guaranteed benefit to the residents if CCE is established. Thank you, Amy Royalty SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dale: - -i - .). Agenda Item nlo.; - /3 7s Ems, Patty From: MyHB <reply@mycivicapps.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:45 AM To: Switzer, Donna; Esparza, Patty: Estanislau, Robin Subject: ® MyHB-#241962 Agenda & Public Hearing Comments [] MyHB New Report Submitted - #241962 Status new Work Order #241962 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Issue Type Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Meeting Late: 3 °A v Subtype �� City Council Meeting Agenda Item No. "` Notes Community Choice Energy View the Report Reporter Name Beverly Sansone Email drsansone001@gmail.com Phone 714-955-7199 Report Submitted FEB 03, 2020 - 10:44 AM Please do not change subject line when responding. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 7:40 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: From: Ray Scrafield<octoolguy@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 7:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: I am against moving forward with the CCE feasibility study. Please vote against this item. Ray & Barbara Scrafield SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dab3: — -jcAD Agende Nem No.; / (` — 13 7.5.1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:10 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Yes on Agenda Item #21 A or C - CCE Feasibility Study with City of Irvine or Independently From: Steven C.Shepherd,Architect<steve@shepherdarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:05 AM To:Agenda Comment<agendacomment@surfcity-hb.org>; CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Cc: Fikes, Cathy<CFikes@surfcity-hb.org>;CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Yes on Agenda Item #21 A or C-CCE Feasibility Study with City of Irvine or Independently AGENDA COMMENT l iello Huntington Beach City Council - I strongly support the City of Huntington Beach moving forward with a feasibility study on Community Choice Energy. While it makes the most sense to gear any feasibility study toward taking advantage of the City of Irvine's progress in this area, one way or another, our city should be moving forward to study Community Choice Energy. Its been nearly three years since I first spoke before this council in strong support of Community Choice Energy. At that time CCE appeared to me to be an excellent idea well worth studying. The advantages were obvious: - Free-Market Competition/Consumer Choice for purchasing electrical power - Local Control/Oversight/Accountability for electrical power - Economic Development& Local Investment of rates paid for electrical power These were just some of the advantages that were clear after my initial review and research into CCE then, and now, nearly three years later, everyone can see that these advantages not only existing in theory but have been proven by the actual performances of the 19 existing Community Choice Energy agencies across California. That's right ... 19 existing CCE agencies in California... all offering their residents a choice/local control/local investment with regard to electrical power. As a matter of fact, since the first discussions of CCE before this council back in August 2017, more than 70 new cities/towns have voted to either join an existing CCE or form their own entity. Add this to the fact that Mann Clean Energy (launched in 2010) will be marking its tenth year of operation, it becomes pretty clear that Community Choice Energy is not only viable but certainly here to stay. Please vote YES on Agenda Item #21 A/C. Let's get a CCE feasibility study started. Residents of Huntington Beach deserve a choice! SUPPLEMENTAL Regards, COMMUNICATION Steve Shepherd Meeiing Date: ,), - .3 � Agenda Item No.' — 3-LC Esparza, Patty From: Steven C. Shepherd, Architect <steve@shepherdarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:05 AM To: Agenda Comment; CITY COUNCIL Cc: Fikes, Cathy;CITY COUNCIL Subject: Yes on Agenda Item #21 A or C - CCE Feasibility Study with City of Irvine or Independently AGENDA COMMENT Hello Huntington Beach City Council - I strongly support the City of Huntington Beach moving forward with a feasibility study on Community Choice Energy. While it makes the most sense to gear any feasibility study toward taking advantage of the City of Irvine's progress in this area, one way or another, our city should be moving forward to study Community Choice Energy. Its been nearly three years since I first spoke before this council in strong support of Community Choice Energy. At that time CCE appeared to me to be an excellent idea well worth studying. The advantages were obvious: - Free-Market Competition/Consumer Choice for purchasing electrical power - Local Control/Oversight/Accountability for electrical power - Economic Development& Local Investment of rates paid for electrical power These were just some of the advantages that were clear after my initial review and research into CCE then, and now, nearly three years later, everyone can see that these advantages not only existing in theory but have been proven by the actual performances of the 19 existing Community Choice Energy agencies across California. That's right ... 19 existing CCE agencies in California ... all offering their residents a choice/local control/local investment with regard to electrical power. As a matter of fact, since the first discussions of CCE before this council back in August 2017, more than 70 new cities/towns have voted to either join an existing CCE or form their own entity. Add this to the fact that Mann Clean Energy (launched in 2010) will be marking its tenth year of operation, it becomes pretty clear that Community Choice Energy is not only viable but certainly here to stay. Please vote YES on Agenda Item #21 A/C. Let's get a CCE feasibility study started. Residents of Huntington Beach deserve a choice! Regards, Steve Shepherd SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION P: 714 785 9404 Meeting pace: 3 -d[7 r roam No,• r� I (AO —/ 7 ) Agenda 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:35 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE study Original Message From: Krica <krica256@aol.com> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 2:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE study Dear council members, I am writing to you as a citizen of Huntington Beach to say that I oppose the CCE feasibility study. Thank you, Christina Silva-Salgado (714) 307-7101 Sent from my iPhone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: - 3 - r <: , Agenda Item No., :�I 0)0 / 57s i Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:33 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: From:Toni Smalley<tones4u@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2,2020 1:13 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Dear Mayor Semeta and City Council Members: I'm writing today to urge you to vote for Option B on Agenda Item 21. Please vote for option B. Respectfully Antonette Smalley Sent from my Verizon. Samsung Galaxy smartphone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: - � Agenda Item No.; c d U /3 -0 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 4:26 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FIN: Feasibility Study From:Toni Smalley<tones4u@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 3:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility Study. Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: ,2 1.3 1,),t) Agenda roam No.; f ( . -Is s J Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:41 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda 21 From: Pam Solorzano<pam.solorz@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 9:07 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Agenda 21 Dear Mayor Semeta and council members: We are constantly told by you and Huntington Beach staff that there isn't money in the budget to do things that I'd like to see happen- repaving of roads, lights at crosswalks; one in particular on Bushard and Nantucket Drive where our crossing guard was seriously injured after being hit by a car a couple of years ago, hiring park rangers to patrol our parks filled with drug addicts and enforce regulations. So, when I see Agenda Item 21 on Monday night's city council agenda, I'm very concerned and upset. We don't have the money to do the most basic of functions expected of a city government, yet there is $66,000 for a feasibility study regarding a function that local government should have absolutely no part? Really?? That doesn't just seem troubling, it seems reckless and unnecessary. I urge you to vote for option B on Agenda Item 21 and put the discussion of this topic away for good. Best regards, Pamela and Robert Solorzano Longtime Huntington Beach residents,homeowners SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: .; - - , k(' •Agenda Item No,' - �� Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:09 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO on Item 20 't' YES on ITEM 21.B SUPPLEMENTAL From: Cari Swan<cswanie@aol.com> COMMUNICATION Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:09 AM _ To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Meetin lam. 4 Cc: Chi, Oliver<oliver.chi@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO on Item 20 '*` YES on ITEM 21.8 Agenda Item No.; / ( )p _ fd Dear Mayor Semeta and Council Members, I am writing on behalf of two items on tonight's meeting agenda: #20. Please vote NO on all aspects of this proposed General Plan Amendment (#19-003 Housing Element), and Zoning Text Amendment (#19-006 BECSP Amendment). Both of these are a complete and utter SELL-OUT to the citizens of this community who fought so hard to maintenance our Suburban Beach Community! As you know, these amendment will OPEN THE FLOOD GATE via By-Right Construction. And for what? Perhaps $500,000.00 per year?? Is that what our quality of life is worth to our leaders? Just a simple reminder, each of your Legacy's in this city will be tied to this vote tonight. I hope you chose to do what your constituents elected you to do! #21.B Please vote in favor of "Directing Staff NOT TO MOVE FORWARD with the CCE Feasibility Study. You have heard from me in the past on this subject. You know that I do not support the city engaging or even studying adopting a CCE as it simply IS NOT THE ROLE of City Government to be in the utility business. But since this was first brought forward 3 years ago, much additional information has become available that only affirms what we know to be a VERY back idea. Some of my thoughts: 1. We know the RISKS are incredibly high and far out way any potential benefit. Now that we are a few years into studying some existing CCA/E's we know that proposed savings have gone from 5% to 3% to 2% and across the board are less that 1%. Look no further than the largest CONE that kicked off this entire mess, Marin: "Marin Clean Energy (MCE) has been operational since 2010. Initially, rates for MCE's cheapest electricity option were slightly less than PG&E. Today MCE offers three options, all of which cost more, on average, than PG&E. MCE estimates its customers pay a monthly average of $4 to S32 more than PG&E, with the "cleanest" energy options the most expensive." https://www.allianceofcontracostataxpayers.com/blog/2017/3/27/a-bad-idea-that-only-gets- worse-community-choice-electricity 2. We will NEVER reach economies of scale just based on simple economics and numbers....even if we were to partner with other cities. To compound this, the PICA has stepped in to protect consumers of non-CCE cities and are imposing steeper and steeper penalties to CCE's....why on earth would we step into such a snake pit?? https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-decision-means-higher-costs-for-community-choice- programs/539552/ 3. The energy and renewable industry is EXTREMELY complicated and a never-ending revolving door. It relies on Federal subsidies and complex regulations. Cities are in NO WAY equipped to respond nor should we be!! From the article above: "Local government doesn't belong in the electricity business. It is reckless for government to gamble on risky ventures for which it is ill-prepared and unqualified. "Green" energy companies, consultants, activists and lobbyists all stand to gain politically and financially from the proliferation of CCAs. Public agencies, including Contra Costa County, rely on some of these same sources for advice on CCAs -- a clear conflict of interest. Today's cities and counties struggle to provide essential services, including basic public safety and human services. Throwing precious tax dollars into a CCA money pit won't help the environment. but will burden future generations with additional unwanted debt " 4. It would be a HUGE mistake and irresponsible to put utility rates in the hands of City Council or even a JPA. The current system of regulatory oversight by the PUC is the correct place for this to happen, and not opening the door to unlimited corruption with no oversight. 5. CCE will create an very expensive new bureaucracy complete with salaries and pension obligations. CCE will make our unfunded pension crisis worse. 6. CCE creates conflicts of interest between politicians, city employees, consultants and energy retailers. 7. The State of California has mandated use of renewable energy. There is no need to take this risk locally. 8 If the City Council guesses poorly signing long-term energy contracts the CCE could bankrupt the city. Why on earth would the current city council want to encumber all future councils and staff with what could turn into a complete and total disaster?? What kind of Legacy would this represent? 9. The customer truly has no choice with CCE. 10. Wait to see if Irvine achieves the anticipated results. At this point, while I would like to add more, I need to work and this has already cost me a significant loss of work-time and personal-time which is a very sad situation when ordinary citizens must act as constant oversight to city council and city staff. I urge you to do the right thing. Sincerely, Cari Swan 20412 Mansard Ln 2 Additional resources: https://www.pe.com/2018/09/02/government-controlled-energy-programs-arent-working/ https://www.vox.coml2015/11/9/9696820/renewable-e neray- certificates?fbclid=lwAR2FoOgooGTt6QtJvMk41IKQDNxXfs5f65aWoBe8bhnPtHUmcCtFZrG3C1 E 3 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:36 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B - Vote NO on 20 Importance: High From: Gary Tarkington <garytarkington@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2020 10:31 AM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: NO CCE! Vote in Favor of Item 21 B - Vote NO on 20 Importance: High Dear Mayor Semeta and Council, I urge you to reject ANY further discussion of CCE and vote in favor of Item 21-B. This is L fundamentally a BAD idea for city for many reasons, not the least of which we should NOT be in the energy business! Also: - The City Council will set power rates and can be increased with no oversight and whenever the city wants more of your money. CCEs bypass statutory requirements for pricing approval. Renewable energy costs will rise when state and federal subsidies are taken away. - Despite claims to the contrary CCE customers cannot directly buy renewable power. - CCE will create a very expensive new bureaucracy with pensions for all employees. The City of HB currently has over $1 billion in unfunded liabilities, CCE will make that crisis worse. - CCE creates conflicts of interest between politicians, city employees, consultants and energy retailers. -The State of California has mandated the use of renewable energy. There is no need to take this risk locally. - If the City Council guesses poorly signing long-term energy contracts the CCE could bankrupt the city. - The customer has no choice with CCE. I also urge you to vote NO on ITEM 20 - and do not reopen the Beach Edinger Specific Plan with Amendments to the Specific Plan. This action will undo all the protection to our community that we fought for in 2013. It will open the door to "By Right" development that will take away ALL LOCAL ZONING CONTROL. Please vote NO!! Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL Ann Tarkington COMMUNICATION 9032 Annik Drive Huntington Beach Meelin9 Dato. ` - 3-0 92646 Agenda Item No.; _/ (,)-() —/3 71 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:32 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: No on CCA From: Eileen Tom <emartintom@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 2:12 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No on CCA Greetings Mayor Semeta and HB City Council, As a life long HB resident, I've not been as involved in civic and city hall goings on as I should be But your Agenda item 21 has prompted my first effort to voice a grave concern. Our city should not be getting into the energy business! CCA carries too big of a risk given market fluctuations out of our control. As a citizen, property owner and taxpayer, I am opposed to HB taking on this role There are too many variables, unknowns, and conflicts of interest that. combined with our city's inexperience with navigating running a utility, leave our HB and residents vulnerable financially If council votes to move forward, my husband and I will exercise our right to opt out. Additionally, we will work to educate and convince all of our neighbors, colleagues and friends to do the same. In a time when our city outsources many operations due to cost efficiency. including the newly announced parking enforcement operations, it seems counterintuitive to think our city possess the expertise to successfully execute and run a profitable endeavor. HB, nor the JPA co-op (which will come with expected and unexpected bureaucratic headaches) do not possess the size or influence to be able to buy energy at a discount over time, let alone make a profit. Our city has many more pressing local issues to address! Going into the utility business is not one of them. It is neither the right issue nor the right time to explore such a monumental and risky endeavor. Please vote for Option B on Agenda item 21 on Monday 2/3/20 Respectfully, Eileen Tom HB resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No.: -i (69.0 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:40 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Against CCE Feasibly study Original Message From: Mark Tonkovich <marktonko@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 10:53 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Against CCE Feasibly study To the City Council, I am against the CCE feasibility study, the taxes could be used for many other items need....just look at the streets or homeless or drug problems. Sincerely, Mark Tonkovich Huntington Beach, Ca SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION o: - 3 Agenda Um No.; . / /`3_) 1 Esparza, Patty rr From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:40 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW:Against CCA From: Mark Tonkovich<marktonko@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 1, 2020 12:23 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject:Against CCA To the City Council, I am against the CCA and do not feel the ROI is worth the investment nor feel the city should be involved. Sincerely, Mark Tonkovich Huntington Beach, CA SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION hieseng Deis: A - cA0 Agenda Item No4 A/ ( o—/37JJ Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 8:57 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: STOP CCE YES on #21 B, NO on #20-High Density From: Troxell USA - Ron Troxell <rt@troxellusa.com> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 8:19 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: STOP CCE YES on #21B, NO on#20-High Density NO on CCE Dear Mayor Semeta and Council. Please reject CCE. This is just another layer of government. You have 1 billion in unfunded pension liability now and you want more government' On Agenda Item 21 vote B A. Hire Consultant for$66,000.00 to Study How to Start a CCE B. Do Not Move Forward with CCE Study C. Hire Consultant for$66,000.00 and Considering Partnering with Irvine I also urge you to vote NO on ITEM 20-and do not reopen the Beach Edinger Specific Plan with Amendments to the Specific Plan This action will undo all the protection to our community that we fought for in 2013. It will open the door to"By Right" development that will take away ALL LOCAL ZONING CONTROL. Please vote NO!! 1:11- SUPPLEMENTAL Ron TroxelEnterprise COMMUNICATION 18392 Enterprise Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 — -Te:714-847- 22 Fx A l O Fx:714-847-424 �2 � Data C%'1 Oti Cell 714 733 3042 Connect or Share the new Twistw Level System rrs. ow Item IHo4. A/ (?o -/3 7 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:06 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: No Quarterly Feasibility Study From:Alyssa Wells<alyssa.r.wells28@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,January 31,2020 6:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: No Quarterly Feasibility Study Hello, On Monday, February 3rd meeting item (21) is on the agenda to consider a large payment to another consulting firm. I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility Study. I'm asking for a NO vote. In no way should the city of HB be our energy provider. Regards. Alyssa Wells SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION miming Dole: , - 3 - 0 Agenda Nem No,: /1l (;;;110 1_37 S�) 1 Esparza, Patty From: likes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:30 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 CCE and JPA From:Zimmercol <zimmercol@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, February 2, 2020 3:41 PM To:CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Fwd: Agenda item 21 CCE and JPA Begin forwarded message: From: Zimmerco l <zimmerco 1 @aol.com> Date: Feb 2, 2020 at 12:35 PM To: City Counci <citv.councina,surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda item 21 CCE and JPA I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility Study and the JPA proposed by Mayor Shea of Irvine. To even consider a $66 thousand investment now and ultimately $10 million in the future on an unproven energy experiment is complete mismanagement and disregard of the trust given to you as an elected official. You have the fiscal responsibility to make educated sound decisions on behalf of the citizens of Huntington Beach. A vote to commit to CCE and JPA violates that trust and responsibility. Thank you, Alan Zimmer. Resident, property owner, business owner SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meelrng Date:_.4-.2% _Ageocia item No.:, 42./ (046 J 2,sj 1 Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 10:43 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE Feasibility Study From: casurfmom@aol.com <casurfmom@aol.com> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 10:02 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE Feasibility Study I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility Study. To even consider a $10 million dollar investment on an unproven energy experiment is complete mismanagement of the trust given to you for the fiscal responsibility of the citizens of Huntington Beach. Diana Zimmer Business owner and resident of Huntington Beach Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dale: - 3- 01,0 Agenda hem No.; 011 614) —/3 71/40 1 O i% IPPCO .4" 4rosr,sn CITY OF COSTA MESA Ti Fair hive I P.O.Box 1200,Costa Mesa I California 92628-1200 Phoiw 714.754.5283 l Fax 714.754.5330 I wwwcostamesaca.gov I Katrina.Foleyskeostamcsaca.gov From the Office of the Mayor Katrina Foley February 3, 2019 Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Semeta and Members of the City Council, This evening, February 3, I understand that you will be reviewing options to conduct a Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility Study. As you may know, the Costa Mesa City Council will begin discussing Community Choice Energy at our meeting tomorrow evening, February 4 I support your staff recommended actions A and C, that you move forward with your feasibility study and whether or not you assess the feasibility of joining the City of Irvine's CCE program. The City of Costa Mesa will soon be considering several options as well. Changing the way in which the city, residents, and businesses of any city procure energy is a significant step and one that requires careful deliberation. Considering that there are now 19 active Community Choice programs in California, Huntington Beach has the opportunity to join a growing number of cities that are reducing energy costs and carbon emissions using CCE. The City of Costa Mesa is embarking on the very early stages of studying whether CCE Is right for our City. I am eager to keep an open and active dialogue with the City of Huntington Beach as you move forward in this process. Sin ere y. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Ka r na Foley Meeting Dale: - ,j - ,aC Ma r City of Costa Mesa <,qe _/37 _9 Agenda Ism No.: MAYO I AYOR PRO TE I I COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER ( COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER Katrina FoleyJohn E Stephens Andrea Mary Manuel Chaves Arlis Reynolds Sandra L.Genis Allen R.Mensooi Ai LT+g: At l.ar;. t)astrict 3 L>a+trnt 4 1hum-t' A!Lorsu Ar Lar+. Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 9:48 AM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: Agenda item 21 for Monday's city council meeting From: ARoyalty-Hanavan <clanhanavan@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2020 1:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: Agenda item 21 for Monday's city council meeting I am asking that the council vote NO on going forward with a feasibility study for establishing HB's own CCE. The cost is high and there is no guaranteed benefit to the residents if CCE is established. Thank you, Amy Royalty SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Akoefing Dom. �/3/2o Agenda lem No.; �( (.20 - 13 ?-6) Switzer, Donna From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 6:14 PM To: Agenda Alerts Subject: FW: CCE Feasibility Study Original Message From: kathyell <kathyell@verizon.net> Sent: Friday,January 31, 2020 6:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<city.council@surfcity-hb.org> Subject: CCE Feasibility Study _I am against moving forward with the CCE Feasibility Studym�� SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mee1M,g Date. e;'I3 Agenda lam No.; •2! ( --/375) Esparza, Patty From: Jose Trinidad Castaneda <jose@climateactioncampaign.org> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 12:24 PM To: Esparza, Patty; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Letters of Support for CCE to HB City Council Attachments: Letter to Huntington Beach.docx; petition_signaturesjobs_20173483_ 20200203195905.pdf, Signed letters HB Council 2.3 cce.pdf Hello Patty, This is Jose Castaneda who called earlier regarding the letters to submit for City Council tonight on Agenda Item 21 in Support for Community Choice Energy. Please see attached below and thank you for including in tonight's council packet. [ have a few more documents I'm scanning to send in the next few minutes as well. My apologies. Best, Jose Jose Trinidad Castaneda III Orange County Climate & Energy Advocate & Organizer CLIMATE ACTION C • M Pal C N Our Mission is Simple:Stop the Climate Crisis SUPPLEMENTAL Climate Action Campaign COMMUNICATION jose((climateactioncampaign.org (619) 419-1222 Ext 708 Meeting Date: ' ` -) www.climateactioncampaign.org 11 Twitter: a,sdclimateaction 1 faiosetcastaneda3 Agenda item �•: L (-dC) / lnstagrarn: 'a iniateaction F acebook.comi C I i mateActionCampaign Like what we do? Support Climate Action Camnaien today. 1 CLIMATE ACTION C A N P A I G N January 24, 2020 Hon. Mayor Lyn Semeta Hon. Mayor Pro Tem Jill Hardy Hon. Council Member Patrick Brenden Hon. Council Member Kim Carr Hon. Council Member Barbara Delgleize Hon. Council Member Erik Peterson Hon. Council Member Mike Posey City Manager Oliver Chi Contracting & Purchasing Manager Jennifer Anderson On behalf of Climate Action Campaign, thank you for listening to my public comments. Included in the following documents are informational items for your consideration regarding Community Choice Energy in Huntington Beach . Community Choice Aggregation. also known as Community Choice Energy (abbreviated CCA and CCE by various parties), is a local, not-for-profit governmental program that buys and may generate electrical power on behalf of its residents, businesses, and governmental entities. The agency administering the Community Choice program may also elect to administer energy efficiency programs and other greenhouse gas emission reducing activities. There are many reasons why a community might want to pursue Community Choice energy. Potential benefits include: • enhanced consumer choice • local control • cost savings • expansion of renewable energy portfolios • local economic development • faster progress toward achieving a community's environmental goals. Community Choice programs are opt-out programs, meaning that once a local government votes to form a Community Choice agency, the constituents of that local government are automatically enrolled, and may opt out if they wish. Community Choice is only involved in the electrical generation decision-making and has no involvement with transmission and distribution. The electrical utility also continues the metering and the billing for customers. The Community Choice agency replaces the line item on the electric bill for "generation." When a community, or group of communities, decides it wants to pursue a Community Choice program, a typical first step is to identify funding in order to produce a technical study, but is not legally required. The technical study analyzes the electrical load of the community and offers projections about the kinds of power mix and rates that might be possible. The costs of the feasibility study can be decreased by inviting cities to partner and pay for the costs of an addendum to the study for Socal Edison data specific for each additional city. Climate Action Campaign, 4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org CLIMA { CTION C 4 POP A I N Once the early investigation is complete, the jurisdiction or group of jurisdictions must pass an ordinance stating the intention to form a Community Choice agency. Read more about getting started with a program. More information can be found at the California Public Utilities Commission www.CPUC.ca.gov, and additional resources may be found at: www.CAL-CCA.orq, www cleanpowerexchange.orq, and www.occleanpower.orq. Thank you for your consideration. Myself as well as my team at Climate Action Campaign are available to assist you in any way. Sincerely, Jose Trinidad Castaneda Ill Orange County Climate & Energy Advocate & Organizer CLIMATE ACTION Climate Action Campaign jose@climateactioncampaign.org (619) 419-1222 Ext 708 www.climateactioncampaign_orq Twitter: (E sdclimateaction Instagram: (a7sdclimateaction Facebook.com/ClimateActionCampaign Climate Action Campaign, 4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org '•• y CL1MAT ACTION C AMP a IGN City of Huntington Beach : Status re: RFI - Community Choice Energy Feasibility Study City Weblink: https:llwww.huntingtonbeachca.govlbusinesslbids-rfps/ Staff Contact: Jennifer Anderson - 714-374-1569 -Jennifer anderson@surfcity-hb.org The City of Huntington Beach is a proven participant in the movement for Community Choice. Recently, City Council voted to direct staff to approve an RFI for a feasibility study in September. Exactly 36 bids were submitted before the October 18th deadline, with 2 vendors submitting the lowest bids. The 2 vendors have subsequently been interviewed by staff. Current Status: Awaiting City Manager approval to be Agendized before Huntington Beach City Council. Invitation# 2019-0818 Bid Posting Date: September 20. 2019 11:23AM PST Online Q&A Deadline. October 3, 2019 4:00PM PST Bid Due Date: October 18, 2019 4:00PM PST Project Stage: Closed Response Format: Electronic Only Prospective Bidders: 36 Vendors Bid Results: 2 Vendors for $0.00 Bid Amount Lowest Bid Vendor Information: -$66,000 MRW & Associates 1736 Franklin St Suite 700, Oakland, CA 94612 Contact: Mark Fulmer Phone: 510-834-1999 ext. 240 =$52,150 EES Consulting, Inc. 570 Kirkland Way Suite 100, Kirkland, WA 98033 Contact: Diane Running Phone: 425-889-2700 ext 203 Climate Action Campaign, 4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org CLIMATE ACTION City of Irvine: Community Choice Energy In September of 2018. Irvine City Council voted to direct staff to create a feasibility study on CCE with overwhelming support. Below are quotes from their September meeting before their unanimous vote in favor. CCE is the wave of the future and Edison needs to deal with it.' — Mayor Donald Wagner -This is about cost savings and about having the best power to offer our residents so I'm very pleased that we're moving forward in this direction.-- Mayor Pro Tern Christina Shea 'Of all the great work that we have done on the Green Ribbon Commission, THIS is the one that has really energized the community. We have the most substantial outpouring of residents, experts, and resident experts who are in support of both the feasibility study and the strategic energy plan."—Councilmember and Chair of Green Ribbon Commission Melissa Fox "I'm glad we're moving forward with this. Electricity is one of our greatest costs, so to give our residents the choice of the ability to go and look for another source of energy, I'm all in favor of. — Councilmember Jeffrey Lalloway Irvine City Council directed staff to present the findings for review by the Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Committee. On August 19, 2019, Irvine Finance Committee reviewed the findings and voted in favor of recommending the creation of a Joint Powers Authority CCE model. On December 10, 2019, Irvine City Council voted unanimously to move forward on Community Choice Energy JPA Formation. Link to Finance Committee Agenda and presentations https.//www.irvinequickrecords.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx7meetid=5576&doctype=Agenda Climate Action Campaign, 4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org • CLIMATE ACTION Summary of Key Findings in Irvine CCE Feasibility Study The Irvine CCE Feasibility Study consists of information across 119 pages. Due to the length of the study. we have provided key takeaways in bullet form. • Local Control and allocation of ratepayer revenues and building program reserves • Opportunities for long-term procurement to balance/hedge short-term procurement • Responsiveness to local environmental, social and economic goals B Funding opportunities for local energy programs and new power generation • Creating economic opportunities through local jobs, GHG reductions, local renewable developments, supplier diversity, and environmental justice initiatives Lower risk profile The following information is pulled directly from the study. Electric retail rates are predicted to be at least 2% lower than current SCE rates using extremely conservative modelling parameters and assuming participation rates for residential customers of 95% and non-residential customer participation rates of 90%. These assumptions of 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. Climate Action Campaign. 4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org CLIMATE ACTION CAMPAIGN The savings to customers under the CCE's rates would drive additional local econcmic development benefits, such as 85 new jobs and a total of $10 million in annual economic output. The following is a chart of participation rates across all CCEs in the State of California. Data provided by https://cal-cca.orglcca-impactl Est ustom a 'articipation' Account • R. I. . Apple Valley Choice Energy 25.000 100 89% 37% CleanPower5F 376,000 510 97% • 40% Clean Power Alliance 972,500 3,600 IMMIEVast Bay Community Energy 533,000 984 97% 38% Lancaster Choice Energy 50,000 200 +3°, 36% I. C; - 470,000 '1,050 86% ft L609K Monterey Bay Community Power 277,000 505 1 i 31% eninsula Clean End y r 293,000, ..644 97% ilk 50%. Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy 17.600 60 960 57% Pioneer Community Energ 79,500._ 250- . _,;: 89% _ 33% Rancho Mrra,e Enemy Authority 14,500 100 99% 35% Redwood Coast Energy Authori ', 62,000 125 40% • Jac into Povvcr I J. 92% 41% San Jose Clean Energy..411111111i. 332,500 1,081 99 45% SiHcr,n Valley Clean Energy 27.3,0c SU0 97% 50% Solana Energy Alliance 11.3 91% :R *Kau, s onoma Clean Power 225,000 450 S7% 48% Valley Clean Energy • s. . 54;200 . 219 93% ,icelat42040 Ca1CCA MeinberTotats- .i. • • 0 600 r 760 : ^ 94% 43% Orange County Energy Authority - Community Choice Aggregation/Energy - JPA Startup Timeline Interest in CCE is Born (2017-2018) 05-16-2017 Irv;ne Green Ribbon Committee - approved Committee work plan, including Climate Action Plan and CCE Climate Action Campaign, 4452 Park Blvd . Suite 209 San Diego. CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org vo0 CLIMATE ACTION C A MPAIGN 09-12-2017 Irvine City Council approved the Green Ribbon Committee's recommendation to put out Request for Proposals (REP) for two studies. After review, City Staff recommended EES Consulting to complete the CCE feasibility study ($77,470). The Green Ribbon Committee confirmed staff recommendations and voted to send favorable recommendations to the Finance Commission and City Council. 05-15-2018 Irvine Green Ribbon Committee - CCE Discussion following SCE Presentation on pathway to 80% clean, renewable energy by 2030 06-27-2018 Irvine Businesses, HOAG Health & Edwards LifeSciences, announce press release in support of CCE 09-04-2018 Irvine Finance Commission - Voted to send Staff recommendations to City Council with a favorable approval. Moved by Commissioner Reyno, seconded by Vice Chair Dressler 09-25-2018 Irvine City Council - Votes to approve funding for Feasibility Study 12-10-2018 Irvine Green Ribbon Committee - Request for Review of Feasibility Study CCE Studies Completed (2019) 06-18-2019 Final draft of Irvine Feasibility Study released 06-24-2019 Irvine Green Ribbon Committee - Unanimous vote in favor to recommend Feasibility Study to Council 08-18-2019 Huntington Beach City Council votes to direct staff to post RFI for Feasibility Study 08-19-2019 Irvine Finance Commission - Feasibility Study review, and Vote to Recommend JPA formation and submit an Implementation Plan to CPUC by December 2020 for Operation by 2022. Moved by Chair Shute and Second by Commissioner Young 10-18-2019 Huntington Beach RFI bid closes with bid from MRW & Associations for $66,000 and EES Consulting for $52.150 12-10-2019 City Council Study Session on CCE • Motion to direct staff to conduct additional analysis internally per staff recommendation, conduct outreach to secure CCE JPA partner cities, including but not limited to Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and Yorba Linda, and ask staff to return with recommendations of partner cities and preliminary JPA formation documents no later than May 2020 in preparation to submit a CCE Implementation Plan to CPUC by December 2020. Climate Action Campaign identified potential partner jurisdictions in order by level of interest: Climate Action Campaign, 4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org CLIMA ACTION C A MP AIGN 1. Huntington Beach 2. Costa Mesa 3. Newport Beach 4. Tustin 5. County of Orange 6. Yorba Linda 7. Fullerton 8. Lake Forest 9. Santa Ana CCE Business Plan & Agency Formation (2020) 01-10-2020 Irvine Sustainability Staff Sona Coffee begins outreach efforts & JPA invitations to jurisdictions. Letters to all City Council members in all 34 cities are sent. 01-14-2020 Irvine Mayor Protem Michael Carroll CCE Stakeholder Advisory Committee meets to discuss implementation timeline 02-09-2020 Deadline for City response to Irvine request for Letters of Intent to be returned. 05-2020 Staff to draft Implementation Plan for City Council approval 06-2020 Partner cities to agendize and vote on approval of Implementation Plan 08-2020 Estimated period of Final Approval of proposed Implementation Plan 12-31-2020 Deadline to submit CCE Implementation Plan to California Public Utilities Commission Procurement and Delivery (2021 -2022) 01-2021 The CCE Implementation Plan approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. 01-2021 CCE Agency formed. Board members approved, Staffing begins 02-2021 Solicitation and selection of initial primary power supplier 02-2021 Procurement plan developed and power supplier portfolio expanded 10-2021 Notice to customers 01-2022 Service to customers begins. Climate Action Campaign. 4452 Park Blvd., Suite 209 San Diego, CA 92116 www.climateactioncampaign.org change.org Huntington Beach Families for Consumer Choice Recipient: Huntington Beach City Council Letter: Greetings, Tell Huntington Beach City Council: YES to Choice! Signatures Name Location Date Jose Trinidad Castaneda III US 2020-01-30 Kathleen Treseder Irvine, CA 2020-01-30 Irvine Families for Consumer Irvine, CA 2020-01-30 Choice Ayn Craciun Irvine, CA 2020-01-30 Natalie Moser Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-30 Keith Linker Irvine, CA 2020-01-30 Karen Coyne Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-30 Amir Baum Aliso Viejo, CA 2020-01-30 Christy Hatt Westminster, CA 2020-01-31 Kathleen Johnson Milton, GA 2020-01-31 Craig Preston Costa Mesa, CA 2020-01-31 G. Audrey Prosser Laguna Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Lucas Nyhus Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Bethany Webb Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Pam Kamps Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Milo Ohm Fremont, US 2020-01-31 maleking m. k Santa Clara, US 2020-01-31 Selena Romero Tucson, US 2020-01-31 Samantha Bracci Phoenix, US 2020-01-31 Saman Soltani Clifton, US 2020-01-31 Name Location Date Mary Kyle Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Barbara Robinson Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Charles Clarke Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Kirk Nason Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Carol Keane Hunt. Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Angie LaPorte-Domkus Orange, CA 2020-01-31 Maria Minney Irvine, CA 2020-01-31 kira long Lake Stevens, US 2020-01-31 Erica Williams Detroit, US 2020-01-31 Samantha Cervantes Los Angeles, US 2020-01-31 Antonio Ligurgo New York, US 2020-01-31 Brenda Vazquez Delhi, US 2020-01-31 hlhgh jgkgkgk Clifton, US 2020-01-31 Mohammad Mohammadi Los Angeles, US 2020-01-31 Pat Thiessen Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Vanessa Webster Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Natalie Rokos Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 VARINI DESILVA Huntington Beach, CA 2020-01-31 Patty Yoo Irvine, CA 2020-01-31 Ray Regalado Fountain Valley, CA 2020-01-31 Margaret Finlayson Foothill Ranch, CA 2020-02-01 Michelle Greenwood Pomona, CA 2020-02-01 Name Location Date Danett Abbott-Wicker Orange, CA 2020-02-01 Saleh Babaei New York, US 2020-02-01 Siamak Ghasemian San Jose, US 2020-02-01 marie-helene luebbers Santa Ana, CA 2020-02-01 Kathryn Orlinsky Irvine, CA 2020-02-01 Kamran Ullah Islamabad, Pakistan 2020-02-01 ojal M Irvine, US 2020-02-01 Calvin Vernon US 2020-02-01 Janed Sax Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-01 Carolyn Lozo Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-01 Aaron Norton Costa Mesa, CA 2020-02-01 Michael Gioan Sunset Beach, CA 2020-02-01 Jean Miller Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-01 Steven Shepherd Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-01 Jennifer Bartlau Corona del Mar, CA 2020-02-01 Ashley Niemand Westminster, CA 2020-02-01 Buffie Channel Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-01 CL Miller Newport Beach, CA 2020-02-01 Jennifer Perez Garden Grove, CA 2020-02-01 Sydney Field Irvine, CA 2020-02-01 Robert Aldous Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-02 Matthew Katawicz West Hollywood, CA 2020-02-02 Name Location Date Lisa Kichline Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-02 Russell Baldwin Costa Mesa, CA 2020-02-02 Mark Bixby Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-02 Linda Moon Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-02 Alenjandra Becerra Cordoba, Argentina 2020-02-02 Cathey Ryder Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-02 iris shearer Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-02 Mari Fujii Irvine, CA 2020-02-02 Ray Hiemstra Oxnard, CA 2020-02-02 belinda shepherd Huntington Beach, CA 2020-02-02 Michael Rotcher Mission Viejo, CA 2020-02-02 Branda Lin Irvine, CA 2020-02-03 Thais Queiroz Costa Mesa, CA 2020-02-03 Carol Crane Newport Beach, CA 2020-02-03 Linda Kraemer California 2020-02-03 February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you. Signature: 4/ '1� "t`' Print Name: 1'1 \\l, cja)c, ,, �-� Address: \ t -�\ r(n\K\ r l� Lo I 1 City: `\u A i l lC\�C '*c c k\ �'� io _I CI Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We des:rve a CHOICE. Thank you, • Signature: 4 J Print Name: t V} 6 d (2-G�iWo Address: I (GI c LI ! �; r Qji )) 1 En City: 1— h t171 )ti, j� 64 t-'1� J Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, //� /"� /� �J Signature: C,.('&<-6. /F10/1-e ,� VL Y"`J✓ • ~� Print Name: /r L(Ce ) ,n,r�A� ��/e0/ Address: 6 2, im 70 u e/yF/G.. -1/6 ,� /70 city: gu4 Tf/UC- Tv/V (YGf/ G 52 72g /747 Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: f (.7" / Print Name: (-':6)' / e C'"IG(5bvl. Address: GU 1] 1 1 Cr V / ✓r��nn City: AIM vu'7/7fr371DV1 reNl,Ck_ ( 1.,9 Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: 'Uri-% Print Name: MM/taj.Y-D- K-UMP May° Address: IAD2. E Ve--troit Avc , l-kurr;\��rIli (A t 92-646 city: NUn-kr''ro--, Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Mcfryday, February :rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Print Name: / { 1 2 Address: V,' CitY: � �� '! , M l�l0"f Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, / Signature: ,4 't oo � i Print Name: / �j✓,�i 77-1 f 7;.r r.K Address: /LL q 1 CASTAiva,, LAAJ, J City: nN tyr: 2rJN beAc1-4 CA q2 C`< Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: I • �E%� ,U h / E Print Name: _ en- 571.t/1/F L, Address: `�J )Jl1 l�f_.€ City: U �i ylcn 75 n<' 11 C `19t 4l 9 (J � Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for -.d...; February Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, �� 'y Signature: f i Print Name: (�?] is. I f Address: ?��d,O�.o l V'Y-e_ 1 (fie s l-f( 1 . City: �Jr�l I i �C��E6 P}9 61C1. l a Q,-1 `t� Comment: Jl February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity. local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, r. Signature: � ,II4n 1 Print Name: IhSr iVk iun T A,'e-h LAL+s-y Address:II,, 26 c 24. !Verity 1 .1 Sfi-ea-t City: 'rl u�4n7iv 13.e.ir Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, n/ Signature: '}[N✓V�"' �� Print Name: �(:01nl -� �� 5k Address: Iyi5 Ca.1-6,\,Lt k'ti1 1);. City: A 1 u nViv ��V i c, Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, a Signature: ,P/r'n�2/ Print Name: P L�i/T7rz-JL I,( ea. I l l h Address: ? ?_R 9 rr (l j .30. -7 C city: F/upl fi 119- iv;, Et?a/JL 1 (4 9 zCo y6, Comment: 1th. n Y k . f � / February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. in contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, J 7 Signature: ;-� / /�� p Print Name: '� C61 t r k �{-r Y di ( \L 0 Address: j., City: A1W1.'htiily VI • '\ (L.C�c'1 Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: i�/� Print Name: r'r(k91 Address: City: N k Rfl Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank yo Signature:Print Name: ` I- in(NY1cJ`d�� I ry�1✓1� �` Address: A l51)2 A- (/1N}cG Lcxu_ city: 1-1vAih+v 3eceln, CA- M26K(a Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature://� Print Name: 1�4','YI ("1-cCesi Address: 11a1 kiln U, -€_ City: H AVT\W1511;Y) 2.cxvL� Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: ��JJ / e�� Print Name: p/�.{., Tel: N Address: -7 q_❑_k I1c],rTe/Z f/><l.L C City: �7 - B' �l a &L Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to FIB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring 5120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, /, Signature: // �>y 2 /�g Print Name ?cl,l r p CLt. ^nG A Address: 2.0 12 l.42,1Q5 4 ? c City: CGS f A fL( sec, Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, U71 Signature: Print Name: A o. ./�r (?" Address: 36,'C ica_✓-c,(YE; City: Cs� � (1 - 'sr) ) Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, J �/ Signature: G//f f/ (Afl�«�/�a Print Name: ('<t.Lp,- //}^1 CL h Address: Z' l Ac 97//P P/'� City: &(7 M (24 9 21�2- Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for :ua Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, I� y . Signature: 144 , YL Ck Print Name: h \a___ L\cav t C� I/ Address: 3. I } r�{<Ir'1 �71�UUt� k_ • City: M\�� V l� ) r,f� Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Print Name: I\WAD, S Address: ell Ib t,Srbitc Jeri, City: e-LiAi, Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city 510.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, �/ Signature: A---/ L "'/1 Print Name: (CAl(r' ea''`- �/ 1 7 Address: /�q�"i— /E r Ct Ciy.-�/�,-1('YlLL�-f� .F, c- City: h--T rc' c' c c�C2.� C� 00" u V Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, —lam Signature: f/ Print Name: ((�� /14 rIi l—QQ2� Ka(L4 V Address: -l`I1 F ()yYNY1 C City: Ci41:. . 4S �< :J Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for ................ retrua y Jt tl. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, �Signature: C1 a 4 Print Name: /Qf r r fri Address: j j/Ytt 4fk.O r City: /\ cTh Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for ............. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: '� A/C-ce-) Print Name: 7CGeJ2_ (ti(-4'l T!2- I h c C Address: .g 1 ✓r fl /j 4(10 2 City: �s c0. C Z6 q' Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, p - .G� Signature: & „ Print Name: / t/4C.(, /r�� I� /�C�j�J—�( ( C ✓�\ ,ci Address: r? 7 S V 7 I ) ,a 0 A QA v - City: LU �'�G— �7 (El Cr�i i� 1 (L Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Vir Signature: { e Print Name: rick. lI11teu7<,,<AA( L� Address: i37 fV. 1_aure ( Av'e h city: tie,c /III/ycJoec7 CA 'IOOY�- Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, l/v ` Signature: ' r L Print Name: C7I'!)}';(7t�7� � may' / -7I' (� 7 Address:: TJV�Jt 7 uu-N } La k- 1�brf S F C Zb c( , C77 City: IL-ake I ivrS4- Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you Signature: i Pdnt Name: r"'-2.1 re �e'��' _J Address:2(ii(� S.G;fyCltctr-, ( .C• ,/_ii 'rThr`e 71, (7 City: LL. 'l^2-S-1— Comment: V l-Q Ct S-{-c..r 4- one l kL i i'll C•{'l ct t 1.Cie 5 -to bz i Le 1— February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to FIB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Print Name: l/C r( No Address: /00 0 i.v A c ,4r /Ii.t r ✓ 8)v cei Af-e 3�o City: cr.) - Al oa- C A- Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10. 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: ,rtlyCJ y1: Print Name: a., Y Address:( VO I E. C i.trt.1 Ave City: 0'1l.1 A flA Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: ture:: Print Name: `)`/`11‘ �)-kci CO ARM L Address: 1H1 Th IDC 1G4'r( (Z Ci City: k '-' .Z'\-`)`(1 ( A Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, - Signatur ,'c �� -4` i Print Name: , tC\note c( b i'�('l_L-- Address:_ r 1 -1 t !2- \ GLAA S n`UZ Q. City: l JN• -. tr-s- L Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: �n n�� Print Name: M Gh) ( a( c l t�a y r �' Address: -4) I!Z R5S'JC IC +Pd 1Z L1 11 f V11'jroc C City: wt) 10-7-‘1 (I) Comment: February 1. 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, /73 Signature: j2V1A//11/ Y1.A Print Name: Ah n1 ` '\)C 111-i n 1 Address: '27Qi?? CU1i11jyL1 \_,:Dr•-iit City: L1a•1i1,1-Vy N 1': vri,1 Comment: J February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to NB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power arid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: (ltuuC. . /n'.,Ai Print Name: 02-ie-- Address: :VS(1 !NINE AVENUE City: AW'-Pon-z- i 4(+-( GSA `i 6(,' Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HBI Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: �AC( Print Name: "i; yr (:_r'4-Y-tt-41--- Address: `1 3� r ✓' J�"1t 4' City:_ 1 �.��(I i l� 1-11 n i V d i i Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, J� I l Signature: -'` `` �l A � jAAr'` --' Print Name: I ,„ «/,( M e Address: 2—‘,91 `�!t� t i�' i (r t��y �,2 � y City: .\ 1Q ` • iTk C,ti Vt U7 -1A, Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature:/ L Print Name: au. Cevnv� 3"� Address:.A1ee(�j-t.`� of City: cvtIcky\ Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you,Signature: ..0%, ^V—• Print Name: tv/t r « pA ,A Address: City: 4r; virCIA h V� f, (/1 `i'Z 7G Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Print Name: l Ukf9C/ ( Q(I! Imo) Address: €jO l £ . Rh/1 K/f City: APir lPi!'+7 Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HBI Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank e Signature: A �J1 Print Name: /ij t-4"—O 'NJ ,.>Ar:- Address: MC !' cId /T✓c— City: ( 7� Comment: „ / February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: 3v'tY, (/!! Print Name: k1 totkV):i rtl� t J • C-l.L Address: _i[J r:-(! CGA-tn City: IC-€A,CeCI C&fit.�r 0 ' eta Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity. local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Februzari Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, ��tel Signature:: 1 , l Print Name: 2� P-}7y,•;Q �" `2 - Address: -15 ,1 H. 716-A City: �r 4211 � �'ACC al Ct � •. Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you Signature: Print Name: C,r Qc 4 Address: 113s Tour wnt(Lk Ra city: 0fill- 9 G Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October. and finally set it on the agenda for r ecru r -_. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: I _4 -F.Print Name: JJ - tCL fl H Address: 't-417 .SP\f\..\ bfLCU t IC) _?� _--- City: OeW():scrk ' LL Comment: P1 f�S� . , -�.�, r ' S . February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature:_ ct,, �/ t�� ,/) Print Name: C.vSS 1\AC1 lZU\of \ASSO ` 1 Address: 1`\U P�� C\fti � (t & • 4`072 City: 1 J N.'1 U1ll Vd t I (9/U Comment: ' (Lek6 b \II \71-1 CC- ku o L I • -es pc ci ciA .\-tB . February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Manday, February :rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, MY/ Signature:\\Print Name: c J/ C� ,kh.Address: 11411 ( AAK10I V & e City: Yhr1 Lk 1 1.11 ef144- ti Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: 9jLv„,, U,7 nut/rar .. Print Name: Uv ct Co.r1 f ut_CSn - P e f t 2_ Address: 31C) S SjC.tnc e 5h- J\i?j' .#r(7 city: 3c.tT,-1-4 Arc,) CAI— Comment: February 1. 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for r_ _ Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, 1/ Signature:�� 1 Print Name: Coi ,'\.(,2.V�LiiuI -� Address: is 2 1 11 Svl li {to WE v Alto_ V rl I G city: Sattic1 AItc Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community. local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: 5 ` 7764 9\ Print Name: S\l0\110,4\!` '("N)S6\ Address: j 3 , �U• (L"Ah4 N4& City: C"\\Mt c'wt LA- Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study. which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: i'p\ Print Name: Vin'VC-1t .ht. i r1 Address: 7IO t ha61h14., LI Nt`I .44'Y' City: S9InIA Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community. local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city 510.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: DAAAthe, t) si Print Name: ?)<w t4 "").,D.N.3 Address: 1 tti'' ' o:,'• r • w >Y. City: S0.•.. ., t,"rr Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: ti ln^' Print Name:,PLl1ti t Z€4\ICV.0 l Atom(Address: ��3 ink ) . . City: 5 MD A lnr.A Comment: February 1. 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity. local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for J,. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, I4n ` q Signature: �\K' h�.( (-lf-'-. - V {mil Print Name: +� \('�jL71ti Ctjci e4SC.r Address: \'lt� 13 -0 0 K5-lznn e. City: \\ Comment: February 1, 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to NB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for rebrijary Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank —pi Signature: , Ilt` �— Print Name:: .30IA A AvAt-e; i Address: 3 0 B P City: Tt'V t Comment: Ese rza, Patty From: Jose Trinidad Castaneda <jose@climateactioncampaign.org> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 12:28 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Additional letters of support for CCE Agenda item 21 Attachments: 20200203_122046.jpg; 20200203_122024.jpg; 20200203_122041.jpg; 20200203_ 122136.jpg; 20200203_122101.jpg; 20200203_122051.jpg; 20200203_122131.jpg; 20200203_122030.jpg; 20200203_122055.jpg; 20200203_122036jpg; 20200203_ 122117.jpg; 20200203_122140.jpg; 20200203_122122.jpg; 20200203_122127.jpg Hello Patty; Here are the final scans of the letters I mentioned previously. / L&/T4') Jose Trinidad Castaneda Ill Orange County Climate & Energy Advocate & Organizer Climate Action Campaign josenclimateactioneamnaiizn.ora (619) 419-1222 Ext 708 n sdclimateaction February 1 . 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to NB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity. local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than th, monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found th in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in St annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to 6 customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've Iwatched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. I' Thank you. Signature _ I• �,I 4 —- Pnnt Name' i t lria f �-k i i lets_ Address 6 I Li V I' 'll City If 1l 1 .* Comment. RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring $120.000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10. 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you,Signature: T:14- r - - J Print Name: TT)Ll 1 �C Ul M/ Address TO AII NCO C o&', T City: -rev v 2N Comment. -�-� 5 o r. y r tLCt 4,4 / wQ /Ned e qovic Vt / 5vJ•, C p -ev .J g‘t t O, 51 CAI£ February 1 . 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community. local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas. and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study. which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120.000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature. 411 Print Name: VA \ Et-i ik trcr Address: Jki " reehu4 1 City. 1 Y ‘ll�� r ( �I Comment. RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on elect local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natu gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast. every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower thar monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which founc in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million ii annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10. 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We'' watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for . • _ �. .ua:y U. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you. Signature: Print Name: iev, k r r eve Address: IL vtet20 . - - -- City. l r v w/LQ. Comment . February 1 , 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to NB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE - _ Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Print Name: Q /` Address. ! D 1.ill ed 1 c / -- City i t/'/ele - -- Comment February 1 , 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community. local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019. the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study. which found thi in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10. 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October. and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Cf _ - Print Name Rebec c 0 • �_._. e\ickso Adcress .:_ _ . _ Comment RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to NB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on elet local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our commur local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million Califo families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and n gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower tt monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a C( Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which fot in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 millio annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municip< electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost customers. On January 10. 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. IA watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda fa Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Print Name: -Tr,4_4ps ,.Address: / Si LC; A 1 di - - -City: Comment: February 1 . 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to NB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on elect local control and resilience for our power grid. revenues invested in our communit local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million Califon families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and na gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower th; monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CC Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study. which fou in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and $7.7 million annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring S120,000 in annual municipa electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost t customers. On January 10, 2020. Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. WI watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you. Signature. Print Name-_ Address: 1 4k LQ city. (/irk° February 1 . 2020 RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S 10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring S120.000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10. 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October. and finally set it on the agenda for Monday, February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE . Thank you. Signature: Pnnt Name: c .� -{("b�w.tr-tom }r" Address ? c� G 4. ( •L �J City. Comment RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to NB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than th monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study. which found tt- in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and 57.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring 5120.000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: stem_, (14_ _ Print Name: _ShaneCciff;( (a( Address: 9 id Ott' City: (fi 114 (� _ Comment RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council. Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natura gas, and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than ti monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found t in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring 5120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100% clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020. Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature. - (12_ ' Print Name: A. (041 - 9 E t l �'ct,an lP riv'�- `T" 17 Address' . _ City: I ri vt: Comment • ter' L _ L� RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB' • Dear Me-Hers of the Huntington Beach City Caunc Community Choice Energy will bung Huntington Beach ear- on local control and res'+ence for our power grid. revenues co— local jobs and deane- energy choices_ Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs a ready serve 410 rri f` Ca' families in 200+ cities across ross the state�. SoCa E- son cu--e-• �•= = Y"= =" = Huntington Beach's a tA�rct r from calb n i r s .7v _ _ as Mc'7:: Y - gas. and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates t` :' e ^a= a . trast_ every CCE program launched to date has rates rat are fr ; � =� �'Y -� On December 10. 2019, the Irv;rye City Count unari;mc _ - . - -=1 to Joint Powers Authority after multiple recomrn_ :1~ f_` T _ _ - G'=_ :Don Committee and Finance Commission agreed v.,::, :-f .- =a sDitty study. niCh in addition to brie^ - : the city 510.6 million in annual ne: revenue and S7.7 rr�iion annual savings for r- . F consumers. CCE will bang S120,o00 in annual municipal electricity savings a- achieve 100%a dean energy by 2035 at no add ' a' cost If customers. On January 10. 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by Febn.ary_ W€ watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study i August. closed the bidding process in October. and finalty set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Tnank you. crate �- - Fr?ri t Name C ,. , V0 1\ J U Address `6 "D �C �� \VaiL, cry _- r eoruary I , zuzu RE: Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electr local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community local jobs and cleaner energy choices. Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million Californ families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and nat gas. and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. contrast, every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower tha monopoly utility. On December 10, 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which foun in addition to bringing the city $10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million annual savings for Irvine consumers. CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100°:0 clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020, Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study it August. closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, SKgnature._ ,.- Print Name 6 " g- Y_ _ !r v_4 Address._/D >j _1e .T�� 4 ' t7 rt . Comment. February 1, 2020 RE. Please vote to bring Community Choice Energy to HB! Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Community Choice Energy will bring Huntington Beach competitive rates on electricity, local control and resilience for our power grid, revenues invested in our community, local jobs and cleaner energy choices_ Community Choice Energy (CCE) programs already serve over 10 million California families in 200+ cities across the state. SoCal Edison currently gets a majority of Huntington Beach's electricity from carbon-intensive sources such as coal and natural gas. and Californians pay 50% higher electricity rates than the national average. In contrast. every CCE program launched to date has default rates that are lower than the monopoly utility. On December 10. 2019, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to create a CCE Joint Powers Authority after multiple recommendations from their Green Ribbon Committee and Finance Commission agreed with their feasibility study, which found that in addition to bringing the city S10.6 million in annual net revenue and S7.7 million in annual savings for Irvine consumers, CCE will bring $120,000 in annual municipal electricity savings and achieve 100°/0 clean energy by 2035 at no additional cost to customers. On January 10, 2020. Irvine invited Huntington Beach to respond by February. We've watched patiently as the city of Huntington Beach voted on seeking a CCE study in August, closed the bidding process in October, and finally set it on the agenda for Monday. February 3rd. Please vote to move forward with a CCE study for Huntington Beach now. No more delays. We deserve a CHOICE. Thank you, Signature: Print Name444fItAa._ W ikAP&1f Address_,M, c ern City Comment