1. Community Choice Aggregation
Creating Local Economic Opportunity &
Addressing Climate Change Through
Community Choice Aggregation
Santa Cruz County ▪ Commission on the Environment
December 5, 2012

2. WHAT IS CCA?
Established by State law, CCA allows cities and counties to pool their residential, business and municipal electricity loads, and to purchase power (and/or generate it*) on their behalf. Energy transmission, distribution, repair and customer service functions remain with the incumbent utility. *Where allowed by state CCA law
Utility
You!

3. CCA Community Choice Aggregation
A HYBRID APPROACH
Roughly 70% of U.S. electricity is supplied by vertically integrated investor-owned utilities (IOUs), with much of the balance coming from publicly-owned municipal utilities. CCA offers a third, hybrid option, where key energy functions are split between a public entity and the IOU.
IOU
Investor-Owned Utility
CCA Community Choice Aggregation
Municipal/
Public Utility
(also Co-ops)
IOU Procures
Power
Muni Procures Power
IOU Maintains Transmission Lines
Local Gvt.(s) Procure Power
IOU Provides Customer Service
Muni Provides Customer Service
Muni Maintains Transmission Lines

4. WHERE IS CCA NOW? Quick Stats
CALIFORNIA Marin Energy Authority (launched in 2010; 110,000 customers by 2013)
San Francisco approved first contract; Sonoma County approved JPA formation
20+ additional cities/counties currently investigating CCA
ILLINOIS WOW! 20 cities in 2011 to 400+ by the end of 2012, including the City of Chicago
Average electricity rate savings of 25-30%
MASSACHUSETTS Cape Light Compact (launched in 1998; 21 towns; 200,000 customers)
Average electricity rate savings of 6-10%
10+ new communities currently investigating CCA
OHIO Northeast OH Public Energy Council (launched in 1999)
2 million+ aggregated customers statewide (2010)
53+ new cities in 2011/Q1 2012
City of Cincinnati approved a 100% renewable /RECs option
RHODE ISLAND 37 cities & towns; municipal loads only
$28 million in rate savings since 1999
NEW JERSEY CCA starting to take off; 10 communities in
CCA formation

5. CCA Responds to California State Climate & Clean Energy Policy
CA POLICY FRAMEWORK
CCA Responds to California State Climate & Clean Energy Policy
2002/2011
AB 117 and SB CCA Legislation
2006
AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act
(1990 GHG levels by 2020)
Revised 2011
CA State RPS and RA requirements
Laws governing utility renewable energy and resource adequacy (RPS = 33% by 2020)
2011/2012
Governor’s Renewable Energy Mandate - 12,000 MW local/distributed RE by 2020

6. WHY PURSUE CCA? ECONOMICS Revenue based; not taxpayer supported
Value of redirected revenue to the local economy = Millions to Billions over time
Local jobs; economic multiplier effect
Market competition drives down costs
2. ENVIRONMENT
Supply autonomy allows for greater use of renewables
GHG reduction targets; saves money AB 32 for compliance
Clean energy integrator - Distributed generation; FIT, NEM; solar shares and energy efficiency
3. CONSUMER CHOICE, LOCAL CONTROL
Right now, you have no choice!
Local control, accountability, tailored programs

7. CCA STATUS IN CALIFORNIA (as of 9/2012)
2010 USAGE
EST. REVENUE
CA RPS (33%)
CEC Electricity Usage Data Provided by County Only*
Million kWh
$Millions
Million KWh
(Residential/Other)
.069/kWh-MEA 2012
(33% of 2010 data)
OPERATIONAL
Marin County/Marin Energy Authority
1422
$100+
469
Richmond, City of/Joined MEA in June 2012
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CERTIFIED, CONTRACT NEGOTIATED
San Francisco, City & County of/SF-PUC: Operational 2013
5,855
$404
1932
FEASIBILITY COMPLETE, JPA,IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Sonoma County/Sonoma Clean Power: Forming JPA; est 1 yr to service
2,875
$198
949
CCA EXPLORATION
Apple Valley, City of: Engaged consultant
Arcata, City of/Humboldt County
920
$63
304
Benicia, City of/Solano County
3,127
$216
1032
Calaveras County: Engaged consultant
325
$22
107
Davis, City of; Yolo County: County steering committee; scoping plan complete
1,658
$114
547
East Bay Cities: Oakland, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Hayward
East Bay Municipal Utility District
$350
Monterey County: Formed local govt. task force
2,474
$171
816
Palmdale, City of: Engaged consultant
Rancho Mirage, City of
San Benito County
309
$21
102
San Diego County/City of Solana Beach, Santee: Resolution review
18,800
$1,297
6204
San Luis Obispo/City & County: CCA in Climate Action Plan
1,649
544
Santa Cruz/City & County: CCA in CAP (2011 data)
1,253
$86
413
Santa Clara, County of (2011 data)
16,384
$1,130
5,407
Trinity County (partially served by public utility) 43 $3 14
Tuolomne County: Engaged consultant
448
$31
148
TOTAL
46,718
$3,573.54
15,416
*CEC County Usage Data --

8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: JOBS CREATION
Local Ownership Boosts Jobs from Renewables
This is basically the same slide as above, except that I doubled the jobs for solar and wind to reflect the impact of local ownership. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory study mentioned previously suggests that locally owned wind projects create twice the local jobs as absentee owned ones.
Jobs per Megawatt
Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

9. Excerpt from Town of San Anselmo , CA -- Climate Action Plan
ENVIRONMENT:
GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION S To
Excerpt from Town of San Anselmo , CA -- Climate Action Plan

10. “CCA: The Biggest Change You’ll Never Notice”
KEY PROGRAM FEATURES
“CCA: The Biggest Change You’ll Never Notice”
JPA or special district can operate a CCA in CA
Utility continues to provide billing, customer service, line
maintenance and repair.
CCA electricity charges appear as a new section of the utility bill – typically about 20-25% of the total bill; all other charges the same
Customers receive 4 opt-out notices
spanning a 4-5month period.
Customers are permitted to opt-out
and return to PG&E any time.

11. CAN CCA BE COST COMPETITIVE? YES!
Diversified portfolio approach to energy supply
Historic lows make current market favorable
Competitive market helps; suppliers want in
Asset ownership over time is critical
PCIA/Exit Fees declining
Low overhead & non-profit status (JPA)
Low borrowing costs, tax exempt financing (i.e. revenue bonds)
5. No shareholder profit margins or $million salaries
6. Self-generation of power through local facilities & distributed generation

12. WHAT ARE THE RISKS? And how are they mitigated?
Price competition RISK: natural gas at historical low, solar cheap, long term and expiring contracts held by IOUs; MITIGATIONS: Develop diverse power portfolios w/ open position; use natural gas as a hedge resource; pursue asset ownership over time
Opt-out risk RISK: opt-outs driven by utility interference, politics, fear of change, price competitiveness/exit fees; MITIGATIONS: practice conservative revenue modeling, remain price competitive and don’t over promise; boost public information budget Political RISK: local politics can slow or derail process; MITIGATIONS: important to understand the business rationale for CCA and articulate it as a BI-PARTISAN issue; identify local policy connections and engage business, community and environmental advocates; don’t dilly-dally
Regulatory RISK: In CA, CCA operates in a monopoly utility environment; several proceedings underway regarding cost shifting and exit fees; MITIGATIONS: tap in and track regulatory matters ; creation of CCA Regulatory Alliance of cities, counties, energy companies, environmental groups is improving outcomes at the CPUC;
“CCA is not a liberal or conservative thing… It’s a business tool that reflects the values of its region.” – D. Orth, Kings River Conservation District

13. BASIC STEPS/3 LEGS OF THE STOOL:
Political
Resolutions of support; JPA ordinance; final go/no go
Community outreach and education: business, community and environmental groups, political leadership and influencers
2. Technical
Feasibility Study - Load and rate analysis, economic impact, environmental attributes and options
JPA - legal formation
Implementation Plan / Integrated Energy Resource Plan
RFI/RFP issuance
Service Agreement w/ PG&E
Energy supply and vendor contracts
Opt-out notification process
3. Financial
Feasibility study and community outreach
CCA formation costs
Bridge financing from 1st contract to 1st revenue

14. CCA CASE STUDY - Marin Clean Energy
Two Product Options: Light or Dark Green
50% renewable – comparable rates
100% renewable - 1 cent/kwh premium
At Full Implementation: 120,000 accts, $100+M annual revenue, and 150 MW per year; ~ 10% margin
GHG Reductions
Current reduction of 15,420 tons annually
After July enrollment reductions increase to 39,027 tons annually
Member cities achieve AB 32 compliance within 3-4 years
Local Programs: Net Energy Metering, EV charging stations; EE rebates and retrofits; green business program. Coming Soon: Solar Shares

15. CCA CASE STUDY - Marin Clean Energy
14 Energy Contracts
Shell Energy North America (5 years)
Noble Energy Solutions (back office)
Examples of PPAs for new renewables in California:
30 MW new solar – enXco (2014)
15 MW new solar – North American Power Group (2013)
3.2 MW of new biogas – G2 Energy (2012)
Local Procurement
1 Feed-In Tariff Project (1MW airport solar project)
1900 NEM customers generating 5.7 MW of local capacity
Further expansion planned; PACE integration
Energy Efficiency
$450,000 allocated by CPUC in 2012 for multifamily retrofits
$4 M approved for , includes all Marin and Richmond residents

16. CCA CASE STUDY - Marin Clean Energy

17. THERE’S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME TO TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR COMMUNITY’S
ENERGY FUTURE.
…CCA IS THE PATH FORWARD.
For More Information or to Join Our Network
Shawn Marshall, Executive Director
P.O. Box 961, Mill Valley, CA
(415)