SR 02-14-2017 8A
Ci ty Counc il
Report
City Council Meeting : February 14, 2017
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cline, Director , Public Works, Office of Sustainability & the
Environment
Subject: Update to Council on Community Choice Aggregation
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Provide direction to staff to p ursue one or more Community Choice Aggregation
(CCA) implementation pathways: opt to join either the LA County or the South
Bay Clean Power JPA, explore initiating a CCA on its own, or choose not to
participate in a CCA ; and
2. Adopt a resolution that establi shes a platform of goals and objectives for
negotiation and a ppoint s one Council representative, one staff liaison and one
staff alternate to formally participate in Community Choice Aggregation Joint
Powers Authority negotiations .
Executive Summary
Commu nity Choice Aggregation (CCA) allows local governments to purchase and sell
electricity to customers in their jurisdictions as an alternative to traditional investor
owned utility (IOU) power procurement. Existing CCAs in other parts of California
provide higher levels of renewable energy to their customers and offer lower prices than
the IOUs that previously served them. In order for Santa Monica to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2050 or sooner, sourcing electricity from renewable sources is an essential
st rategy. On January 31, 2015, Council adopted a non -binding resolution to join 12
cities from the South Bay and Westside, in what is collectively known as South Bay
Clean Power (SBCP), in a study that would assess the feasibility of a subregional
community choice aggregation (CCA). SBCP then approached the County of Los
Angeles to fund the feasibility study of a countywide CCA. On June 30, 2016, the
County of Los Angeles published a feasibility study and business plan to develop a
countywide CCA. Both LA Cou nty and SBCP have convened advisory and stakeholder
groups to discuss the pathways to initiating joint powers authority (JPA) agencies to
establish CCAs . Staff are currently attending meetings of both groups to monitor their
processes, but requires Council direction in order to fully participate in the JPA
negotiations. Staff recommend that Council provide direction to staff to pursue one or
more Community Choice Aggregation implementation pathways: o pt to join either the
LA County or the SBCP JPA, explore initiating a CCA on its own , or choose not to
participate in a CCA . Staff also recommend that Council adopt a resolution that affirms
2 of 11
the city’s goals and objectives as a platform for negotiations and appoints
representatives to participate in the LA Count y and SBCP JPA negotiations.
Background
On January 13, 2015, Council adopted a non -binding resolution to join 12 cities from the
South Bay and Westside cities area in what is collectively known as South Bay Clean
Power in a study that would assess the fea sibility of a subregional CCA. After securing
resolutions from 13 cities, South Bay Clean Power approached LA County to take the
lead in financing the feasibility study for a countywide CCA.
On June 30, 2016 the County of Los Angeles published the feasibi lity study in the form
of a Business Plan. The Business Plan determined that a CCA is feasible and could
result in cost -savings for residential and commercial electricity customers.
On September 27, 2016 the LA County Board of Supervisors (LACBOS) passed a
motion to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to engage stakeholders, determine the
CCA governance structure and begin negotiations with eligible and interested cities.
Discussion
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) allows local governments to purchase and sell
electricity to customers in their jurisdictions as an alternative to traditional investor
owned utility (IOU) power procurement. Existing CCAs in other parts of California
provide higher levels of renewable energy to their customers and offer low er prices than
the IOUs that previously served them. In order for Santa Monica to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2050 or sooner, sourcing electricity from renewable sources is an essential
strategy.
Santa Monica consumes over 900,000 MWh per year, with an approximate gross
revenue value of $55 million.
The LA County Business Plan concluded that the formation of a Los Angeles
Community Choice Energy program (LACCE) is financially viable and would yield
considerable benefits for the County’s residents and bus inesses, including:
Lower rates – The LACCE rate for 50% renewable energy could be 4% lower
than the Southern California Edison (SCE) base rate for an energy mix that
3 of 11
includes only 28% renewables. The LACCE rate with 100% renewables could be
only 6% higher than SCE’s base rate.
Greenhouse Gas Reductions – At full implementation of LACCE, GHG emissions
in Los Angeles County could be reduced by 7% at a 50% renewable content and
by 14% at a 100% renewable content.
Economic development and jobs – LACCE could support the development of
local and regional energy projects, creating local jobs.
Local Control and Energy Management – The County and cities would have the
ability to offer choices for retail customers, like varying levels of renewable
energy at differ ent prices. Funding could be acquired for end -user programs such
as energy efficiency, retail distributed generation, energy storage, water
efficiency, and electric vehicle charging, etc.
While this study was done specifically to develop the Los Angeles Co mmunity Choice
Energy program, the similar benefits could be delivered to Santa Monica or a
subregional CCA. Both LA County and South Bay Clean Power have convened
stakeholder working groups to negotiate the governing structures and relationship
between a County and subregional CCA. There are several options that the City could
pursue to implement a CCA, each with pros and cons:
1. Engage the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy program, and participate in
Joint Powers Authority formation
2. Engage the South Bay C lean Power subregional CCA program, and participate
in Joint Powers Authority formation
3. Independently seek to become a CCA as a City, and contract services for
initiation from Lancaster Choice Energy, or a private third party
Los Angeles Community Choice E nergy
The City could participate in stakeholder workshops and negotiations to form a Joint
Powers Authority (JPA) agreement with the County and participating cities. Even once
formed, there is no obligation to join LACCE should it not meet the City’s needs . As a
member of the JPA, there would be no cost to the City for initial power procurement or
program initiation costs or services. The City could have a seat on the LACCE JPA
Board of Directors and would have the opportunity to work with the LACBOS and up to
4 of 11
81 other cities within the County. The County has initially proposed a voting structure
that would give each city one vote, unless a board member calls for a weighted vote.
The weighting of votes could be based on the electric power load of the members or
some other weighting formula. Currently with the County and 37 interested cities as
potential members, Santa Monica would have a weighted vote of 3.89%, ranking as the
6 th largest electrical consumer behind the County, Long Beach, Torrance, Carson,
San ta Clarita and Industry.
Benefits of Joining LACCE
Los Angeles County has financial strength and human resources
The County has experience and expertise with running c ountywide programs
The County has the potential to be the largest CCA in California with 5 County
districts and 82 eligible cities , and therefor e wield the greatest amount of
purchasing power
The County would secure funding and services for all participating cities
The County would assume all of the risk associated with starting a CCA
There i s strong support from County Supervisors and staff
The City of Santa Monica, as a South Bay Clean Power city, has been engaged
in the CCA feasibility process for two years and is well positioned to influence the
goals, mission, design, po licy, and procedur es of the JPA
Potential D isadvantages of Joining LACCE
The County could move slowly due to size and miss important deadlines and
milestone dates
The County has no prior experience with CCA and would rely on outside
consultants that are also available to S outh Bay Clean Power cities and the City
of Santa Monica
Because of the size and diversity of County cities, the JPA may not reflect the
values and goals of the City of Santa Monica
There could be less local control and influence, working with such a larg e
number of cities
The City would not receive any direct revenue from CCA operations
5 of 11
South Bay Clean Power (SBCP)
The City could join a JPA with other interested South Bay and Westside cities and
establish a subregional CCA. Each participating city would b e represented with a seat
on the JPA Board of Directors. SBCP would issue a Request for Services that includes
all CCA funding and development costs with no cost to any individual city. The City, as
a board member, would have the opportunity to determine a nd approve all goals and
objectives of the program. SBCP has signaled that it would pursue an advanced CCA
model that promotes maximizing local distributed energy resources (like rooftop solar)
and the necessary build -out and job creation to do so. SBCP wo uld hire an experienced
Executive Director or CEO to run the CCA’s power authority and hire staff. SBCP would
employ best practices from existing public power and regional power authorities. SBCP
could collaborate as a subregional CCA with the LACCE to sha re economies of scale,
but still retain autonomous decision -making. Currently with among the 14 interested
cities, Santa Monica would have a 14% and 15% weighted vote by population and
electric load, respectively.
Benefits of Joining SBCP
SBCP has access to the same funding and services as Los Angeles County
SBCP could collaborate and share economies of scale with the County without
having a dedicated County seat on the LACCE Board of Directors
SBCP could have lowest possible rates due to a greater combin ed power load
than the remaining power load of LACCE, Lancaster Clean Energy, or any other
CCA in California
SBCP cities share common ground and would support new economic
opportunities and environmental justice to frontline refinery communities.
SBCP is committed to CCA revenue going back into the program to maximize
positive economic and environmental impacts
SBCP’s ability to be a statewide leader in the Distributed Energy Resources
model is already embraced by state regulators and SCE
An existing stron g and diverse coalition of stakeholders, political supporters, and
endorsers provides advantages neither LACCE or LCE have
6 of 11
SBCP has over 2 years of Working Group experience and networking of CCA
connections statewide and County -wide
With a much smaller mem bership the governance model for SBCP JPA would be
simpler than that for LACCE, would provide the City of Santa Monica with a
greater voice in decisions, and would serve as a model for other regional CCAs
in the County to work together.
Potential D isadvan tages of Joining SBCP
There is the potential that SBCP cities could drop out and undermine the viability
of the JPA
There could be disagreement on goals and objectives and inability to come to a
JPA governance agreement
There is no proof of ability to achi eve 50% renewables portfolio at a lower rate
than SCE, as no feasibility study or business plan was developed specifically for
SBCP
SBCP may have a challenge gathering enough community support and
pa rticipation to achieve the high uptake rate that is requi red to be successful and
competitive
SBCP may not be able to attract or retain a top quality Executive Director or CEO
to run the CCA’s power authority
The County could oppose SBCP and refuse to collaborate
There could be less local control and influence, working with a smaller group of
cities of whom some may have greater influence due to their weighted vote
potential
The City would not receive any direct revenue from CCA operations
Lancaster Choice Energy
Lancaster Choice Energy Service (LCE) has offered cities and counties its services to
develop and launch CCAs. The City could pay LCE $154,000 in two phases to produce
load forecasting, data analysis, and pro -forma development based on the city’s energy
data. LCE would prepare an Ordinance of Intent to F orm a CCA and Implementation
Plan Document for the City. Once the CCA is operating, the City would pay a monthly
fee for LCE Services. Council would have the ability to set the rates, determine the
7 of 11
percentage of renewables, set the policy and program eleme nts, do community
outreach marketing, and have local governance and oversight. The City would be free
to use revenue from the program for any General Fund purpose.
Benefits of Hiring LCE
Lancaster has experience operating the only CCA in Los Angeles Coun ty and
SCE territory
The City would have sole control over the energy destiny without partnering with
any other city or the County
The CCA could be branded as the City of Santa Monica’s alone, creating an
opportunity to establish an integrated utility of w ater, waste management &
electricity services
The City would have the ability to use revenue from the CCA to finance City
projects of any kind
City Council and staff would have complete control of the program
No participation in a JPA would be required
The City would have access to Lancaster’s current and future renewable energy
portfolio
Potential D isadvantages of Hiring LCE
The up -front cost for development is not required by other options
The program would not be anchored by a JPA, which would place the City’s
General Fund at risk if the CCA became insolvent
The cost for energy to consumers would likely be higher than other options as a
smaller CCA
Lancaster is the State’s smallest CCA, less than two years old, and the only
single city non -JPA CCA in Cali fornia
There is no apparent value -added: all consultants and vendors that would
provide key services are also available to cities, County, or SBCP directly without
the LCE markup cost
8 of 11
LCE has no distributed energy focus , goals or commitment to building out local
energy resources, jobs, job training, apprenticeship programs, or help for
impacted and frontline communities
Private Third Party Service Providers
CCAs can also be developed and implemented directly by third party service providers.
Power services companies provide a broad array of expert services and are
experienced in risk management and scheduling for public power agencies. They can
still buy power from Power Marketers for the CCA, but have more options and flexibility;
and they are agnostic as t o what combination of wholesale power and local distributed
energy best meet the CCA’s power needs. The City could issue a request for proposals
to conduct a feasibility study, develop a business plan and select a service provider to
initiate CCA services on behalf of the City, with no startup costs. The selected provider
would provide these services and recoup its costs through the electrical rates. As no
study has been performed at the City level, it is undetermined if this would be a cost -
competitive off er compared to SCE, LACCE, SBCP or LCE. The City would be free to
use revenue from the program for any General Fund purpose.
Benefits of Third Party Service Providers
Service providers will bear the risk of CCA formation
Service providers will have incent ive to ensure the CCA is successful in order to
recoup their capital costs
No participation in a JPA would be required
The City would have sole control over the energy services and programs without
partnering with any other city or the County
The CCA could be branded as the City of Santa Monica’s alone, creating an
opportunity to establish an integrated utility of water, waste management &
electricity services
All CCA net revenues would be directed to the General Fund for community
energy services
The City Council and staff would have complete direct control of the program
Potential D isadvantages of Third Party Service Providers
9 of 11
The program would not be anchored by a JPA, which would place the City’s
General Fund at risk if the CCA became insolvent
Addition al City staff and resources would need to be dedicated to managing the
CCA
The ongoing cost may not be as competitive as other options
There is only one precedent of a city -only CCA; Santa Monica would be a small
CCA, and the second non -JPA CCA
Next Steps
The City may participate in the LACCE JPA formation discussions with no obligation to
participate in the actual JPA implementation. The LA County Chief Executive Officer will
present the final draft LACCE JPA document to the LACBOS for approval. The LACCE
JPA would be formed when at least one other city becomes a member. After which,
Council would have to approve its participation in the LACCE. If the City does not join
the JPA within a specified period, the City may risk having a smaller role in initiation
and/or initiation costs that would not be applied to initial members.
The City may also participate in the SBCP JPA formation discussions with no obligation
to participate in the actual JPA implementation. Once a final draft JPA is agreed upon
by partici pating stakeholders, South Bay Clean Power will work with member cities to
support its adoption and approval. A minimum number of cities and amount of electrical
load will be required for the SBCP CCA to be successful, but that amount has not been
determin ed.
Staff are currently attending meetings of both groups to monitor their processes, but
require Council direction in order to fully participate in the JPA negotiations. In order to
proceed, staff recommend that Council provide direction to staff to purs ue one or more
options of implementing a CCA. Staff also recommends Council adopt the attached
resolution which would affirm Santa Monica’s goals and objectives as a platform for
negotiations; and appoint a Council representative, staff liaison and alterna te liaison to
participate in formal negotiations.
10 of 11
Recommendation from the Task Force on the Environment
On January 23, 2017, staff presented the Task Force on the Environment with an
update on the City’s involvement to date in local CCA activities. The T ask Force on the
Environment adopted a motion to support the City’s participation in both the LACCE and
SBCP JPA formation discussions and recommends that Council adopt the draft platform
of goals and objectives when entering negotiations:
Draft Goals:
To eliminate carbon emissions associated with Santa Monica’s electricity
generation sources by 2050 or sooner
To achieve the highest rate of renewable sources that are cost competitive
To increase the deployment of energy efficiency and demand response servi ces,
distributed energy resources, electric vehicle infrastructure and other clean
technologies in Santa Monica and the Los Angeles metro area
Draft Objectives:
Implement or participate in a community choice energy/aggregation with goals
and objectives th at are aligned with Santa Monica’s goals and objectives
Seek to achieve the highest percentage of renewable energy from local sources
and the highest level of participation in the community
Ensure that Santa Monica has voting representation that reflects i ts
achievements in energy efficiency, solar and electric vehicles deployment, or
population, instead of total electrical load
Ensure that Santa Monica will receive a sustainable and equitable source of
funds that will support projects that reduce emissions from energy and fossil fuel
use
Ensure that all Santa Monicans will have equitable and affordable access to
clean energy and energy services
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget acti on necessary as a resul t of the
recommended action.
11 of 11
Prepared By: Garrett Wong, Sustainability Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Jan 13, 2015 Council Meetin g Staff Report - Resolution to Participate in
Community Choice Aggregation Feasibility Study
B. Resolution
C. Written Comments
D. PowerPoint Presenation
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Wednesday, February 08, 2017 4:01 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek; Susan Cline; Dean Kubani
Subject:FW: Community Choice Energy
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: Community Choice Aggregation.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Jill Boberg [mailto:jill.boberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 9:39 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Community Choice Energy
Hi
I would like to express my support for Community Choice Energy and teaming up with South Bay Clean
Power. I am fully in favor of Santa Monica forgi ng ahead with sustainable, renewable energy solutions.
Thank you!
Jill Bobe rg
Sunset Park
Santa Monica
--
jill
Item 8-A
02/14/17
1 Item 8-A
02/14/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 8:35 AM
To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Kevin
McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:FW: Agenda Item 8.A, February 14, 2017, Community Choice Aggregation: Feasibility
Study for Santa Monica-only CCA
Council ‐
Please see the email below re: Community Choice Aggregation.
Thank you,
Stephanie
From: Dana Palmer [mailto:dppalmer04@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 10:46 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>
Cc: Garrett T. Wong <Garrett.Wong@SMGOV.NET>; Dean Kubani <Dean.Kubani@SMGOV.NET>; Susan Cline
<Susan.Cline@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>
Subject: Agenda Item 8.A, February 14, 2017, Community Choice Aggregation: Feasibility Study for Santa Monica ‐only
CCA
Dear Honorable Santa Monica City Councilmembers:
As a resident of Santa Monica for nearly 12 years, there is no issue that gives me greater civic pride than the progressive
stances our city has taken concerning protection of the envir onment. Thank you for your nationally-significant leadership
on this issue. That the City is now inte rested in community choice aggregation is yet another testament to this leadership
for which my family is grateful.
I write today to urge you to direct staff to solicit bids fo r a feasibility study concerning formation of a Santa Monica-only
CCA. Until such a study is performed, the City simply will not be able to intelligently determine which CCA path
provides the correct amount of risk and reward. Given the pot ential revenues that the City could receive by creating its
own CCA, the cost of the study is trivial.
While the study is being performed, you should direct staff to stay engaged with discussions at Los Angeles Community
Choice Energy and South Bay Clean Power.
Ultimately, it is my sense that Santa Monicans will profit from complete control over energy procurement and more direct
governance of its CCA, and I suspect that the requested feasibility study will bolster these conclusions. Beyond the
feasibility study, I urge the City to act swiftly to pursue a CCA before opponents change the law to erect further obstacles
toward CCA formation.
Thank you for considering these thoughts.
Sincerely,
Dana P. Palmer
Item 8-A
02/14/17
2 Item 8-A
02/14/17
2
Sunset Avenue
Santa Monica
c (310) 463-6706
Item 8-A
02/14/17
3 Item 8-A
02/14/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Freeman Hall <fhall@solarelectricsolutions.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 3:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Comments RE: Agenda #8.A. re: Santa Monica 's evaluation of CCA opportunities /
recommend also stud ying single jurisdiction feasibility
Attachments:SantaMonicaCityCouncil_CCA_Staff Report_021417.pdf
My comments on agenda item #8.A. for tonight’s City Council meeting are below.
Freeman S. Hall
Solar Electric Solutions, LLC
11726 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 414
Los Angeles, CA 90049
o (310) 826-8510
c (404) 374-5099
This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission and
are not the addressee, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any
such inadvertent communication disclosure shall not compromise or waive any privilege as to this communication or otherwise. I f you have received this in error, please contact
the sender at the email address or phone number indicated above.
From: Freeman Hall
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:25 PM
To: 'ted.winterer@smgov.net' <ted.winterer@smgov.net>; 'gleam.davis@smgov.net' <gleam.davis@smgov.net>;
'tony.vazquez@smgov.net' <tony.vazquez@smgov.net>; 'kevin@mckeown.net' <kevin@mckeown.net>;
'sue.himmelrich@smgov.net' <sue.himmelrich@smgov.net>; 'pam.oconnor@smgov.net' <pam.oconnor@smgov.net>;
'terry.oday@smgov.net' <terry.oday@smgov.net>
Cc: 'dean.kubani@smgov.net' <dean.kubani@smgov.net>; 'susan.cline@smgov.net' <susan.cline@smgov.net>;
'rick.cole@smgov.net' <rick.cole@smgov.net>
Subject: Comments RE: Santa Monica's evaluation of CCA opportunities / recommend also studying single jurisdiction
feasibility
Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing as a concerned Santa Monica resident regarding the City’s CCA opportunity on the agenda for Tuesday’s
meeting (staff report attached) and want to encourage you to authorize a feasib ility study (Hermosa Beach paid $77k for a
feasibility study with LCE) to assess the potential significan t advantages and risks for the City to pursue a single
jurisdiction CCA, even while the City continues to assess the opportunity to join in a CCA through a Joint Powers
Authority (“JPA”) whether through LACCE or through the South Bay coalition. By also launching a relatively
inexpensive feasibility study to build on the learnings of existing single jurisdiction CCAs such as Lancaster Choice
Energy (LCE) and Clean Power SF, as well as the numerous CCAs formed through a JPA, the City can preserve the
option to develop a plan, much as Hermosa Beach is doing, that may better fit our City’s needs.
Given the inevitable governance challenges of a JPA, I w ould recommend the City assess feasibility to form a single
jurisdiction CCA. Such a step would not preclude continued participation of LACCE and South Bay JPA negotiation. It
would preserve an option for Santa Monica to streamline governance and control, while potentially avoiding
creditworthiness issues that hamper the initial years of CCAs formed as JPAs. Furthermore the assumption that a much
larger scale than the City’s current el ectricity load is needed to achieve favorable power supply purchasing no longer
holds due to the revolution in pricing of Distributed Generation (I can speak to this issue as an expert in the field.) The
bigger driver of favorable economics is strong credit. Sa nta Monica has this and could use its strong credit to its
advantage by pursuing a single jurisdiction CCA while mainta ining acceptable levels of risk to the City’s general
fund. The following chart from Hermosa Beach’s recent actions in July 2016 to explore a single jurisdiction CCA
Item 8-A
02/14/17
4 Item 8-A
02/14/17
2
illustrates the advantages of a hybrid appr oach that maintains clear control while saving costs through partnerships with
other like-minded CCAs:
Hermosa Beach CCA chart (July 2016)
Furthermore, by exploring this option, Santa Monica may fi nd it can implement enlightened strategies such as realizing
the synergies between grid services and the electrification of tr ansportation. For example, City of Lancaster has just
committed to purchase an all-electric fleet of city buses fro m BYD, a leading supplier of EVs. The buses will be
manufactured at a plant recently established by BYD in Lancast er. And the City intends to schedule battery charging and
discharging to address the flexible ramping needs of its power supply that seeks to rely h eavily on intermittent renewable
energy that LCE is providing. Santa Monica may well further its ability to roll out an all-electric Big Blue Bus service by
realizing such synergies as a single jurisdiction CCA.
I strongly recommend the City take the opportunity to study th e hybrid single jurisdiction CCA opportunity and that you
do so on an expedited basis. Given the challenges CCAs po se to the entrenched Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs), it would
not surprise me if future legislative changes dimmed the opportunity that CCAs currently provide for communities like
Santa Monica.
By way of background, I’m the President of Solar Electric Solutions (www.solarelectricsolutions.com ), a developer of 2-
20MW solar projects to the wholesale market. We’ve devel oped ~80 MW of projects now in operation. We’re based in
Brentwood and I have lived in Santa Monica for over 8 years.
Regards,
Freeman S. Hall
Solar Electric Solutions, LLC
11726 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 414
Los Angeles, CA 90049
o (310) 826-8510
c (404) 374-5099
This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission and
are not the addressee, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance upon the communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any
such inadvertent communication disclosure shall not compromise or waive any privilege as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this in error, please contact
the sender at the email address or phone number indicated above.
Item 8-A
02/14/17
5 Item 8-A
02/14/17
February 14, 2017
TO: Santa Monica City Council Members
FROM: Joe Galliani, South Bay Clean Power Working Group Chair
RE: Agenda Item #8 Update to Council on Community Choice Aggregation
OUR ASK
We are asking for the City of Santa Monica to collaborate with the 13 other cities of the South Bay
Clean Power (SBCP) initiative to come to an agreement on a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement
and form a truly local Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program with these cities who have been
exploring their CCA options together.
We are likewise requesting that the City of Santa Monica review our SBCP Business Plan by ask ing
Council City Council to direct City Staff to review, analyze and make recommendations to Council
regarding Santa Monica’s best CCA options. We believe that best option is becom ing a founding
member of South Bay Clean Power (a working name which will be replaced by the founding board of
directors of the JPA ) because we believe SBCP mo st closely aligns with Santa Monica’s DNA, vision,
goals and objectives and offers a superior program vision.
W e r equest that Santa Monica evaluate the regional JPA of CCA approach detailed in our SBCP
business plan and critically compare it with the opt ion of being a member of an LA County JPA.
We oppose a single -city, standalone CCA for Santa Monica which achieves none of the potential for
Community Choice Aggregation to maximize its ability to cut greenhouse gases or hasten the transition
to 100% renewable energy and provides no assistance to surrounding frontline communities. CCA’s
that do not form a JPA with other municipalities and who do not invest the revenue from the CCA
program back into the CCA program put their city’s General Fund at risk and cannot achieve the
financial stability or reserves necessary for a CCA to succeed long term.
HISTORY OF SOUTH BAY CLEAN POWER INITIATIVE
South Bay Clean Power’s effort began as a grassroots community initiative and grew out of the
MB2025 community forum in Manhattan Beach held March 29, 2014. South Bay Clean Power
community volunteers, including leaders of many community organizations , formed an ad hoc Working
G roup with representatives from 15 different South Bay and Westside cities and began meeting
monthly in June 2014 .
SBC P Working Group members successfully advocated for passage of resolutions to participate in a
CCA feasibility study in 13 individual cities, including the City of Santa Monica, all of whom voted to do
so unanimously . Those cities are : Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica, Carson,
Torrance, Redondo Beach, Lomita, Culver City, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Palos Verdes
Estates, Rolling Hills Estates. In addition , the city of Rancho Palos Verdes also asked to be included in
the feasibility study.
Item 8-A
02/14/17
6 Item 8-A
02/14/17
COMMON GOALS & OBJECTIVES
The South Bay Clean Power Working Group has shared common goals & objectives from the
beginning of the initiative. The #1 goal of the initiative from day one has been to get to 100 % renewable
power asap - with a 10 year target that grew out of MB2025:
1. The fastest path to 100% renewable power – with a goal of reaching that 10 years after our
CCA launches;
2. No use of Category 3 unbundled Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to achieve our
100% renewables goal;
3. A Distributed Energy Resources (DER) model with a Los Angeles County -wide buildout of
distributed renewable generation, storage, energy efficiency, demand response and electric
car infrastructure to maximize our DER potential;
4. A f ocus on local economic investment, local power generation, local jobs, local career
opportunities;
5. A partnership with labor – including project labor agreements, community benefit
agreements, sustainable workforce agreements, job training, and apprenticesh ip program;
6. A program focus and emphasis on environmental justice in frontline communities where
economic, workforce, and health needs are the greatest.
Achieving these admittedly ambitious but necessary goals and objectives here in Los Angeles County
wil l take an innovative next generation Community Choice Aggregation program, one that leverages not
only the best practices of other California CCAs but also our most successful and effective municipal
utilities. SBCP is offering that program.
S BCP ’s SANTA MONICA PARTNERSHIP
Santa Monica’s Dean Kubani reached out to SBCP unsolicited in 2014 and has been an integral
member of the Working Group as have Katharine King and Cris Gutierrez . Santa Monica’s inclusion
was immediately and enthusiastically embraced by SBCP .
In 2015 SBCP helped present a CCA workshop for Climate Action Santa Monica in which we partnered
with the Local Energy Aggregation Network (LEAN ) to deliver the CCA overview (included - zero
participation from County.)
In October of 2016 SBCP presented an update on its progress and Santa Monica’s role at the
Community Climate Action Summit.
THREE UNIVERSITY STUDIES SUPPORT A LOCAL CCA
There has been published support for SBCP in 3 different university studies - two of them done by Ju an
M atute’s UCLA Practicum students, and one done by the USC Capstone project - produced for the
cities of Hermosa Beach, Santa Monica and Torrance all recommend our cities working together.
HISTORIC & UNPRECENDNTED PARNTERSHIP WITH LABOR
As part of its c ore strategy, SBCP has initiated, cultivated developed and maintained a unique and
close partnership with the labor union most critical to CCA success, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW 11) as well as the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors
Association (NECA). Both organizations have provided funding for expenses and expert consultants to
assist in drafting our JPA and Business Plan documents as well as the video we produced on behalf of
the LA County program: https://youtu.be/MGXrjIYG4Rw
Item 8-A
02/14/17
7 Item 8-A
02/14/17
COMMITMENT TO LOCAL, DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES
SBCP’s Distributed Energy Resources (DER) focus and commitment is specific and unique. Only
SBCP is advocating for maximum buildout of our DER infrastructure including distributed renewable
generation, energy efficiency on steroids, energy storage, demand response and e lectric vehicles and
has a step -by -step a plan to achieve it based on proven models. DER is where the econom ic and
workforce development for cities comes from, this is where the power industry is headed, this is where
the opportunity for local build out of resources is and how we achieve resiliency/safety/homeland
security benefits .
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR FR ONTLINE COMMUNITIES
South Bay Clean Power wasn’t created to simply help upscale L.A. coastal communities lower their
electric bills and get paid for their solar production. It was created as a true partnership between coastal
communities and their neighbor s in adjoining communities who are bearing the brunt of fossil fuel
pollution’s serious damage to health and quality of life. Front line, ethnically diverse, working class
communities like Carson, Torrance, Lomita and others where oil production and toxic heavy industry
have been the norm and had the worst impacts, will benefit most from the economic and workforce
development opportunities in a local, DER -committed Community Choice Power program like the
model SBCP has proposed. This has been a core objecti ve of our effort from day one.
P A RTNERS, ALLIES, &, SUPPORTERS
SBCP has two and 1/2 years of experience and work educating, informing, engaging and promoting
Community Choice power both throughout LA County and beyond. SBCP has developed considerable
expertise and relationships including those with Southern California Edison and the state’s already
operating CCAs including - Marin Clean Energy, Sonoma Clean Power, Lancaster Choice Energy,
Peninsu la Clean Energy, Alameda County’s CCA, and the Redwood Coast Energy Authority. SBCP
also has ongoing relationships with members and staff of the California Public Utilities Commission,
Senator Ben Allen and his staff, Congressman , Ted Lieu’s staff, Congresswoman , Nanette Barragan.
The South Bay Clean Power Working Group has representatives from Climate Action Santa Monica,
Sierra Club, Environment California, Food & Water Watch, GRID Alternatives, Surfrider Foundation,
Heal the Bay, the Carson Coalition, the 100% renewable Policy Institute, UCLA, and USC.
SBCP is represented on the Steering Committee of the statewide CCA coalition, California Alliance for
Clean Power (CACE) and is a founding member of this organization which grew out of the successful
sta tewide coalition to defeat AB 2145 in 2014.
WORKING WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
South Bay Clean Power’s has worked with the LA County Board of Supervisors since November of
2014 when we started meeting with staff in Knabe and Kuehl’s office to brief th em on our efforts and
seek their support. SBCP solicited the Bo ard of Supervisors to have the C ounty fund a feasibility study
and assign County staff explore CCA options .
A fte r our first meeting, SBCP was recruited by the County’s Internal Services Department (ISD) to
produce and deliver CCA briefings to eligible cities. In addition, SBCP, at the written request of ISD’s
staff in 2015 successfully solicited the support and participation of labor, academia and NGOs in the
County’s CCA task force.
Item 8-A
02/14/17
8 Item 8-A
02/14/17
A PUBLIC POWER INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES APPROACH TO WORKING TOGETHER
SBCP wants to collaborate with the County on CCA and benefit from the economies of scale possible
in power procurement, data management and back office services - but there are no advantages of
doing so through a mega -JPA established by the County with the potential for 85 Board members
which cannot deliver local representation for each eligible city.
SBCP believes that it would be a best practic e to collaborate with the County and other regional CCAs
(like the one being discussed on Long Beach) in LA County through the same model that municipal
utilities throughout the state of California use - a JPA of CCAs. This model is detailed and explained in
the South Bay Clean Power business plan being released this week.
POOR EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH COUNTY’S ISD STAFF
During 2015 to 2016 Los Angeles County’s Internal Services Department staff and the consultants they
chose conducted 12 months of nonprod uctive task force meetings in which no tasks were assigned, no
committees formed, and no cities were engaged with. Over the course of a year , ISD staff offered only
a JPA draft which expressly forbid any city’s elected representatives from serving on its J PA board of
directors. Input provided by SBCP wa s ignored and never responded to.
LA C ount y’s CCA Business Plan (delivered in July of 2016) was written by consultants with no
expertise or experience in Community Choice Aggregation programs who were designated without
responding to an RFP. The lead consultant chosen by the County to supervise the project is owned by
the Gas Technology Institute, a natural gas industry trade organization.
The County’s CCA Business Plan was severely flawed and rebutted by SBCP’s 64 page response
whose recommendations were adopted in the County motion. The County is still employing these
same consultants on CC A.
This experience provided an illustrative working example of how the LA County’s Internal Services
Department operates and how they choose to work with cities.
SBCP RESPONSIBLE FOR COUNTY PUSHING RESET BUTTON
SBCP responded to the County’s JPA draft and Business Plan by working with Board of Supervisors
staffs and our allies to have a motion drafted and unanimously passed to push the reset button and
move the County’s program from under the direction of ISD to the direction of the County’s CEO with
the new Chief Sustainability Officer of the County leading the effort.
We intend to continue assisting Los Angeles County to create the most effective and progressive CCA
program for its unincorporated areas and appropriate cities. We look forward to seeing the County’s
CCA program join South Bay Clean Power, the Long Beach group we’re working with and other
regional CCAs within the County in becoming a member of the JPA of CCAs.
Item 8-A
02/14/17
9 Item 8-A
02/14/17
-‐
1
-‐
T o:
Mitchell
Shapson,
Staff
Attorney,
California
Public
Utilities
Commission
From:
Joe
Galliani,
Founding
Organizer,
South
Bay
Los
Angeles
350
Climate
Action
Group;
Chair,
South
Bay
Clean
Power
Working
Group;
and
Samuel
Golding,
President,
Community
Choice
Partners,
Inc.
Date:
January
20,
2017
RE:
Overview
of
Community
Choice
activities
in
Los
Angeles
County
We
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
brief
the
Commission
on
the
Community
Choice
activiti es
and
outlook
for
local
governments
in
the
Los
Angeles
County
region.
South
Bay
Clean
Power
is
a
group
of
14
cities
in
Los
Angeles
that
began
exploring
CCA
in
late
2014.
The
County
of
Los
Angeles,
the
City
of
Long
Beach,
and
the
City
of
Hermosa
Beach
are
also
exploring
CCA
to
varying
degrees.
There
is
a
high
degree
of
communication
between
these
initiatives,
as
cities
and
the
County
consider
how
best
to
implement
Community
Choice.
One
option
being
discussed
is
form
a
regional
Joint
Powers
Agency
(JPA)
of
multiple
CCAs .
Under
this
governance
model:
R M ultiple
autonomous
and
sovereign
CCAs
are
formed
(as
JPAs)
by
groups
of
cities
with
similar
policy
goals
throughout
Los
Angeles
County;
each
CCA
determines
its
own
power
portfolio
choices
rates
and
program
eleme nts ,
and
also
retains
full
control
of
its
financial
polic ies,
revenues
and
reserve
funds.
R These
CCAs
collectively
form
a
“R egional
JPA
of
CCAs”
to
provide
economies
of
scale
for
members
to
standardize
and
share
the
cost
of
required
services ,
streamline
startup
financing,
engage
in
joint -‐‑planning
and
joint -‐‑procurement
exercises ,
accelerate
the
credit -‐‑rating
process
for
bond
issuances,
and
coordinate
DER
programs
and
regulatory
and
legislative
engagements .
This
model
draws
upon
the
experience
of
other
p ub lic
power
entities
in
California
in
creating
similar
arrangements:
as
examples,
the
Northern
California
Power
Agency
(NCPA)
is
a
JPA
of
fifteen
municipal
utilities
and
cooperatives,
and
the
Southern
California
Public
Power
Authority
(SCPPA)
is
a
JPA
of
twelve
municipal
utilities
and
irrigation
districts.
Additionally,
local
governments
are
reviewing
the
recent
achievements
of
the
Redwood
Coast
Energy
Authority
in
Humboldt
County
(which
is
launching
their
CCA
in
March
of
this
year).
The
manner
in
which
this
CCA
has
been
designed
and
implemented
appears
to
represent
a
significant
evolution
in
wholesale
self -‐‑management
capabilities
for
CCAs ,
and
may
also
facilitate
the
integration
of
Distributed
Energy
Resources.
The
chief
advantage
is
that
the
Redwood
Coast
En ergy
Authority
hired
a
non-‐‑profit
owned
by
a
group
of
municipal
utilities
to
provide
energy
services
for
the
CCA.
This
non-‐‑profit
has
a
demonstrated
track
record
in
providing
a
full
suite
of
energy
services
to
serve
its
municipal
utility
members
and
other
clients .
These
services
are
provided
in
a
transparent
and
integrated
fashion,
and
appears
to
give
CCAs
a
comparable
level
of
sophistication
and
flexibility
(in
energy
planning,
origination,
contract
management,
market
operations
and
settlements)
as
compare d
to
the
Investor -‐‑Owned
Utilities.
Implementing
this
approach
through
the
Regional
JPA
of
CCAs
would
be
advantageous,
given
the
scale
of
the
potential
transition
underway
in
Los
Angeles
County;
absent
the
formation
of
a
Regional
JPA
of
CCAs,
this
approach
could
also
be
implemented
by
individual
CCAs
(such
as
South
Bay
Clean
Power),
as
was
done
by
the
Redwood
Coast
Energy
Authority .
Item 8-A
02/14/17
10 Item 8-A
02/14/17
-‐
2
-‐
The
remainder
of
this
memo
covers
the
history
and
status
of
CCA
exploration
for
the
various
governments
in
Los
Angeles
County .
History of CCA Exploration in Los Angeles County
In
May
of
2014,
South
Bay
Los
Angeles
350
Climate
Action
Group
and
the
City
of
Manhattan
Beach
held
a
“100%
renewables
forum ”
at
which
CCA
was
discussed.
Subsequently,
a
meeting
was
held
with
City
staff
from
Manhattan
Beach
and
Hermosa
Beach
to
discuss
exploring
CCA
options
for
the
15
cities
of
the
South
Bay
(as
defined
by
membership
in
the
South
Bay
Cities
Council
of
Governments).
Joe
Galliani ,
founding
organizer
of
the
South
Bay
Los
Angeles
350
Climate
Action
Group,
was
asked
to
conduct
outreach
to
the
other
13
cities
and
stakeholders
to
gauge
interest
in
CCA .
Formation of South Bay Clean Power (SBCP) Working Group
Finding
significant
interest
in
CCA,
an
ad -‐‑hoc
Working
Group
was
formed
composed
of
staff,
elected
officials ,
and
community
stakeholders
and
local
organizations .
This
group
began
meeting
monthly
in
June
of
2014.
Sub -‐‑committees
were
formed
for
Program
Elements
and
Design,
Governance
and
Technical,
Labor
and
Wor kforce
Development,
and
Public
Outreach.
The
working
name
of
South
Bay
Clean
Power
(SBCP)
was
adopted,
as
were
the
following
six
goals
and
objectives
for
the
CCA
initiative:
1.Accelerate
renewable
portfolio
content
to
100%
(goal
of
10
years );
2.No
use
of
Gree n-‐‑E
or
Category
3
unbundled
Renewable
Energy
Certificates
(RECs);
3.Maximize
the
use
of
Distributed
Energy
Resources ;
4.Prioritize
l ocal
investment,
local
power
generation,
local
jobs
and
career
opportunities ;
5.Support
labor
in
advancing
project
labor
agreements,
community
benefit
agreements,
sustainable
workforce
agreements,
job
training
and
apprenticeship
programs;
6.Focus
on
environmental
justice
in
frontline
communities
(where
needs
are
greatest ).
In
June
2014 ,
SBC P
also
joined
the
“No
on
AB
2145”
statewide
CCA
coalition
and
successfully
solicited
letters
of
opposition
from
several
cities,
the
County
of
Los
Angeles
and
local
NGOs.
Resolutions
to
Participate
in
CCA
Feasibility
Study
Over
the
next
year ,
SBCP
met
with
staff
and
elected
officials
in
each
of
the
f ifteen
South
Bay
cities
and
held
several
public
forums
on
CCA.
Subsequently,
thirteen
cities
unanimously
passed
resolutions
to
participate
in
a
CCA
feasibility
study:
1.Hermosa
Beach
(resolution
passed
September
9,
2014)
2.Manhattan
Be ach
(October
21,
2014 )
3.Santa
Monica
(January
13,
2015 )
4.Redondo
Beach
(January
20,
2015 )
5.Torrance
(January
28,
2015 )
6.Carson
(February
3,
2015 )
7.Beverly
Hills
(April
21,
2015)
8.Palos
Verdes
Estates
(April
28,
2015)
9.Lomita
(June
10,
2015 )
Item 8-A
02/14/17
11 Item 8-A
02/14/17
-‐
3
-‐
10. West
Hollywood
(August
3,
2015)
11. Malibu
(September
16,
2015)
12. Rolling
Hills
Estates
(September
22,
2015)
13. C ulver
City
(September
28,
2015)
An
additional
city,
Rancho
Palos
Verdes,
requested
to
participate
in
the
feasibility
stu dy
without
passing
a
resolution.
Inclusion
of
West
Side
Cities
In
August
of
2014,
staff
from
the
City
of
Santa
Monica
(which
is
not
a
member
of
the
South
Bay)
asked
to
join
the
SBCP
initiative
and
was
accepted
as
a
participating
city.
Subsequently,
our
target
group
of
cities
expanded
to
include
the
5
cities
of
the
West
side
of
Los
Angeles.
Support
of
Labor
Unions
In
July
of
2015 ,
members
of
our
SBCP
Working
Group
met
with
Jim
Willson,
Los
Angeles
County
leader
of
the
National
Electrical
Contra ctors
Association,
and
with
Dave
Gomez
of
the
International
Brotherhood
of
Electrica l
Workers
to
solicit
the
support
and
partnership
of
both
labor
unions
for
South
Bay
Clean
Power.
IBEW
11
and
NECA
have
been
partners
and
Working
Group
members
ever
since.
SBCP Engagement with the County of Los Angeles
In
November
of
2014,
SBCP
held
our
fi rst
meeting
on
CCA
with
LA
County
Supervisor
Knabe's
Chief
Deputy,
Steve
Napolitano.
We
briefed
Napolitano
on
San
Mateo
County
and
Alameda
County’s
funding
of
their
County’s
feasibility
study ,
and
requested
funding
for
an
LA
County
feasibility
study
that
included
our
South
Bay
Clean
Power
Cities.
In
January
of
2015 ,
Joe
Galliani
met
with
LA
County
Energy
and
Sustainability
Manger,
Howard
Choy,
to
brief
him
on
SBCP’s
status
and
intent.
That
same
month
Choy
addressed
the
SBCP
Working
Group
about
LA
County's
interest
in
CCA,
offered
support
and
encouragement
and
enlisted
our
help
to
outreach
to
cities
beyond
our
initiative.
On
March
17,
2015 ,
at
the
request
of
LA
County
Supervisors
Don
Knabe
and
Shelia
Kuehl,
the
LA
County
Board
of
Supervisors
voted
5 -‐‑0
to
direct
staff
to
write
a
report
on
what
steps
must
be
taken
to
explore
a
CCA.
In
April
of
2015,
support
for
South
Bay
Clean
Power’s
CCA
efforts
was
submitted
by
Congressman
Ted
Lieu,
and
by
State
Senator
Ben
Allen
to
the
LA
County
Board
of
Supervisors.
(We
have
continued
to
this
date
to
keep
both
representatives
brief ed
and
to
meet
with
their
staff.)
County
CCA
Feasibility
Study
On
June
24,
2015
the
LA
County
Board
of
Supervisors
received
a
report
from
staff
recommending
a
feasibility
study
be
conducted,
requesting
a
budget
of
$300,000
and
the
formation
of
a
County
CCA
Task
force.
On
September
15,
2015
-‐‑
LA
County
Board
of
Supervisors
voted
5-‐‑0
to
approve
motion
offered
by
Supervisors
Knabe
and
Ke uhl
to
move
forward
with
staff's
recommendations
and
included
language
acknowledging
SBCP
efforts
and
labor/
workforce
elements.
Item 8-A
02/14/17
12 Item 8-A
02/14/17
-‐
4
-‐
Supporting Role of SBCP Working Group
In
November
of
2015 ,
SBCP
Working
Group
members
were
asked
by
LA
County
staff
to
assis t
the
County’s
CCA
effort
by:
1. M obilizing
and
conso lidating
organized
labor
support;
2. O rganizing
support
among
academia
(USC,
UCLA,
et
c etera);
3. Coordinating
support
among
local
NGOs;
4. A ssisting
with
developing
a
labor
plan
which
shows
the
positive
job
creati on
benefits
of
CCA.
We
successfully
accomplished
all
four
requests.
Los Angeles County CCA Study & Staff Recommendations
In
July
of
2016 ,
Los
Angeles
County
published
the
CCA
Business
Plan
produced
by
its
consultants.
The
plan
finds
CCA
feasible
for
Los
Angeles
County
and
calls
for
the
program
to
enroll
customers
in
the
County’s
unincorporated
areas
before
any
eligible
cities
might
partici pate.
County
staff
also
proposed
a
JPA
draft
agreement
that
prohibited
elected
representatives
from
eligible
cities
to
serve
on
the
Board
of
Directors,
and
issued
a
preliminary
Request
for
Qualifications.
Written Response of SBCP
Following
the
release
of
the
LA
County
CCA
Business
Plan
and
staff’s
RFQ
issuance
and
proposed
JPA,
South
Bay
Clean
Power
submitted
a
written
response
and
recommendations
to
the
LA
County
Board
of
Supervisors
regarding
various
areas
needing
improvement.
Transition
of
Staff
Responsibilities
for
Future
CCA
Exploration
On
September
27,
the
Board
of
Supervisors
voted
unanimously
to
transition
oversight
of
the
County’s
CCA
initiative
from
the
Internal
Services
Department
to
the
County
CEO ,
with
the
County’s
new
Chief
Officer
of
Sustain ability
(Gary
Gero)
as
lead
staff.
The
Sept ember
27
motion
adopted
several
of
the
recommendations
made
by
SBCP.
Lancaster Choice Energy Engagement with City of Hermosa Beach
In
November
2015,
the
City
of
Hermosa
Beach
engaged
Lancaster
Choice
Energy
Ser vices
to
explore
alternative
options
for
forming
a
single
city
CCA.
Hermosa
Beach
staff
and
City
Council
announced
that
they
would
be
exploring
three
options
for
a
CCA :
creating
their
own
single -‐‑city
CCA
employing
Lancaster ’s
services ;
joining
the
County
of
Los
Angeles’
CCA
when
formed,
or
joining
the
South
Bay
Clean
Power
CCA
when
formed.
SBCP Engagement with the City of Long Beach
In
April
of
2016,
members
of
the
SBCP
Working
Group
began
meeting
individually
with
Council
members
of
the
Long
Beach
City
Council
and
their
staff,
as
well
as
the
staff
of
Mayor
Robert
Garcia,
and
the
staff
of
the
Long
Beach
Oil
&
Gas
Division .
The
purpose
of
these
meetin gs
was
to
brief
elected
officials
and
staff
on
the
status
of
SBCP’s
CCA
initiative,
the
County’s
study,
and
to
encourage
the
City
to
adopt
South
Bay
Clean
Power’s
goals
and
objectives
and
form
a
CCA
with
neighboring
cities.
Item 8-A
02/14/17
13 Item 8-A
02/14/17
-‐
5
-‐
Current Status of CCA Initiativ es
South Bay Clean Power
In
October
2016,
the
South
Bay
Clean
Power
“Working
Group ”
transitioned
to
become
the
South
Bay
Clean
Power
“Advisory
Committee ”,
with
a
staff
member
and
elected
representative
from
each
participating
city
joining
the
members
of
th e
Working
Group.
Agreement
to
Explore
SBCP
CCA
Options
The
Advisory
Committee’s
first
meeting
discussed
the
options
proposed
by
Los
Angeles
County
and
Lancaster
Choice
Energy,
and
compared
these
to
South
Bay
Clean
Power ’s
option
of
forming
its
own
CCA.
Me mber
cities
agreed
to
continue
t o
explore
their
options
as
a
14 -‐‑city
CCA
as
well
as
continuing
to
explore
the
possibility
of
joining
the
County ’s
CCA,
and
to
investigating
the
“JPA
of
CCAs”
concept
as
a
complementary
option.
Draft
S BCP
Joint
Powers
Agreement
South
Bay
Clean
Power
presented
its
draft
JPA
document
to
cities
and
held
a
JPA
workshop
at
its
December
15,
20 16
Advisory
Committee
meeting.
Draft
Business
Plan
for
SBCP
&
Regional
JPA
of
CCAs
This
month,
January
2017,
a
Business
Plan
designed
to
achieve
t he
goals
and
objectives
of
the
South
Bay
Clean
Power
Advisory
Committee
will
be
submitted
to
the
cities
for
review
and
potential
adoptio n.
This
plan
explains
various
best
practices,
details
the
step -‐‑by -‐‑step
implementation
process
and
timeline,
staffing
plan,
financing
strategy,
DER
strategy,
organizational
model
(the
CCA’s
practical
capabilities),
the
“JPA
of
CCAs”
governance
model,
and
the
advanced
program
design
and
contracting
process
recently
pioneered
b y
Humboldt
County.
City of Hermosa Beach
Hermosa
Beach
continues
to
explore
Lancaster
Clean
Energy’s
proposal
in
addition
to
participation
in
SBCP
or
the
County’s
CCA .
City of Long Beach
SBCP
has
been
meeting
with
members
of
the
Long
Beach
business
community,
the
Port
of
Long
Bea ch
and
community
organizations
for
several
months,
and
discussed
the
“JPA
of
CCAs”
option.
In
December
of
2016
SBCP
submitted
a
draft
JPA
agreement
to
the
City
for
conside ration ,
and
will
also
make
our
future
work
products
available
for
review
to
inform
the
City’s
CCA
initiative.
County of Los Angeles
The
County
has
rejected
the
previous
JPA
and
RFQ
proposed
by
staff
from
the
Internal
Services
Department ,
and
is
currently
f ocusing
on
drafting
a
new
JPA
to
create
a
CCA
that
includes
interested
cities
in
addition
to
County’s
unincorporated
territory .
On
December
7,
2016,
newly -‐‑
appointed
lead
staff
(Chief
Officer
of
Sustainability
Gary
Gero )
held
the
first
public
workshop
to
co mmence
this
renewed
effort .
The
“JPA
of
CCAs”
proposed
by
SBCP
was
discussed
as
an
option.
A
workshop
for
interested
cities
to
discuss
further
JPA
issues
was
held
on
January
10,
2017 .
Item 8-A
02/14/17
14 Item 8-A
02/14/17
Community Choice
Aggregation Update
Electricity in Santa Monica Today
Santa Monica’s Electric Load
•48,000 residential accounts
•9 -10 ,000 commer cial accounts
•Re presents ~20% of total GHG
•Annual Load –900,000 MWh
•Gr oss re venue value –$55M
Renewable
25%
Large
Hydro
2%Natural
Gas
26%
Nuclear
6%
Unspecified
41%
SCE’s Current Power Mix
What is Community Choice A ggregation?
•CCA (CCE) allows local
go ve rnments t o
pur chase and sell
electricity to cust omers
in their jurisdictions
inst ead of in ve st or
owned utility (IOU) power
pr ocurement.
Why Community Choice Aggregation?
•Allows f or communities t o
ha ve a higher per centage
of rene wables at
pot entially lower cost
•Sour cing electricity fr om
rene wable sour ces is an
essential strat egy f or
reducing emissions and
reaching carbon neutrality
Jan 30,20 15
•Council adopts a
non -binding
resolution to join
South Ba y Clean
Power feasibility
study
•SBCP approaches
LA County to tak e
the lead in financing
the f easibility study
fo r a countywide
CCA .
June 20, 20 16
•LA County
publishes the
fe asibility study in
the f orm of a
Business Plan .
Sept 2 7, 20 16
•LA CBOS authorizes
LA C CEO to engage
stak eholders,
determine gov ernance
structure and begin
negotiations with
eligible and interested
cities.
Oct/Dec 20 16
•SBCP and LA County
hold stak eholder
meetings to update
members on the
process
•Interest ed cities are
in vited to par ticipate
in JP A ‘negotiations’
star ting Jan 20 17
Background
LA County Business Plan findings
The Business Plan det ermined that a CCA is f easible and could yield in cost -
sa vings fo r residential and commercial electricity cust omer s .
Rat e Class SCE
Bundled Rat e
LA CCE 50%
Green Bundled
Rat e
LA CCE 10 0%
Green Bundled
Rat e
Re sidential 17 .1 16 .4 18.2
Small Commercial 16 .6 15.9 17 .7
Large Commercial 15.8 15.2 16 .9
Industrial 14 .5 13.9 15.5
To tal LA CCE Rat e
Sa vings 4.1%(6.3%)
CCA Options for Santa Monica
1.Engage the Los Angeles Community Choice Energy pr ogram, and
par ticipat e in Joint P owe rs A uthority f ormation
2.Engage the South Ba y Clean P ower sub regional CCA pr ogram,
and par ticipat e in Joint P owe rs A uthority f ormation
3.Explore initiating a CCA as a single -city entity , and contract
ser vices f or initiation fr om Lancast er Choice Energy , or a privat e
thir d par ty .
Los Angeles Community Choice
Energy (LACCE)
•City w ould ent er a JP A with County and other int erest ed LA County
cities and establish a regional CCA
•Each par ticipating city w ould be represent ed with a seat on the JP A
Boar d of Direct ors
•LA CCE wo uld issue a R equest f or Ser vices that includes all CCA
funding and de ve lopment costs with no cost t o an y individual city
•Vo ting: one city -one v ot e; W eight ed V oting (pr oposed): electric load
South Bay Clean Power (SBCP)
•City w ould f orm a JP A with other int erest ed South Ba y & W estside
cities and establish a sub -regional CCA
•Each par ticipating city w ould be represent ed with a seat on the JP A
Boar d of Direct ors
•SBCP w ould issue a R equest f or Ser vices that includes all CCA
funding and de ve lopment costs with no cost t o an y individual city
•Vo ting : one city -one v ot e; W eight ed V oting (pr oposed): electric load
Lancaster Choice Energy (LCE)
•Pa y L CE $7 7,000 fo r its ser vices
•Pr oduce load f orecasting, data analysis, and pr o -fo rma de velopment based on the City’s energy data
•P repare an Ordinance of Intent to F orm a CCA and Implementation Plan Document f or the City
•Once the CCA is operating, the City would pa y a monthly f ee f or L CE ser vices
•Council would set rat es, det ermine rene wable mix, set policy and pr ogram elements, do outreach & mark eting, and maintain local go ve rnance o ve rsight
•City would be free t o use an y re ve nue fr om the pr ogram f or an y purpose
Private Third Party Service Providers
•The City hire a thir d par ty ser vice pr ov ider t o de ve lop and
implement a CCA
•Ser vice pr ov ider w ould conduct a f easibility study , de ve lop a
business plan, and initiat e CCA ser vices on behalf of the City , with
no star tup costs
LA CCE SBCP Lancast er 3 rd Par ty
Star t -Up Fo rm JP A
Hire staf f
Fo rm JP A
Hire staf f
Contract ser vices
$7 7,000
Contract ser vices
Fe asibility study
Business plan
Gov ernance Board member Boardmember City Council/Staf f City Council/Staf f
Administration JP A JP A Lancaster/City
Staf f City Staf f/Contractor
Benefits -No upfront cost
-Purchasing po wer
-No upfront cost
-Interest/Influence
-Purchasing po wer
-Timing/Speed
-Interest/Influence
-Centralized utility
-Reve nue to City
-No upfront cost
-Timing/Speed
-Interest/Influence
-Centralized utility
-Reve nue to City
Disadvantages
-Timing/Speed
-Interest/Influence
-No re ve nue
-Timing/Speed
-Interest/Influence
-No re ve nue
-Upfront cost
-Ongoing f ee
-Admin/Finance
-Steep learning cur ve
Proposed CCA Resolution
Goals:
•Eliminat e carbon
emissions
•Achie ve high rat e of
cost -competitive
rene wa bles
•Increase energy
ser vices , local solar ,
EV charging and
clean t echnologies
Objectiv es:
•Implement/par ticipat e in a CCA with similar goals and
objectiv es
•Achie ve high le vel of par ticipation in the community
•Ensure vot ing representation reflects energy
achie vements, or population, instead of total electrical
load
•Ensure a sustainable and equitable source of funds to
suppor t local pr ojects
•Ensure that all Santa Monicans will ha ve equitable and
af fo rdable access to clean energy and energy ser vices
Recommended Actions
•Pr ov ide direction t o staf f t o pursue one or more Community Choice
Ag gregation (CCA) implementation pathw ay s: opt to join either the
LA County or the South Ba y Clean P owe r JP A,ex plore initiating a
CCA on its own, or choose not t o par ticipat e in a CCA; and
•Adopt a resolution that establishes a platf orm of goals and
objectiv es f or negotiation and appoints one Council representativ e,
one staf f liaison and one staf f alt ernat e t o f ormally par ticipat e in
Community Choice A ggregation Joint P owe rs A uthority negotiations.
Thank you
Reference:
Resolution No. 11023
(CCS)