Tag Archives: CCA

A cautionary tale to communities negotiating with energy project developers

The City of Davis signed a lease option agreement on March 24 with a start up solar development company headed by a former CEO of a large renewable firm. How the negotiation process reflected a lack of sufficient knowledge on the part of the City staff is instructive to other cities and counties about the need to be fully informed when a renewable project developer approaches them about land or power deals. In this case the City gave away the potential for gaining tens of millions of dollars.

The agreement was negotiated in a series of closed sessions starting December 17 and approved in a rush under the premise that the project faced an April 15 deadline for submitting its interconnection application to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The deal immediately unleashed a storm of outrage from many knowledgeable citizens (several who are appointed city commission members) and the City responded soon after with a press release and “Q&A” that did little to quell the uproar. Two City Councilmembers then wrote an additional defense of the deal. The City’s Utilities Commission voted 5-2 to recommend that the City Council rescind the agreement. A request to “cure and correct” under the Brown Act was then filed April 23 by a group of citizens (including me).

Ashley Feeney, City Assistant City Manager, claimed at the Utilities Commission special meeting April 22 that the BrightNight lease option agreement and term sheet have “favorable terms to the City.”  No doubt it’s favorable to the developer — a low-cost lease option and lease terms at the average rate for agricultural use for a multi-million dollar solar energy project with no strings attached. The staff’s naivete comes through a close reading of the entire agreement.

What are so many people missing that makes this project so favorable to the City as the Council and staff claim? While the process of signing the lease option agreement with the developer was (a) unnecessarily secretive, (b) precluded useful citizen input, and (c) likely violated state law in several ways— at its core, the agreement is simply a bad deal. The City either failed to carry out its due diligence, or was seriously misled by the developer, or both. As a result, the City likely gave away millions of dollars over the next 50 plus years, failed to guarantee any clean energy for the City and failed to protect the City fully at the end of the project life. While the City may desire local renewable power, the agreement lacks any real commitment to advance the City’s climate goals while gaining local benefits.

The agreement (1) underprices both the lease option and the lease prices relative the actual value to the developer, (2) lacks any guarantee of plant power being sold to Davis or VCEA, much less at favorable terms, (3) lacks appropriate protection that sufficient funds will be available to decommission the plant, and (4) forsakes opportunities for more valuable alternative uses for those parcels for at least the next five years.

The first of those misunderstandings was that there was, in fact, no need for the developer to have site control for the CAISO interconnection process.  Whatever developer’s “standard” practice is has no bearing on how and what the City should decide in its own interest. The CAISO interconnection process requires either (1) a $250,000 refundable deposit regardless of site control plus a $150,000 study deposit, if the project is submitting under the Cluster application which is due by April 15, or (2) with site control there is no deposit except the same $150,000 study deposit under the Independent Study Process and no deadline. In this case, the City has essentially gifted the developer $225,000 by providing site control at a steep discount. The developers appears to have exploited the City’s lack of knowledge about the interconnection process by conflating the two processes.

Instead the City should have priced the lease option to reflect the developer’s value, not the City’s. That means that handing over the site control was worth the avoided carrying cost of that deposit each year. With a standard rate of return of at least 10% on real estate investments, that amounts to $25,000 per year, which translates into $106 per acre.  In any case, the minimum opportunity cost to the City is either using it for annual row crop agriculture or reflecting the delay in other uses such as organic waste processing, both of which far exceed the $20 per acre in the lease option.

The City should have specified that the project sell output only to either the City or Valley Clean Energy Authority (VCEA) at a favorable price. The developer is now in the driver’s seat and can solicit bids from the entire range of utilities and load-serving entities such as PG&E, SMUD and other CCAs. This will make the cost of this power more expensive even if Davis or VCEA wins the power output. But now that the agreement has been executed, the City no longer has any leverage in either the lease terms or an energy sale to VCEA, because it cannot force the developer into an agreement.

The City could have specified that the output be wheeled to City accounts through PG&E’s RES-BCT tariff that is available to public agencies. A wholesale solar power contract for the project is unlikely to be much more than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. In contrast, if the project was structured to take advantage of the the power savings under RES-BCT would amount to over 8 cents per kilowatt-hour—at least 60% higher. (At least 35 megawatts is still available for subscription.) This benefit amounts to over $1.2 million per year at current PG&E rates, compared to an expected annual lease payment under the current lease agreement ranging from $40,000 to $80,000. The gain in value over 50 years could be $52 million in nominal dollars or $21 million in net present value. That delivers an equivalent to a lease rate of $5,000 per acre, not $340 or less.

Even if the City did not use the power output, it should have negotiated a lease price based on either (1) the value of rezoned commercial and industrial land since the developer would have to get that zoning designation to develop its project elsewhere, or (2) the highest agricultural value (not the average for the county). For agricultural land, the value a City commissioner and orchard farmer has calculated is $1,688 to $2,250 per acre, or four to five times higher than the rate that the City negotiated based on a naïve calculation.

Further, the term sheet specifies that the developer pay the property taxes. However, the value of the parcels will not increase if the project is built prior to the 2025 because of the solar property exclusion in state law. The County will receive a short term boost in sales tax revenues from plant construction, but the City will not receive any share of that since its outside City boundaries. The City could have negotiated an in-lieu payment from the developer based on the added property value.

While the lease agreement pays lip service to the developer’s responsibility for decommissioning and disposing of the project at the end of its useful life, the term sheet has no provision prohibiting the developer from declaring bankruptcy for its limited liability corporation (LLC) and just walking away. Since the project will have no income at the end its life, and the entity owning the plant is legally separate from primary development firm (or its successor), the obvious step is to simply dissolve the LLC through a bankruptcy.  Such a step would leave the plant for the City to dispose of at significant expense (likely more than $1 million at today’s prices.)  This will wipe out half of the current lease revenues. That is the route that PG&E Corporation took in 2001 when its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, declared bankruptcy in 2001, leaving the bill of the energy crisis to ratepayers instead of shareholders. The City failed to require a surety bond that would cover those costs. Such bonds or other endowments are typical for projects of this type.

An additional consideration that appears to have been ignored is that The City has been looking at other higher value uses of the site such as organics waste disposal or habitat preservation and restoration. These have been under study at several City Commissions, but now those efforts have been aborted.

Finally, some of have defended maintaining the agreement because abrogating it could expose the City to significant legal liability. The developer at this time cannot sue for more than its demonstrated losses, and since it does not yet have a power purchase agreement, it has no future income stream to point to. At most, the liability is the $150,000 deposit with the CAISO  plus a few thousand dollars expended preparing and submitting the interconnection application (which in fact can be remediated with a $250,000 refundable deposit).

The agreement still faces several hurdles including whether the process violated California’s Brown Act, approval with any Yolo County zoning changes, conformance between the agreement and CAISO interconnection requirements, and winning with an RFO bid.

Even if the City believes that it is compelled to go forward with this agreement, it should admit that it made a series of serious mistakes and needs to review its practices and processes that caused this mess. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the City could have done any worse in these negotiations.

Richard McCann testified at the California Public Utilities Commission on behalf of Santa Clara and San Joaquin counties about their RES-BCT projects, and analyzed solar net metering arrangements for agricultural and mobilehome park clients. He evaluated the fiscal impacts of solar projects on San Luis Obispo, San Benito and Inyo counties, and projected the costs of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan for the California Energy Commission. He is a member of the Natural Resources Commission, former member of the Utilities Commission, and was recently recognized with  the City’s 2020 Environmental Recognition Award for serving on the Technical Advisory Subcommittee of the Community Choice Energy Advisory Committee, leading to formation of Valley Clean Energy.

Should CCAs accept a slice of Diablo Canyon power?

The northern California community choice aggregators (CCAs) are considering a offer from PG&E to allocate to each CCA a proportionate share of parts of its portfolio, including the Diablo Canyon nuclear generation station. Many CCA boards are hearing from anti-nuclear activists to deny this offer, both for moral reasons and the belief that such a rejection will somehow pressure PG&E financially. The first set of concern is beyond my professional expertise, but their reasoning on the economic and regulatory issues is incorrect.

  • CCAs buy a substantial portion of their generation (the majority for many of them) from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) energy markets. PG&E schedules Diablo Canyon into those CAISO markets and under the current CAISO tariffs, nuclear generation is a “must take” resource that the CAISO can’t turn back. So the entire output of Diablo Canyon is scheduled into the CAISO market (without any bidding process), PG&E is paid the market clearing price (MCP) for that Diablo power, and the CCAs buy that mix of nuclear power at the MCP. There is no discretion for either the CAISO or the CCAs in taking excess power from Diablo. There is no “lifeline” for Diablo that the CCAs have any control over under current legal and regulatory parameters.
  • CCAs already pay for a proportionate share of Diablo Canyon equal to the CCAs share of overall load. That payment is broken into two parts (and maybe a third): 1) the purchase of energy from the CAISO at the MCP and 2) the stranded capital and operating costs above the MCP in the PCIA. (CCAs also may be paying for a share of the resource adequacy, but I haven’t thought through that one.) Thus, if the CCAs receive credit for the energy that they are already paying for, the energy portion essentially comes as “free”. In addition, because CCAs currently pay for the remaining share of Diablo costs, but get no energy credit for that in the PCIA calculation, then that credit is in the PCIA is also “free”. In addition, the CCAs gain credit for Diablo’s GHG-free generation (as recognized in the Air Resources Board GHG allowance program) as LSE’s for no extra cost, or for “free.” The bottom line is when the CCAs gain credit for products that they are already paying for, receipt of those products is for “free.”
  • Accepting this deal will not solve ALL of the CCAs problems, but that’s a false goal. That was never the intent. It does however give the CCAs a respite to get through the period until Diablo retires. One needs to recognize that this provides some of the needed relief.
  • Finally, there’s never any certainty over any large deal. Uncertainty should not freeze decision making. The uncertainty about the PCIA going forward is equally large and perhaps offsetting. The risks should be identified, discussed, considered and addressed to the extent possible. But that’s different than simply nixing the deal without addressing the other large risk. Naively believing that Diablo can be closed in short order (especially with the COVID crisis) is not a true risk management strategy.

From these points, we can come to these conclusions:

  1. Whether the CCAs accept or reject the nuclear offer has NO impact on PG&E’s revenue stream. The decisions that the CCAs face are entirely about whether the CCAs can lower their costs and gain some additional GHG reduction credits that they are already paying for (in other words, reduce their subsidies of bundled customers.) Nothing that the CCAs decide will affect the closure date of Diablo. If the CCAs reject the allocations, it will simply be business as usual to the full closures in 2025. Any other interpretation doesn’t reflect the current regulatory environment at the CPUC which are unlikely to change (and even that is unknown) until enough commissioners’ five-year terms roll over.
  2. The system can only be changed by legislative and regulatory action. That means that the CCAs must make the most prudent financial decisions within the current context rather than making a purely symbolic gesture that is financially adverse and will do nothing to change the BAU practice. A wise decision would consider what is the true impact of the action on
  3. Finally, early closure of Diablo will NOT remove the invested capital cost from PG&E’s ratebase, which is what drives the PCIA. After the plant is closed, activists will ALSO have to show that the INVESTMENT in the plant was imprudent and should not have been allowed. Given the long history on decisions and settlements in Diablo investment costs and the inclusion of recovery of Diablo costs in both AB1890 and AB1X at the beginning and end of the energy crisis, that is an impossible task. Only a constitutional amendment through the initiative process could possibly lead to such an action, and even that would have to survive a court challenge that probably would push past 2024.

I want to finish with what I think is a very important point that has been overlooked by the activists: The effort to close Diablo Canyon has won. Activists might not like the timeline of that victory, but it is a victory nevertheless that looked unachievable prior to 2016. It’s worthwhile considering whether the added effort for what will be for a variety of reasons little gain is an important question to answer.

Note that Diablo Canyon is already scheduled for closure in 2024 and 2025. A proceeding to either reopen A.16-08-006 or to open a new rulemaking or application would probably take close to a year, so the proceeding probably wouldn’t open until almost 2021. The actual proceeding would take up to a year, so now we’re to 2022 before an actual decision. PG&E would have to take up to a year to plan the closure at that point, which then takes us to 2023. So at best the plant closes a year earlier than currently scheduled. In addition, PG&E still receives the full payments for its investments and there’s likely no capital additions avoided by the early closure, so the cost savings would be minimal.

We’ve already paid for Diablo Canyon

As I wrote last week, PG&E is proposing that a share of Diablo Canyon nuclear plant output be allocated to community choice aggregators (CCAs) as part of the resolution of issues related to the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), Resource Adequacy (RA) and Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) rulemakings. While the allocation makes sense for CCAs, it does not solve the problem that PG&E ratepayers are paying for Diablo Canyon twice.

In reviewing the second proposed settlement on PG&E costs in 1994, we took a detailed look at PG&E’s costs and revenues at Diablo. Our analysis revealed a shocking finding.

Diablo Canyon was infamous for increasing in cost by more than ten-fold from the initial investment to coming on line. PG&E and ratepayer groups fought over whether to allow $2.3 billion dollars.  The compromise in 1988 was to essentially shift the risk of cost recovery from ratepayers to PG&E through a power purchase agreement modeled on the Interim Standard Offer Number 4 contract offered to qualifying facilities (but suspended as oversubscribed in 1985).

However, the contract terms were so favorable and rich to PG&E, that Diablo costs negatively impacted overall retail rates. These costs were a key contributing factor that caused industrial customers to push for deregulation and restructuring. As an interim solution in 1995 in anticipation of forthcoming restructuring, PG&E and ratepayer groups arrived at a new settlement that moved Diablo Canyon back into PG&E’s regulated ratebase, earning the utilities allowed return on capital. PG&E was allowed to keep 100% of profit collected between 1988 and 1995. The subsequent 1996 settlement made some adjustments but arrived at essentially the same result. (See Decision 97-05-088.)

While PG&E had borne the risks for seven years, that was during the plant startup and its earliest years of operation.  As we’ve seen with San Onofre NGS and other nuclear plants, operational reliability is most at risk late in the life of the plant. PG&E’s originally took on the risk of recovering its entire investment over the entire life of the plant.  The 1995 settlement transferred the risk for recovering costs over the remaining life of the plant back to ratepayers. In addition, PG&E was allowed to roll into rate base the disputed $2.3 billion. This shifted cost recovery back to the standard rate of depreciation over the 40 year life of the NRC license. In other words, PG&E had done an end-run on the original 1988 settlement AND got to keep the excess profits.

The fact that PG&E accelerated its investment recovery over the first seven years and then shifted recovery risk to ratepayers implies that PG&E should be allowed to recover only the amount that it would have earned at a regulated return under the original 1988 settlement. This is equal to the discounted net present value of the net income earned by Diablo Canyon, over both the periods of the 1988 (PPA) and 1995 settlements.

In 1996, we calculated what PG&E should be allowed to recover in the settlement given this premise.  We assumed that PG&E would be allowed to recover the disputed $2.3 billion because it had taken on that risk in 1988, but the net income stream should be discounted at the historic allowed rate of return over the seven year period.  Based on these assumptions, PG&E had recovered its entire $7.7 billion investment by October 1997, just prior to the opening of the restructured market in March 1998.  In other words, PG&E shareholders were already made whole by 1998 as the cost recovery for Diablo was shifted back to ratepayers.  Instead the settlement agreement has caused ratepayers to pay twice for Diablo Canyon.

PG&E has made annual capital additions to continue operation at Diablo Canyon since then and a regulated return is allowed under the regulatory compact.  Nevertheless, the correct method for analyzing the potential loss to PG&E shareholders from closing Diablo is to first subtract $5.1 billion from the plant in service, reducing the current ratebase to capital additions incurred since 1998. This would reduces the sunk costs that are to be recovered in rates from $31 to $3 per megawatt-hour.

Note that PG&E shareholders and bondholders have earned a weighted return of approximately 10% annually on this $5.1 billion since 1998. The compounded present value of that excess return was $18.1 billion by 2014 earned by PG&E.

CCAs don’t undermine their mission by taking a share of Diablo Canyon

Northern California community choice aggregators (CCAs) are considering whether to accept an offer from PG&E to allocate a proportionate share of its “large carbon-free” generation as a credit against the power charge indifference adjustment (PCIA) exit fee.  The allocation would include a share of Diablo Canyon power. The allocation for 2019 and 2020; an extension of this allocation is being discussed on the PCIA rulemaking.

The proposal faces opposition from anti-nuclear and local community activists who point to the policy adopted by many CCAs not to accept any nuclear power in their portfolios. However, this opposition is misguided for several reasons, some of which are discussed in this East Bay Community Energy staff report.

  • The CCAs already receive and pay for nuclear generation as part of the mix of “unspecified” power that the CCAs buy through the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The entire cost of Diablo Canyon is included in the Total Portfolio Cost used to calculate the PCIA. The CCAs receive a “market value” credit against this generation, but the excess cost of recovering the investment in Diablo Canyon (for which PG&E is receiving double payment based on calculations I made in 1996) is recovered through the PCIA. The CCAs can either continue to pay for Diablo through the PCIA without receiving any direct benefits, or they can at least gain some benefits and potentially lower their overall costs. (CCAs need to be looking at their TOTAL generation costs, not just their individual portfolio, when resource planning.)
  • Diablo Canyon is already scheduled to close Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025 after a contentious proceeding. This allocation is unlikely to change this decision as PG&E has said that the relicensed plant would cost in excess of $100 per megawatt-hour, well in excess of its going market value. I have written extensively here about how costly nuclear power has been and has yet to show that it can reduce those costs. Unless the situation changes significantly, Diablo Canyon will close then.
  • Given that Diablo is already scheduled for closure, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is unlikely to revisit this decision. But even so, a decision to either reopen A.16-08-006 or to open a new rulemaking or application would probably take close to a year, so the proceeding probably would not open until almost 2021. The actual proceeding would take up to a year, so now we are to 2022 before an actual decision. PG&E would have to take up to a year to plan the closure at that point, which then takes us to 2023. So at best the plant closes a year earlier than currently scheduled. In addition, PG&E still receives the full payments for its investments and there is likely no capital additions avoided by the early closure, so the cost savings would be minimal.

Microgrids could cost 10% of undergrounding PG&E’s wires

One proposed solution to reducing wildfire risk is for PG&E to put its grid underground. There are a number of problems with undergrounding including increased maintenance costs, seismic and flooding risks, and problems with excessive heat (including exploding underground vaults). But ignoring those issues, the costs could be exorbitant-greater than anyone has really considered. An alternative is shifting rural service to microgrids. A high-level estimate shows that using microgrids instead could cost less than 10% of undergrounding the lines in regions at risk. The CPUC is considering a policy shift to promote this type of solution and has new rulemaking on promoting microgrids.

We can put this in context by estimating costs from PG&E’s data provided in its 2020 General Rate Case, and comparing that to its total revenue requirements. That will give us an estimate of the rate increase needed to fund this effort.

PG&E has about 107,000 miles of distribution voltage wires and 18,500 in transmission lines. PG&E listed 25,000 miles of distribution lines being in wildfire risk zones. The the risk is proportionate for transmission this is another 4,300 miles. PG&E has estimated that it would cost $3 million per mile to underground (and ignoring the higher maintenance and replacement costs). And undergrounding transmission can cost as much as $80 million per mile. Using estimates provided to the CAISO and picking the midpoint cost adder of four to ten times for undergrounding, we can estimate $25 million per mile for transmission is reasonable. Based on these estimates it would cost $75 billion to underground distribution and $108 billion for transmission, for a total cost of $183 billion. Using PG&E’s current cost of capital, that translates into annual revenue requirement of $9.1 billion.

PG&E’s overall annual revenue requirement are currently about $14 billion and PG&E has asked for increases that could add another $3 billion. Adding $9.1 billion would add two-thirds (~67%) to PG&E’s overall rates that include both distribution and generation. It would double distribution rates.

This begs two questions:

  1. Is this worth doing to protect properties in the affected urban-wildlands interface (UWI)?
  2. Is there a less expensive option that can achieve the same objective?

On the first question, if we look the assessed property value in the 15 counties most likely to be at risk (which includes substantial amounts of land outside the UWI), the total assessed value is $462 billion. In other words, we would be spending 16% of the value of the property being protected. The annual revenue required would increase property taxed by over 250%, going from 0.77% to 2.0%.

Which turns us to the second question. If we assume that the load share is proportionate to the share of lines at risk, PG&E serves about 18,500 GWh in those areas. The equivalent cost per unit for undergrounding would be $480 per MWh.

The average cost for a microgrid in California based on a 2018 CEC study is $3.5 million per megawatt. That translates to $60 per MWh for a typical load factor. In other words a microgrid could cost one-eighth of undergrounding. The total equivalent cost compared to the undergrounding scenario would be $13 billion. This translates to an 8% increase in PG&E rates.

To what extent should we pursue undergrounding lines versus shifting to microgrid alternatives in the WUI areas? Should we encourage energy independence for these customers if they are on microgrids? How should we share these costs–should locals pay or should they be spread over the entire customer base? Who should own these microgrids: PG&E or CCAs or a local government?

 

 

 

 

End the fiction of regulatory oversight of California’s generation

1542383922472

M.Cubed is the only firm willing to sign the non-disclosure agreements (NDA) that allow us to review the investor-owned utilities’ (IOUs) generation portfolio data on behalf of outside intervenors, such as the community choice aggregators (CCAs). Even the direct access (DA) customers who constitute about a quarter of California’s industrial load are represented by a firm that is unwilling to sign the NDAs. This situation places departed load customers, and in fact all customers, at a distinct disadvantage when trying to regulate the actions of the IOUs. It is simply impossible for a single small firm to scrutinize all of the filings and data from the IOUs. (Not to mention that one, SDG&E, gets a complete free pass for now as that it has no CCAs.)

This situation has arisen because the NDAs require that the “reviewing representatives” not be in a position to advise market participants, such as CCAs or energy service providers (ESPs) that sell to DA customers, on procurement decisions. This is an outgrowth of AB 57 in 2002, a state law passed to bring IOUs back into the generation market after the collapse of restructuring in 2001. That law was intended to the balance of power to the IOUs away from generators for procurement purposes. Now it puts the IOUs at a competitive advantage against other load serving entities (LSEs) such as CCAs and ESPs, and even bundled customers.

This imbalance has arisen for several insurmountable reasons:

  • No firm can build its business on serving only to review IOU filings without offering other procurement consulting services to clients.
  • It is difficult to build expertise for reviewing IOU filings without participating in procurement services for other LSEs or resource providers. (I am uniquely situated by the consulting work I did for the CEC on assessing generation technology costs for over a decade.)
  • CPUC staff similarly lacks the expertise for many of the same reasons, and are relatively ineffective at these reviews. The CPUC is further limited by its ability to recruit sufficient qualified staff for a variety of reasons.

If California wants to rein in the misbehavior by IOUs (such as what I’ve documented on past procurement and shareholder returns earlier), then we have two options to address this problem going forward:

  1. Transform at least the power generation management side of the IOUs into publicly owned entities with more transparent management review.
  2. End the annual review and setting of PCIA and CTC rates by establishing one-time prepayment amounts. By prepaying or setting a fixed annual amount, the impact of accounting maneuvers are diminished substantially, and since IOUs can no longer shift portfolio management risks to departed load customers, the IOUs more directly face the competitive pressures that should make them more efficient managers.

Exit fee market benchmarks threaten CCAs abilities to meet long term obligations

Capacity Net Revenue Adequacy 2001-2018CCAs may have to choose between complying with the long-term commitments specified in Senate Bill 350 and continuing to operate because they cannot acquire resources at the specified market price benchmarks that value the entire utility portfolio according to the CPUC.

The chart above compares the revenue shortfalls that need to be made up from other capacity sales products to finance resource additions. The CAISO has reported for every year since 2001 that its short-run market clearing prices that were adopted as the market price benchmark in the PCIA have been insufficient to support new conventional generation investment. The chart above shows the results of the CAISO Annual Report on Market Issues and Performance compiled from 2012 to 2018, separated by north (NP15 RRQ) and south (SP15 RRQ) revenue requirements for new resources. (The historic data shows that CAISO revenues have never been sufficient to finance a resource addition.) The CAISO signs capacity procurement (CPM) agreements to meet near-term reliability shortfalls which is one revenue source for a limited number of generators. The other short run price is the resource adequacy credits transacted by load serving entities (LSE) such as the utilities and CCAs. This revenue source is available to a broader set of resources. However, neither of revenues come close to closing the cost shortfall for new capacity.

The CPUC and the CAISO have deliberately suppressed these market prices to avoid the price spikes and reliability problems that occurred during the 2000-2001 energy crisis. By explicit state policy, these market prices are not to be used for assessing resource acquisition benchmarks. Yet, the CPUC adopted in its PCIA OIR decision (D.18-10-019) exactly this stance by asserting that the CCAs must be able to acquire new resources at less than these prices to beat the benchmarks used to calculate the PCIA. The CPUC used the CAISO energy prices plus the average RA prices as the base for the market value benchmark that represents the CCA threshold.

In a functioning market, the relevant market prices should indicate the relative supply-demand balance–if supply is short then prices should rise sufficiently to cover the cost of new entrants. Based on the relative price balance in the chart, no new capacity resources should be needed for some time.

Yet the CPUC recently issued a decision (D.19-04-040) that ordered procurement of 2,000 MW of capacity for resource adequacy. And now the CPUC proposes to up that target to 4,000 MW by 2021. All of this runs counter to the price signals that CPUC claims represent the “market value” of the assets held by the utilities.

If the CCAs purchase resources that cost more than the PCIA benchmarks then they will be losing money for their ratepayers (note that CCAs have no shareholders). Most often long-term power purchase agreements (PPA) have prices above the short-term prices because those short-term prices do not cover all of the values transacted in the market place. (More on that in the near future.) The CPUC should either align its market value benchmarks with its resource acquisition directives or acknowledge that their directives are incorrect.

PG&E has cost California over $3 billion by mismanaging its RPS portfolio

CCA Savings

When community choice aggregators take up serving PG&E customers, PG&E saves the cost of having to procure power for the departed load. Instead the CCAs bear that cost for that power. The savings to PG&E’s bundled customers are not fully reflected when calculating the exit fee (known as the power charge indifference adjustment or PCIA) for those CCAs. As a result, the exit fee does not reflect the true value that CCAs provide to PG&E and its bundled customers.

The chart above shows the realized and potential savings to PG&E from the departure of CCA customers. The realized part is the avoided costs of procuring resources to meet that load, shown in yellow. The second part is the foregone sales opportunity if PG&E had sold a portion of its portfolio to the CCAs at the going price when they departed. In 2019, these combined savings could have reached $3.2 billion if PG&E had acted prudently.

Many local governments launched CCAs to address their climate goals, and CCAs issued multiple requests for offers of RPS energy.  However, PG&E failed to respond to this opportunity to sell excess renewable energy no longer needed to serve their customers.  By deciding to hold these unneeded resources in a declining market, PG&E accumulated additional losses every year.  Indeed, the assigned Judge on the exit-fee proceeding at the CPUC concluded that PG&E must benefit from “holding back the RECs [renewable energy credits] for some reason.”

This willingness to hold onto an unneeded resource that loses value every year is contrary to prudent management.  However, shareholders, are shielded entirely from contract that are too costly, and only pay penalties for failing to meet RPS targets.  Instead, ratepayers—both bundled and CCA—pay all of the excessive costs, and shareholders only have a strong incentive to over-procure using those ratepayer dollars to avoid any possibility of reduced shareholder profits.  Holding these contracts also inflates the exit-fee departed customers must pay, making it harder for alternatives like public power and distributed generation to PG&E to thrive.

When Sonoma Clean Power launched in 2014, the average price of RPS energy was $128/MWh.  It has declined every year, and now sits at $57/MWh.  PG&E’s decision to not sell excess energy at 2014 prices, and to protect shareholders at the expense of ratepayers has cost customers over $3 billion dollars in the last 6 years as shown in the green columns below.  As RPS prices continue to decline, and the amount of customer departing increases, this figure will continue to increase every year.  Indeed, it surpassed $1.1 billion for 2019 alone.

PGAE Mismanagement Costs

Further, the hedging value of the RPS resources that PG&E listed as key attribute of holding these PPAs instead of disposing of them has diminished dramatically since PG&E pushed that as its strategy in its 2014 Bundled Procurement Plan. As shown in the chart above, the hedge value fell $1.3 billion from 2014 to 2019, from a high of $961 million to a burden of $343 million. PG&E’s hedge now adds $33/MWH to the cost of its renewables portfolio.

In comparison, Southern California Edison’s renewables portfolio costs just under $20/MWH less than PG&E’s. SCE did not rush into signing PPAs like PG&E and did not sign them for as long of terms as PG&E.

 

VCEA offers PG&E $300 million for Yolo County

vce_logo_color_white-border

Valley Clean Energy Alliance made its official offer to PG&E to acquire the Yolo County distribution system for $300 million. The offer is being submitted in PG&E’s bankruptcy proceeding. This offer is substantially higher than the $108 million that Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) offered in 2005, and not far below the $400 million that PG&E countered with.

San Francisco offered $2.5 billion for PG&E’s system, and San Jose announced that it also will make a bid. Municipalities believe that the bankruptcy court will be more receptive to accepting the offers as a means of raising cash for the bankrupt utility.

Study shows RPS spillover positive to other states

honda-windfarm

A study in the Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economics entitled “External Impacts of Local Energy Policy: The Case of Renewable Portfolio Standards” finds that increasing the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in one state reduces coal generation in neighboring states through trading of renewable energy credits (RECs). This contrasts with findings on greenhouse gas emission “leakage” under California’s cap and trade program put forth by the authors at the Energy Institute at Haas at the University of California here and here.

These latter set of findings has been used California Public Utilities Commissioners to argue against the use of RECs and implication that community choice aggregators (CCAs) are not moving forward increased renewables generation. This new study appears to land on the side of the CCAs which have argued that even relying on RECs in the short run have a positive effect reducing GHG emissions in the West.