MEA STATUS REVIEW –
September 2011
By Gene Dyer, San Rafael
OUTLINE
This review has several sections, as
follows:
-
Enabling Legislative History
A review of the history of the enabling Laws allowing
creation of CCAs and the rules related to renewable resources, including some of
the promised benefits and some unintended consequences.
-
Rate Comparisons
A comparison of current MEA and PG&E rates and
charges.
-
MEA Performance - Reduction of Global Warming
A review of the actual reduction in global warming accomplished by MEA to date,
and near term related future prospects.
-
MEA Performance – Current Financial
-
MEA Performance – Future Financial
Factors effecting MEA’s probable long
term financial viability.
-
Other Factors – Jobs, Technology
Choices and Expansion to Other Communities
-
A DETAILS Section
Containing Calculations supporting the data used in the
above review.
-
REFERENCES
and LINKS TO INTERNET SITES for ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFORMATION
ENABLING LEGISLATION AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
In the late 1990s the
Legislature decided to deregulate the electricity business, including
requiring PG&E to purchase spot
power rather than enter into further long term purchase commitments and at the
same time the CPUC did not allow them to increase their rates. As a result, when energy suppliers like ENRON
manipulated the supply system forcing a major increase in the spot power
prices, PG&E was driven into bankruptcy. (1)
Embarrassed by their
failure, in 2002 the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 117 enabling the
formation of Community Choice Aggregation systems. (2)
While this law did provide for local control, it was faulty in that it allowed
the creation of systems involving two separate sources of electricity supply
(PG&E and MEA), retained a single
entity for the electricity distribution (PG&E), and two separate sets of users
(PG&E customers and MEA customers).
It ignored the fact that when something goes wrong in the future causing
a power shortage and resultant brown-outs
or black-outs, no one will be able to tell which side was at fault,
PG&E or MEA for not providing enough power or PG&E or MEA customers
using more than the planned amount of power.
The result will be each set of customers blaming the other system – with
resultant law suits – from which only the lawyers will win.
The authorizing
legislation was also very clear that continuing PG&E customers should not
be penalized by new CCAs taking away some of their customers, which otherwise
could incur PG&E losses due to the
fact that it had already made provisions for providing that amount of power
from its own supply system. This has
resulted in a Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) charge to all
PG&E customers who leave to join MEA.
Another feature of
this new law was the provision that new CCAs were authorized to automatically
switch enrollment from their current utility supplier unless the customer takes
steps to Opt-Out. While done because the
promoters were not sure that they could convince enough customers to switch,
this concept is totally contrary to normal business where a supplier wins over
customers as a result of either price, product quality, or a combination of
each.
An unintended
consequence of this legislation is that while it authorizes CCA’s to
automatically enroll potential customers, it does not mandate how or when potential
enrollees can be selected. Thus, a CCA
can initially cherry-pick the largest users, who pay at higher unit rates, and
leave the smaller less favorable customers on the PG&E rolls until a
significant later date. That is exactly
what MEA has done to date with its Phase 1 enrollments. While this may be acceptable as a method to
cover start-up costs, MEA has now modified its enrollment plan to include a new
Phase 2a during which it will primarily enroll only larger commercial customers
– leaving the residential customers until later. Thus, in this interim Phase 1 and Phase 2a
periods, while MEA is enjoying the benefit of the higher paying customers it is
also denying that benefit to PG&E – which ultimately will result in the
remaining PG&E residential customers paying the difference when the next
PG&E allowable rate adjustment is considered by the CPUC. PG&E would be justified in requesting
that the results of this cherry-picking be added to the PCIA charge since it
damages those who remain with PG&E.
In 2006 the Legislators
passed Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming bill, which mandated that all
utilities start providing Renewable Energy with specified schedules. (3)
While intended to set in motion actions to decrease future global warming the law
included definitions of renewable energy which specifically excluded large
hydroelectric plants – even though extensive scientific studies have shown that,
although solar PV panels do not generate any CO2 during their operation, the global warming caused by the mere act of
building solar PV systems is greater than the related global warming caused by
hydro-electric facilities. In fact, when
there already exists a surplus of electricity
production capacity, the construction of any new power generation facility
contributes to global warming until such time as the CO2 produced in its
construction is less than the cumulative CO2 that would have been produced by a
fossil fired plant it is replacing. (4)
As a result of these
new laws, and in spite of some admittedly bad practices on the part of
PG&E, the Marin Energy Authority was created. However, in convincing the County and Cities
to join, the promoters very clearly promised that they would provide 25% green
renewable energy at a cost not to exceed the cost to PG&E customers. (5)
RATE COMPARISONS
Of the 70,000
potential MEA customers, about 50,000 are residences with the remaining being
industrial, municipal and commercial.
For simplicity, this analysis deals only with this much larger
residential group.
Both PG&E and MEA
customer bills include a number of components other than the cost of generating
the electricity used. These are normally
“bundled” together into a single rate.
The generation and transmission portions of this bundle both have
increasing rates for higher tiers of electricity usage. However, MEA customers pay for their
Generation costs separately, with a separate bundle of the costs not associated
with generation costs. Further, the tier
structures and the quantities that are used to calculate each tier costs are
identical for PG&E and MEA. Thus,
the relative costs to PG&E and MEA customers can be easily seen by
comparing the underlying Rates that are used by each. These rates are shown in the following table. (The MEA fiscal year runs from mid-year to
mid-year so comparable time periods are involved.)
PUBLISHED MEA AND PG&E CATEGORY
E-1 RESIDENTIAL GENERATION RATES
|
Tier |
MEA
FY 2012 Rates (6)
Cents/KWH |
PG&E
Rates, June 2011 (7) Cents/KWH |
MEA
Rate Premium Per
Cent |
|
1 |
3.7 |
3.552 4.384 12.463 14.449 14.449 |
+
4.35 % |
|
2 |
4.5 |
+
2.65 % |
|
|
3 |
13.4 |
+
7.52 % |
|
|
4 |
18.5 |
+
28 % |
|
|
5 |
21.5 |
+
48.8 % |
However, the term MEA
Rate Premium does not tell the whole difference between PG&E and MEA
charges since the above mentioned PCIA charge to all MEA customers is not
included in the above rates and is rather billed as a separate charge to all
MEA customers.
The PG&E
published rate for this PCIA cost is 1.92 cents/KWH for customers departing
from PG&E in 2011. (8) The charge for 2012 has not yet been determined.
MEA has contested the
basis for the calculation of this rate, hoping that the rate will either be
reduced, or go to a zero value, by the CPUC in current hearings on PG&E
rates. (9) PG&E has responded claiming MEA’s
positions are incorrect. (10) (Both
arguments are provided in the reference links listed below.) However, there has been no decision to date
on any such change.
Until this matter is resolved this
subject should be treated as a cost to each customer in determining the
competitiveness of MEA with PG&E.
There is a further administrative
problem in that the PCIA charge does not appear as part of the MEA generation
charge, but rather appears on a separate page along with the other
non-generation charges. Thus, an MEA
customer may not see or even know that he is being charged this extra 1.92
cents/KWH compared to a PG&E customer.
Ideally, MEA should immediately
decrease their residential rates to match the PG&E rates, including a
reduction of all tier rates by the separate PCIA charge. More practically, since no residences are
being added (except for the 100% option) until next year, there is no need for
such an adjustment at this time.
However, the impact of such an adjustment will occur in the Future
Financial section of this analysis dealing with the economic viability of MEA
in the near term future.
MEA PERFORMANCE – REDUCTION
of GLOBAL WARMING
When asked if a new environmental
study would be required for MEA to enter into a new contract Shell clearly
responded that none would be required since no new facilities needed to be
built in order to provide the needed renewable energy.
This statement was made about the
same time as the Shell parent company announced that they were getting out of
the renewable energy business to concentrate on their fossil fuel business.
The implication of these statements was
quite clear. Since no new facilities would be built Shell was merely diverting
existing renewable energy from its existing customers to give it to MEA. Bottom line – no immediate reduction in
global warming and the initial MEA claims to such a reduction were false and
misleading.
MEA counter proposes that their
entrance into the market for renewable energy sources has caused others to
subsequently create new renewable sources – with a related reduction in global
warming. However, this statement is true
only as a general principle since there is not yet any quantitative data to
support it. Thus, continued MEA claims
are not substantiated. Until they can be
substantiated MEA should be required to cease and desist in its widely
publicized claims – obviously aimed at gaining more customers, and possibly
even libelous.
On the other side, MEA has in the
last year taken more positive steps in the direction of assisting in the
creation of new renewable sources. Three
projects are being implemented.
- First, they have established a
Net-Metering program where those with a solar panel on their roof can be
reimbursed at the end of the year for energy generated in surplus to their
usage.
-
Second, they have established a Tariff In-Feed program whereby they will
buy surplus electricity from local roof top owners.
-
Third, they have contracted with two landfill sites which will capture
and use methane off gas to generate renewable power. Each site will generate 1.6 MWe of
electricity. Although this process still produces CO2 the resultant effect is
substantially less than if the methane gas had merely been allowed to escape
into the atmosphere over a longer period of time.
- Fourth, they have recently
contracted for the output of three new 10 MWe solar PV plants, plus a new local
1MWe solar PV plant.
Thus, although these new facilities
will not have the capacity to provide the 25% power needed, they are moving in
the direction promised.
Incidentally, the response to their
invitation for bids was much larger than they expected. However, they have recognized that they could
not now purchase more that 31 MWe at the price offered without risking their
financial viability – unless PG&E raised their prices significantly –
allowing them to do the same.
MEA PERFORMANCE – CURRENT
FINANCIAL
MEA has been a financial success to
date. However, this is clearly the
result of two factors.
First, they were extremely lucky to
have entered into the market just as the economy declined in 2008-2009 and, as
a result, obtained a very low unit price from Shell. In fact, the price is low enough that, while
covering Shell’s operating costs, they are not receiving the normal industry expected
return on their capital investment.
Second, they intentionally front loaded
their Phase 1 customer base with the large industrial and municipal (street
lights) users where those customers paid an average of about 10 cents per KWH
during the first reported period of MEA’s operation (May through December,
2010). This price to these large
customers was substantially greater than the 5.928 cents per KWH that MEA had
to pay to Shell for the power used.
That large users pay higher unit
prices is entirely consistent with California Public Utility pricing policy, as
dictated by law and regulated by the CPUC, which has for many years been based
on formulas which have the large users rates set to subsidize the smaller
users. MEA, in setting it’s rates, has
generally followed this practice.
Thus, the major question becomes
“Will the extra money from the large users in Marin, where we have no
significant industrial base, cover the losses on the much greater number of smaller
users?” That is an extremely difficult
subject to calculate, especially with the myriad of rates for different classes
of users and the differing costs with different tier rates and different consumption. Presumably MEA has its consultants doing such
spread sheet calculations – and should publish the results.
Lacking any such information from
MEA, a very simple calculation shows that, even if MEA does not lower their
rates to match PG&E, only those customers using enough electricity to incur
substantial charges in Tier 3, or higher, will pay their share of the Shell
costs. Further, if the PCIA charge does not get reduced, thereby requiring MEA
to reduce its tier rates to compensate for it, MEA would likely lose several
million dollars per year on their residential customers.
MEA PERFORMANCE – FUTURE
FINANCIAL
One of the major premises made by the
promoters of MEA was that in the long run the cost of fossil fuels would
substantially increase, causing PG&E to increase their prices, and thereby
allow MEA to increase their competitive price so as to allow their purchase of
admittedly more expensive renewable energy which would fix the price over the
lives of the production facilities – i.e., perhaps 25 years for solar systems.
However, MEA and its advisors did not
count on two factors that have subsequently come into play.
The first is the economic downturn,
that helped MEA get a good price from Shell, also caused a reduction of use of
natural gas for power production – decreasing its cost.
The second is the new technology
development that has occurred in the natural gas production industry, called
Fracking, where natural gas entombed in large shale beds can be economically
recovered. This greatly increased the
availability of natural gas, with a resultant decrease in its market price for
power production.
In fact, the price for natural gas
was slowing increasing to about $8.00 per million BTU (a unit of heat energy),
with peaks of $12.00, until it nose-dived in late 2008-2009 to about $4.00 -
$5.00 per million BTU – and has stayed there ever since. (11)
Thus, PG&E’s fossil fuel costs
are not likely to increase as much as MEA had predicted and MEA will not be able
to increase its prices if it is to remain price competitive with PG&E.
In the near term, MEA claimed that they
have a fixed price for 5 years with their Shell contract. However, their successful negotiation to
receive an even better pricing for their Phase 2a enrollees has opened the door
as to what the price will be when they again negotiate the price for the
remaining 50,000 residents just prior to July 2012. If they could negotiate the price down for
Phase 2a it is just as likely that Shell could negotiate the price up for the
residential requirements. Thus – MEA has
not fixed the near term price for electricity from Shell for the remaining
portion of the 5 year contract.
Further, while most of their
purchases are currently from Shell, MEA has established Net-Metering and Feed-In
Tariff programs and has entered into contracts for new renewable resources at
prices far exceeding the current 5.98 cents per KWH from Shell. The Net-Metering program pays the residence 1
cent per KWH in excess of the users normal charge. The
Feed-In Tariff prices range from 8 to 14 cents per KWH depending upon their
time of day availability, their reliability and the duration of the contract. (12)
The price from the two 1.6 MWe landfill gas generators has been set at 10 cents
per KWH, plus inflation, (13) and the price for their new 31 MWe solar
PV resources has been set at 12.7 cents per KWH, plus inflation. (14)
This commitment by MEA to the
purchase of 25 years of electricity from these latter new renewable sources must
be paid for by any surplus that the large users are paying minus the losses
that MEA will incur on the residential users - unless PG&E significantly
increases its prices – allowing MEA to do the same.
There is, however, another
significant factor on the horizon for the CPUC has authorized PG&E to
implement a major change to its rate structure effective July 2012. (15) That change will involve the use of a flat
rate instead of the existing tiered structure for all electricity generation
and transmission components of the bundled rates and insertion of a new tiered
charge called the Conservation Incentive Adjustment (CIA).
While approved in principle, no
specifics have been announced by PG&E other than that, as required by the
CPUC, the change will be “rates neutral”.
In addition to being rate neutral between the new flat rates and the new
CIA rates, the CIA will promote conservation by having a negative rate (credit)
for the lower tiers and a positive rate for upper tier large users.
For obvious reason MEA has not yet
taken a position on how it well react to this change or, not being subject to
CPUC rate rules, whether they will make any change. Although the MEA staff seem
hopeful that this change will be to their advantage that is hard to believe since
any change will be rate neutral. If MEA
is not price competitive now there is no reason to believe that a rate neutral
change will help to make them so.
OTHER FACTORS
JOBS
A minor consideration is the extent to which MEA has,
or will, promote local jobs in their procurement practices. Clearly they did not with their initial
contract with Shell. Their promotion of
local rooftop units by their Tariff-In Feed program will promote jobs associated
with individual sites, but is probably limited in quantity. Their contracts with the landfill sites will
result in jobs in Northern California, but not in Marin. Lastly, their recent solar contract will
provide a small number of jobs associated with the 1 MWe solar facility to be
located In Marin but the jobs associated with the three other 10 MWe facilities
will be elsewhere in California.
Perhaps more important is where the
solar PV panels will be manufactured.
MEA did not clearly respond to a specific request on this issue, but
indicated that the cheapest units were made in China. Having selected the lowest cost bidder each
reader can draw their own conclusions until MEA is forthcoming on this issue.
It looks like we are getting our
steel for the Bay Bridge from China, the trains for Smart from Japan and now
the solar panels for our renewable energy from China (causing US Government
subsidized solar PV production plants to go bankrupt). We need to learn that buyers get the
suppliers that they deserve by their buying habits. Selecting the lowest price bid from foreign
sources is not going to create jobs in America.
TECHNOLOGY CHOICES
LANDFILL
The MEA staff is to be congratulated on encouraging
and then obtaining contracts for the use of landfill off-gas methane to
generate renewable energy. While this
process does produce CO2 for global warming, the otherwise slow release of the
methane generated in the landfill would have been much worse since the global
warming effect of methane is several times that of an equal amount of CO2 gas.
SOLAR PV VS SOLAR THERMAL WITH ENERGY
STORAGE
Solar power in general suffers from several problems. First, the conversion of sunlight energy to
electrical energy is quite inefficient, with units operating at from 15 to 20
percent efficiency. Second, the panels
become further inefficient if they are not directly facing the sun all day –
requiring mechanisms to make them do so – with varying degrees of complexity
depending upon the size and geometry of panel arrays being oriented. Third, no electricity is produced at night,
and even during the daytime the electrical output is diminishing at the same
time late in the afternoon when the peak electricity demand occurs. (16)
While MEA has now committed to a 25
year contract with a foreign subsidiary supplier who will be using solar PV
panels, there is a more recently developed technology, which both PG&E and
San Diego Power are buying, called Solar Thermal, (17) which in lieu
of using expensive solar PV panels uses much cheaper flat plate mirrors to
reflect the solar onto a heat exchanger in an elevated tower. In the simplest form, the heat is used to
boil water into steam, which drives a steam turbine to generate electricity, with
the exit steam condensed by air cooling to allow water recycle back to the heat
exchanger. In a somewhat more
complicated version, the heat is stored in a molten salt which in turn boils
water in another heat exchanger. For
energy storage, a separate tank stores part of the hot molten salt for
continued electricity generation after the sun goes down.
Two large projects, which will use
the simpler direct steam process, are now underway. A 392 MWe plant at Ivanpah in the Mohave
Desert is under construction and is scheduled for start-up in 2013. (18)
Contracts have been signed with both PG&E and San Diego Power and Light to
purchase a large portion of the output of the Ivanpah plants. In addition, two 250 MWe plants are planned
to be located at the Hidden Hills site near Inyo, CA, scheduled for start-up 2015.
(19)
Although the pricing of these plants
has not yet been made public, it is quite likely that the unit cost will be
less than for solar PV plants since the efficiency of such plants in converting
incident solar energy into electricity is on the order of 40 percent compared
to 15-20 percent for solar PV. Further,
while additional relatively conventional utility technology equipment is
required for the steam to electricity generation portion, the flat plate
mirrors are much less costly than solar PV panels.
Thus, while MEA has fixed the cost of
its solar PV contracts for the next 25 years, there is a distinct risk that
they may have bet on the wrong technology and committed to a higher price than
necessary. Thus, the philosophy of using
renewable energy to fix the long term price of electricity may not be the best
approach in this rapidly developing field.
EXPANSION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES
In recent months the MEA staff has been conducting promotional activities to
encourage other communities to either form their own CCA or to join MEA.
While there is no prohibition of this
activity in the enabling legislation such activity was never mentioned during
the County and City approval stage and is directly opposite to one of the main
purposes of the legislation – to give local communities control.
Additionally, the addition of
communities with significantly different electricity uses would present
problems with respect to how to allocate rates and funds. As an example, Richmond has a much larger
industrial base. Would they really want
the residential base in Marin to be dictating their industrial rates? And would their membership on the Board of
Directors be enough for them to have their own local control?
While there should be no problem with
MEA allowing their staff to separately contract with other communities relative
to the feasibility of them setting up their own CCA – MEA should not be in the
business of helping them. Being a
start-up advisor is not within the scope of the enabling legislation.
DETAILED CALCULATIONS
AVERAGE COST OF POWER TO THE INITIAL
LARGE ENERGY USERS
The MEA December 31, 2010 financial
report showed the following:
Revenue of $10,504,696
Energy Cost = $ 7,418,662
Administrative costs (Excluding any debt interest and repayment) = $1,567,259
Net Profit (Excluding any debt interest and repayment) =
$1,518, 775
Number of customers = 9,000
Energy Usage = 98,173,000 KWH
Simple division of the revenue by the
KWH gives an average rate to their large customers during this time period of
10.7 cents per KWH.
THE COST OF POWER TO MEA
This analysis is done for only the
calendar year 2012, the year in which MEA has indicated that it would add most
of the residential units.
Although MEA is gradually adding
other electricity resources, all of which are more expensive than the cost from
Shell, the bulk of their power is purchased from Shell.
The cost of purchasing electricity
from Shell, the primary source for the Phase 2 requirements, is the sum of
several components, a usage fixed charge/KWH for all electricity plus a premium
charge/KWH for all renewable electricity.
To this is added a small fixed monthly charge for Resource Adequacy (a
capacity charge).
While the contract price is given in
$/Megawatt Hour, for convenience these are converted here to Cents/KWH. (Simply divide by 1000 to make the
conversion.)
BASIC ELECTRICITY PRICE
The Shell Fixed Price of basic
electricity (which increases each year) for Phase 2 in 2012 is 5.578 cents/KWH.
PREMIUM CHARGE FOR THE RENEWABLE
COMPONENT
The premium charge for renewable
electricity for the Phase 1 electricity load was 3.9 cents/KWH for Eligible
Renewable and 1.05 cents/KWH for Other Renewable. These premium charges were changed for the
Phase 2 power purchases to reflect four different categories of renewable power
– basically reflecting new rules relative to whether the renewable power is
produced locally or out of State and the degree that the electricity is
available 24/7. These categories and
their prices are:
Category 1 4.80 cents/KWH
Category 2 1.45 cents/KWH
Category 3 1.25 cents/KWH
Other 1.05
cents/KWH
The Phase 2 contract calls for 16,731
MWH using Category 2 and 2187 MWH from the Other Category. Thus the weighted average premium charge will
be as shown in the following:
((16,731 x 1.45) + (2187 x 1.05)) / (16,731
+ 2187) = (24260 + 2296) / 18918 = 1.40 cents/KWH.
Total Cost From Shell Calculation
1 KWH of 25% green power requires 0.75 KWH base power + 0.25 KWH renewable power.
|
Cost of 25% Renewable Power from Shell Contract – Cents/KWH |
||||||
|
Year |
Base Price |
Add for Renewable |
Total Price |
0.75 X |
0.25 X Total |
Total Price / KWH Base + Renewable |
|
2012 |
5.578 |
1.40 |
6.978 |
4.1835 |
1.7445 |
5.928 |
REFERENCES AND INTERNET
SITE LINKS TO SUPPORTING INFORMATION
(All internet links are given in text
format and are also automatically linked to the site. If you have a hard copy
of this analysis you will need to copy a link and enter it into your computer
browser to go to the site. If you have this document on your computer,
you should be able to merely click on the link to go to the site.)
1 - A US Energy Information Agency review
of the California Electricity Deregulation Problem.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/california/subsequentevents.html
2 - Assembly Bill 117
enabling the formation of Community Choice Aggregation systems.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_117_bill_20020924_chaptered.html
3 - Assembly Bill 32,
the Global Warming bill, CA Air Resources Board Facts Sheet
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ab32factsheet.pdf
4 - Life Cycle
Studies of the Global Warming by Various Electricity Generation Technologies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions
5 - MEA
Implementation Plan, including Phasing schedules
http://marincleanenergy.info/images/stories/PDF/MEA_Implementation_Plan_Jan_2010.pdf
Residential Electricity Rates as
published on the MEA and PG&E web sites.
6 - MEA – http://marincleanenergy.info/index.php?option=com_moofaq&view=categories&id=16&Itemid=172
7 - PG&E - http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf
Power Charge Indifference Adjustment
Rate (PCIA) and Correspondence with the CPUC.
8 - The current rates for the PCIA
charge to all MEA customers is given on Sheet 5 at:
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf
The reference case number with the
CPUC is Proceeding R0705025
All related correspondence links are
available at the CPUC web site at:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/serp.aspx?cx=001779225245372747843:e2wnztai65q&cof=FORID:10&utf=UTF-8&q=power+charge+indiference+adjustment&sa=saSearch#1400
9 - The MEA argument for a reduction
in this rate is given at:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/P/138520.pdf
10 - The PG&E counter argument is
given at:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/BRIEF/136205.pdf
11 - Price of Natural Gas for
Electricity Generation
http://205.254.135.24/dnav/ng/hist/n3045us3m.htm
12 - MEA Feed-In
Tariff Rates
http://www.marincleanenergy.info/images/stories/PDF/MCE_FIT.pdf
13 - MEA Contracts
for Sanitary Landfill Of-Gas Electricity Generation
Not yet posted on the MEA web site
14 – MEA Contract with enXco for 31
MWe Solar PV
http://marincleanenergy.info/images/stories/PDF/Cottonwood_Solar_PPA.pdf
15 - PG&E Change to a Flat Rate and a New
Conservation Energy Adjustment, PG&E Item 8
http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_3214-G.pdf
16 - CAISO Chart of
Hourly Electricity Demand
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Solar Thermal Technology
and Projects
17 - Solar Thermal with Energy Storage Technology - Concept
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/technology
18 - Ivanpah Project – Summary by US National Renewable Energy Laboratory
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=62
19 - Hidden Hills Project – CA Energy Commission Status Report
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/hiddenhills/