Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/14/2024 3:30 CC AGENDA PACKET BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL POST-MEETING AGENDA BAKERSFIELD REGULAR MEETING THE SOUND v= :4YeaRt/rAiee August 14, 2024, 3:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS a. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements b. Agenda Item Public Statements 3. REPORTS a. Community Choice Agg. Update Staff recommends receive and file update, authorize staff to initiate an implementation plan and dispense with standard bidding procedures and solicit proposals to conduct a final plan. *1. PowerPoint Presentation *2. Written material provided by Michael Turnipseed 4. CLOSED SESSION a. Public Employee Performance Evaluation — City Manager; Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)/54957.6 5. CLOSED SESSION ACTION 6. ADJOURNMENT IMa BAKERSFIELD FE SOUND 0F ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: August 14, 2024 AGENDA CATEGORY: REPORTS TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christian Clegg, City Manager DATE: August 9, 2024 SUBJECT: Community Choice Aggregation Update Description] RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends received and file update, authorize staff to initiate an implementation plan and dispense with standard bidding procedures and solicit proposals to conduct a final plan. BACKGROUND: In accordance with the City's ongoing commitment to look at innovative ideas, Council Member Smith made a referral to review the effectiveness of city energy and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA).The purpose of Community Choice Aggregation is to allow participating local governments to procure energy supply service and distributed energy resources for eligible energy customers in the community. This is not to replace our power provider or to municipalize power but to give the city's residents and customers of PG&E the opportunity to opt out of the PG&E as the main touch point, however PG&E will still maintaining transmission and distribution service from the existing lines. CCA allows local governments to work together through a shared purchasing model to put out for bid the total amount of electricity being purchased by eligible customers within the jurisdictional boundaries of participating municipalities. CCA, is also known as Community Choice Energy, municipal aggregation, governmental aggregation, electricity aggregation, and community aggregation, is an alternative to the investor-owned utility energy supply system in which local entities in the United States aggregate the buying power of individual customers within a defined jurisdiction in order to secure alternative energy supply contracts. The CCA chooses the power generation source on behalf of the consumers. By aggregating purchasing power,they are able to create large contracts with generators, something individual buyers may be unable to do. The main goals of CCAs have been to allow consumers greater control of their energy mix, mainly by offering alternative generation portfolios than local utilities. Potentially eligible customers will have the opportunity to have more control and to potentially lower their overall energy costs,to spur clean energy innovation and investment, to improve customer choice and value, and to protect the environment, thereby fulfilling an important public purpose. Other benefits of a CCA include local control and transparency, local economic benefits and job creation, allocating a funding source for local programs that respond to community needs, potential for improved air quality, enhanced public participation—energy democracy and an innovation platform. If council approves the recommendation to conduct an implementation plan, the report will include the effectiveness of a CCA and if the city can have a successful implementation and will need to be submitted to California Public Utility Commission (CPUC)for final approval. The CPUC approval will take up to 1 year if submitted prior to January 1, 2025. If submitted after, it will take almost 2 years, as January 1, 2025 is the cut off for approvals within 2025. Page 2of21 �MIll BAKERSFIELD TIC SOUND er': City Council received a presentation on May 8, 2023 regarding the CCA concept, provided direction to continue to investigate the process, staff along with consultants Bakertilly completed some initial study information that can be shared to help provide background and advantages in moving forward with a CCA for the City. FISCAL IMPACT: The Implementation Plan may cost up to $200,000 but likely in a range of$75,000 to $150,000 and can be funded by the General Fund as the City has appropriation to analyze innovative ideas and concepts. COUNCIL GOAL: Reliable Infrastructure Innovative and Efficient City Government ATTACHMENTS: CCA Presentation Page 3 of 21 1 Pa tom/ BAKERSFIELD I.i j f J CityofBakersfiel . y . ,-i • � +Consideration of a _ ::::�::w - BAv KERB { -1"N„1A,1, Communit Choice r, D /)' JA' -s:.."'s I _,. A re ation Pro ram for1. ro, e L. : ' , ,. . y-10.1') !!...-. 1 rref.,.,,, . ,.., .• ilikir Electrical Service I . . l I ,ffA• Andrew Belknap, Baker Tilly, Managing Director Page 4of21 pomp.„,„,_ .__ Major En g a g e m e nt Objectives __.„..,„,,-•,,,,..,,•,•._ __ • •_;.. 5 { ? ; • .,:.....„...„. ...,,,..,. ,.: „ .. .. ...... ..„• ......„.„ .. : ,-,. ,. •:,, ,•.- . 7 r-: •,.. .. ••1.... • .,......•. -.,.',.•:•'''.--• • - ',.Ar •,_:.,•• ,.,„...._• .,. , . .: , .• � �� rv' r .errs ,�' .� �l .� -'�-`, , Baker Tilly conducted a s _ survey level assessment of of "x r y}r �` • _ 1y a Community Choice — �_' ,.,� .. �1 Aggregation Program (CCA) Igy for electrical service in _ ,�. , j �s , • � .y Bakersfield � Y SSS' • 'i/ BAKERSFIELD Page 5 of 21 ( bakertilly ©o CCAs in CA and Relationship to Investor Owned Utilities CCAs: How they are Formed and Function ;. Rates and how they Compare with IOUs ject Summary ® Potential Benefits of a CCA o�o Risks and Uncertainties of CCAs 0 Bakersfield Setting and Pros and Cons of a CCA for the City r' Possible Next Steps Mb t✓ BAKERSFIELD 3 Page 6of21 % bakertilly CCAs in California • First CCA formed in 2010 • 27% of California's population is now served by a CCA — approximately 14 million • 183 cities and 18 counties in the State are now served by a CCA • There are now 26 CCAs active in CA • Approximately 28% of the electrical load provided in the three main Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) territories ( PG&E, SCE, SDG&E) is now served via a CCA • Customers are initially subscribed into a new CCA but can opt out / XIII w. BAKERSFIELD 4 Page 7 of 21 aovnBuAuENERGY tBmcE A if Redwood Coast Energy Authority: Humboldt County,water district&7 cities ... ■Serving Customers 111 Implementation Plan Filed — Considering CCA lPioneer Community Energy: Unincorporated Placer County&5 cities Valley Clean Energy: Sonoma Clean Power - Unincorporated Yolo County&3 cities Sonoma&Mendocino Counties 116 lir El Dorado Co. MCE Marin&Napa Counties, Unincorporated Solano County&2 cites, Unincorporated Contra Costa County&14 cities Map of CCAs .5tocktan Clean PowerSF:San Francisco County •Tr.• East Bay Community Energy: Unincorporated Alameda County&14 cities I n CA Peninsula Clean Energy: Unincorporated San Mateo County&20 cities •Los Banos (courtesy of San Jose Clean Energy:City of San Jose Valley Valley Clean Energy: Unincorporated Santa Clara County&12 cities N. CaI—CCA) King City Community Power:City of King City Central Coast Community Energy: Paso Robles N. Unincorporated Monterey,San Benito, Santa Barbara&Santa Cruz Counties&26 cities I1 Morro Bay---....San Luis Obispo Co. San Luis Obispo Buellton oleta 1 Grover Beach Santa Barbara Palmdale Arroyo Grande Carpinteria Montebello Pismo Beach Lancaster Choice Energy:City of Lancaster ommerce Baldwin Park Resident Owned Apple Valley Choice Energy:City of AppleValley • Utility District:City of Baldwin Park Pomona Choice Energy: Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy:City of Pico Rivera City of Pomona — San Jacinto Power:City of San Jacinto Western Community Energy:6 cities Clean Power Alliance:Unincorporated Ventura County&7 cities, 'ti Unincorporated Los Angeles County&22 cities Orange County Power Authority: II• 11 Desert Community Energy:City of Palm Springs Cities of Buena Park,Fullerton,Huntington Beach, Rancho Mirage Energy Authority:City of Rancho Mirage Irvine,Lake Forest Solana Energy Alliance:City of Solana Beach San Diego Co. BAKERSFIELD Clean Energy itAy Power cities San Diego Community Power.5 cities 5 Page 8 of 21 % bakertilly How CCAs are Formed and Function • FORMATION • FUNCTION • Local government can create • CCAs exist to procure wholesale with Ca. Public Utilities electricity (often emphasizing Commission approval renewables) and sell it to retail • Detailed implementation plan customers (business plan) required • Customers are initially • Typically set up as a department transferred to the CCA, but can or a JPA opt out • IOUs continue to operate 1 ill transmission and distribution kv. BAKERSFIELD 6 Page 9 of 21 % bakertilly Local Government Role with CCAs Local governments with CCAs have rate setting responsibility • Rate savings for electricity generation (on average about 5%) • No requirement to provide profit / return to investors • Various local economic development opportunities • Long term rate stability for residents and businesses through local control • Prospective benefits from renewable energy options • Public participation in determining all the above • CCAs have an incentive to provide some rate savings due to the opt out provision I alb BAKERSFIELD Page 10of21 Bakersfield Setting bakertilly • The Cityis already quite involved in , , ,....; electrical energy generation ' • Completed _ ic, - _ :,.*. , _- 7, • • Canopy Solar Panels - � -. -� , " � _ �•` ri.t 4 — i � ., � y l r' _ Ate - Park at River Walk a� �., mrT - BPD Truxtun Facility - i"p �m < ' '` X J ' - Public Works Annex �e "` " . - Corp Yard .� Y „: , n fi • � if�, - �+ .M i,;. ' ni ilif i Mrs� ; �� ;et 'f t if J -- ,y ' 1Y, (' _yam s i r •4 1 MI „41200,.. ilea t,.. BAKERSFIELD Page 11 of 21 Ba kersfi e l d Setting ( bakertilly • The City is in a great position to do '[v even more electrical energy ~ g eneration : �� • Future Projects • Biomass facility at Waste Water , �. treatment plant — 3.5MW '�' • Ice Center solar canopy under . development — 1.4MW .4444400, '• Green waste facility15MW ,- ` -, c ` — . • Battery Storage Mechanics Bank Area • Ground solar systems (2) each to power ,, ' ; ,� pumps uses at water and wastewater lift stations - 5MW 4' f :: .,,, Irt .. ‘,,, , • A CCA can directly procure energy from such - _44. projects J r i` BAKERSFIELD '� y Page 12 of 21 CC• bakertilly Pros and Cons of a Bakersfield CCA PROS CONS • Local control • Costs and complexity of setting • Economic development up a CCA potential • Regulatory uncertainty • Energy generation potential — • Additional costs and business especially solar responsibilities for the City • Potential for rate savings • Possibility of CCA failure and • Local energy efficiency programs need to wind down its affairs • More leverage on local issues ekv BAKERSFIELD 10 Page 13 of 21 % bakertilly Next Steps for a Bakersfield CCA • The City would need to develop an Implementation Plan and Statement of Intent as specified in CPUC regulations and State law (AB 117) • Costs can be broadly estimated at between $75,000 and $200,000 • CPUC requires that the Implementation Plan be submitted by January 1, the year prior to the CCA becoming operational • If Bakersfield wants to initiate CCA in 2026, file Implementation Plan by January 1, 2025. • If initiating a CCA later in 2027 then more time can be taken to undertake the preparation phase. / PIN BAKERSFIELD Page 14 of 21 Outline of Implementation Plan cbakertilly Requirements L AB 117 Re•uirement Im•lementation Plan Section Statement of intent Section 1: Introduction Process and consequences of aggregation Section 2: Aggregation process Organization and structure of the program, operations, and Section 3: Organizational structure funding Section 4: Startup plan and funding Section 5: Financial plan Disclosure and due process in setting rates and allocating Section 6: Rate setting costs among participants Rate setting and other costs to participants Section 6: Rate setting Section 7: Customer rights and responsibilities Participant rights and responsibilities Section 7: Customer rights and responsibilities Methods for entering and terminating agreement with other Section 8: Procurement process entities Description of third parties suppling electricity under the Section 8: Procurement process program and details on financial technical and operational capabilities Termination of the program Section 9: Contingency plan for program termination 12 Page 15 of 21 Questions and41! Comments 0 Page 16 of 21 I. y ff �w 1 ■t • r y.Firms �� • L. ill 11,...17.1... T � +,rye '��E •#&i 1 Alit . • 1W141111111.*4. 1' ,11ii-------- . . . f - • } iir Thank You ! „. .... . ,. ,,,...,,,...,i _ Y II it ......... „kb. . li 1, . /. - , .,,.4 ; • . --.„,,e. • „. .. .. i. . _ . .. - ' . _ _ _..bfr_ Andy Belknap I Andy.Belknap@bakertilly.com Page 17 of 21 Rec'd & ct ouncilPla Meetingonfile of:a Date:,00 Time:ed 3 '.City Agenda Item: Submitted by: �1\�a �.o. \ - Q"C�' Ike rnTex Facts Through Research Bakersfield City Council, Meeting, August 14, 2024 Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California have faced several challenges that can lead to their failure. Here are some key reasons: 1 . Regulatory Challenges: CCAs often face regulatory hurdles, such as the calculation of the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), which can impact their ability to offer competitive rates. 2. Customer Opt-Outs: In some cases, customers opt out of CCAs, preferring to stay with traditional utility providers. This can reduce the customer base and financial stability of the CCA 3. Competitive Pricing: Maintaining competitively priced power compared to existing providers can be difficult. If CCAs cannot offer lower rates, they may struggle to retain customers. 4. Operational Issues: Some CCAs may face operational challenges, such as managing power procurement and ensuring reliable service 5. Political Opposition: Initial political opposition can delay or hinder the formation and success of CCAs. Here are some Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California that have faced significant challenges or have failed: 1. Western Community Energy: Deregistered on June 15, 2021, after launching in May 20201. 2. City of Santa Paula: Postponed its launch indefinitely on March 12, 2020'. 3. City of Hanford: Withdrew its implementation plan on November 19, 20191. 4. City of Commerce: Postponed its launch indefinitely'. 5. Butte Clean Energy: Postponed its launch and planned to decertify and refile its implementation plan'. 6. City of Montebello: Withdrew its implementation plan in March 20211. 7. Baldwin Park (BPROUD): Voted in October 2021 to deregister in February 2022'. Here are the successful Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California: 1. MCE (Marin Clean Energy): One of the first CCAs in California, serving Marin County and other areas. 2. Clean Power SF: Serving San Francisco with a focus on clean energy. 3. Peninsula Clean Energy: Serving San Mateo County. 4. Silicon Valley Clean Energy: Serving Santa Clara County. 5. Sonoma Clean Power: Serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. 6. Pioneer Community Energy: Serving Placer County and the City of Colfax. 7. San Diego Community Power: Serving San Diego County. 8. East Bay Community Energy: Serving Alameda County. 9. Monterey Bay Community Power: Serving Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. 10. Lancaster Choice Energy: Serving the City of Lancaster. 11. Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (PRIME): Serving the City of Pico Rivera. 12. Valley Clean Energy: Serving Yolo County. 13. Redwood Coast Energy Authority: Serving Humboldt County. 14. San Jacinto Power: Serving the City of San Jacinto. 15. Rancho Mirage Energy Authority: Serving the City of Rancho Mirage. 16. Desert Community Energy: Serving the Coachella Valley. 17. King City Community Power: Serving the City of King. 18. San Diego Community Power: Serving the City of San Diego. 19. Central Coast Community Energy: Serving the Central Coast region. Takeaways: CA CCAs have a 27 percent failure rate. Kern County Taxpayers Association 1401 19th Street, Ste 200, f3ui vasfield, CA 93301 (661)322-2973 • 1 Documents/2024/KCTA/Communication Page 18 of 21 K e-rnTa x Facts Through Research Bakersfield City Council, Meeting, August 14, 2024 Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California have faced several challenges that can lead to their failure. Here are some key reasons: 1. Regulatory Challenges: CCAs often face regulatory hurdles, such as the calculation of the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), which can impact their ability to offer competitive rates. 2. Customer Opt-Outs: In some cases, customers opt out of CCAs, preferring to stay with traditional utility providers. This can reduce the customer base and financial stability of the CCA 3. Competitive Pricing: Maintaining competitively priced power compared to existing providers can be difficult. If CCAs cannot offer lower rates, they may struggle to retain customers. 4. Operational Issues: Some CCAs may face operational challenges, such as managing power procurement and ensuring reliable service 5. Political Opposition: Initial political opposition can delay or hinder the formation and success of CCAs. Here are some Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California that have faced significant challenges or have failed: 1. Western Community Energy: Deregistered on June 15, 2021, after launching in May 20201. 2. City of Santa Paula: Postponed its launch indefinitely on March 12, 20201. 3. City of Hanford: Withdrew its implementation plan on November 19, 2019'. 4. City of Commerce: Postponed its launch indefinitely'. 5. Butte Clean Energy: Postponed its launch and planned to decertify and refile its implementation plan'. 6. City of Montebello: Withdrew its implementation plan in March 2021'. 7. Baldwin Park (BPROUD): Voted in October 2021 to deregister in February 2022'. Here are the successful Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California: 1. MCE (Marin Clean Energy): One of the first CCAs in California, serving Marin County and other areas. 2. Clean Power SF: Serving San Francisco with a focus on clean energy. 3. Peninsula Clean Energy: Serving San Mateo County. 4. Silicon Valley Clean Energy: Serving Santa Clara County. 5. Sonoma Clean Power: Serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. 6. Pioneer Community Energy: Serving Placer County and the City of Colfax. 7. San Diego Community Power: Serving San Diego County. 8. East Bay Community Energy: Serving Alameda County. 9. Monterey Bay Community Power: Serving Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. 10. Lancaster Choice Energy:Serving the City of Lancaster. 11. Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (PRIME): Serving the City of Pico Rivera. 12. Valley Clean Energy: Serving Yolo County. 13. Redwood Coast Energy Authority: Serving Humboldt County. 14. San Jacinto Power: Serving the City of San Jacinto. 15. Rancho Mirage Energy Authority: Serving the City of Rancho Mirage. 16. Desert Community Energy: Serving the Coachella Valley. 17. King City Community Power: Serving the City of King. 18. San Diego Community Power: Serving the City of San Diego. 19. Central Coast Community Energy: Serving the Central Coast region. Takeaways: CA CCAs have a 27 percent failure rate. Kern County Taxpayers Association 1401 19th Street, Ste 200, Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661)322-2973 1 Documents/2024/KCTA/Communication Page 19 of 21 _. .. : . K e rnTax Facts Through Research Bakersfield City Council, Meeting, August 14, 2024 • Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California have faced several challenges that can lead to their failure. Here are some key reasons: 1. Regulatory Challenges: CCAs often face regulatory hurdles, such as the calculation of the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), which can impact their ability to offer competitive rates. 2. Customer Opt-Outs: In some cases, customers opt out of CCAs, preferring to stay with traditional utility providers. This can reduce the customer base and financial stability of the CCA. 3. Competitive Pricing: Maintaining competitively priced power compared to existing providers can be difficult. If CCAs cannot offer lower rates, they may struggle to retain customers. . 4. Operational Issues: Some CCAs may face operational challenges, such as managing power procurement and ensuring reliable service 5. Political Opposition: Initial political opposition can delay or hinder the formation and success of CCAs. Here are some Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California that have faced significant challenges or have failed: 1. Western Community Energy: Deregistered on June 15, 2021, after launching in May 2020'. 2. City of Santa Paula: Postponed its launch indefinitely on March 12, 2020'. 3. City of Hanford: Withdrew its implementation plan on November 19, 20191. 4. City of Commerce: Postponed its launch indefinitely'. 5. Butte Clean Energy: Postponed its launch and planned to decertify and refile its implementation plan'. 6. City of Montebello: Withdrew its implementation plan in March 20211. 7. Baldwin Park (BPROUD): Voted in October 2021 to deregister in February 2022'. Here are the successful Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California: 1. MCE (Marin Clean Energy): One of the first CCAs in California, serving Marin County and other areas. 2. Clean Power SF: Serving San Francisco with a focus on clean energy. 3. Peninsula Clean Energy: Serving San Mateo County. 4. Silicon Valley Clean Energy: Serving Santa Clara County. 5. Sonoma Clean Power: Serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. 6. Pioneer Community Energy: Serving Placer County and the City of Colfax. 7. San Diego Community Power: Serving San Diego County. 8. East Bay Community Energy: Serving Alameda County. 9. Monterey Bay Community Power: Serving Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. 10. Lancaster Choice Energy: Serving the City of Lancaster. 11. Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (PRIME): Serving the City of Pico Rivera. 12. Valley Clean Energy: Serving Yolo County. 13. Redwood Coast Energy Authority: Serving Humboldt County. 14. San Jacinto Power: Serving the City of San Jacinto. 15. Rancho Mirage Energy Authority: Serving the City of Rancho Mirage. 16. Desert Community Energy: Serving the Coachella Valley. 17. King City Community Power: Serving the City of King. 18. San Diego Community Power: Serving the City of San Diego. 19. Central Coast Community Energy: Serving the Central Coast region. Takeaways: CA CCAs have a 27 percent failure rate. Kern County Taxpayers Association 1401 19th Street, Ste 200, Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661)322-2973 1 Documents/2024/KCTA/Communication Page 20 of 21 4 KernTox Facts Through Research Bakersfield City Council, Meeting, August 14, 2024 Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California have faced several challenges that can lead to their failure. Here are some key reasons: 1. Regulatory Challenges: CCAs often face regulatory hurdles, such as the calculation of the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), which can impact their ability to offer competitive rates. 2. Customer Opt-Outs: In some cases, customers opt out of CCAs, preferring to stay with traditional utility providers. This can reduce the customer base and financial stability of the CCA. 3. Competitive Pricing: Maintaining competitively priced power compared to existing providers can be difficult. If CCAs cannot offer lower rates, they may struggle to retain customers. 4. Operational Issues: Some CCAs may face operational challenges, such as managing power procurement and ensuring reliable service. 5. Political Opposition: Initial political opposition can delay or hinder the formation and success of CCAs. Here are some Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California that have faced significant challenges or have failed: 1. Western Community Energy: Deregistered on June 15, 2021, after launching in May 20201. 2. City of Santa Paula: Postponed its launch indefinitely on March 12, 20201. 3. City of Hanford: Withdrew its implementation plan on November 19, 20191. 4. City of Commerce: Postponed its launch indefinitely1. 5. Butte Clean Energy: Postponed its launch and planned to decertify and refile its implementation plant. . 6. City of Montebello: Withdrew its implementation plan in March 20211. 7. Baldwin Park (BPROUD): Voted in October 2021 to deregister in February 20221. Here are the successful Community Choice Aggregations (CCAs) in California: 1. MCE (Marin Clean Energy): One of the first CCAs in California, serving Marin County and other areas. 2. Clean Power SF: Serving San Francisco with a focus on clean energy. • 3. Peninsula Clean Energy: Serving San Mateo County. 4. Silicon Valley Clean Energy: Serving Santa Clara County. 5. Sonoma Clean Power: Serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. 6. Pioneer Community Energy: Serving Placer County and the City of Colfax. 7. San Diego Community Power: Serving San Diego County. 8. East Bay Community Energy: Serving Alameda County. 9. Monterey Bay Community Power: Serving Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties. 10. Lancaster Choice Energy: Serving the City of Lancaster. 11. Pico Rivera Innovative Municipal Energy (PRIME): Serving the City of Pico Rivera. 12. Valley Clean Energy: Serving Yolo County. 13. Redwood Coast Energy Authority: Serving Humboldt County. 14. San Jacinto Power: Serving the City of San Jacinto. 15. Rancho Mirage Energy Authority: Serving the City of Rancho Mirage. 16. Desert Community Energy: Serving the Coachella Valley. 17. King City Community Power: Serving the City of King. 18. San Diego Community Power: Serving the City of San Diego. 19. Central Coast Community Energy: Serving the Central Coast region. Takeaways: CA CCAs have a 27 percent failure rate. Kern County Taxpayers Association 1401 19th Street, Ste 200, Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661)322-2973 i Documents/2024/KCTA/Communication Page 21 of21