Clean Power Alliance 2025 Board Retreat
September 26, 2025
Penthouse, South Park Center, USC Tower
1150 S Olive St, Los Angeles, CA 90015
8:30am to 2:00pm
8:15: Registration Opens
8:30: Breakfast Begins / Customer Programs Information Table Opens 8:45: Roll Call / Opening Remarks / Agenda Review
• Deborah Klein Lopez
• Ted Bardacke
9:00: Around the Room -- Board Member Trivia
9:15: Clean Energy Targets: 100% Clean By 2035?
• Overview: Lindsay Descagnia
• Breakout Groups with CPA Staff Facilitators
• Report Outs
10:30 Break
10:45: Asset Ownership
• Overview
o Recap of last year: Ted Bardacke
o Power Ready: Matthew Langer
o Transmission: David McNeil
• Breakout Group 1: Transmission: Learn More and Provide Guidance (David McNeil) • Breakout Group 2a: Power Ready: Program Structure (John Spector) • Breakout Group 2b: Power Ready: Project Delivery Efficiencies (Joanne O’Neill) • Breakout Group 2c: Power Ready: Opportunities and Risks of Project Ownership (Matthew Langer)
• Report Outs
Agenda Page 1
12:15: Break
12:30: Lunch Begins
12:45: Lunchtime Moderated Discussion/Q&A – Recent California Energy and Climate Policy Initiatives and Future Directions
• Siva Gunda, Vice-Chair, California Energy Commission
1:45: Event Wrap Up
Agenda Page 2
Study Session 1
Clean Energy Targets: 100% Clean by 2035?
Agenda Page 3
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: Lindsay Descagnia, Vice President, Power Supply
Ted Bardacke, Chief Executive Officer
Subject: 2035 Clean Energy Targets
Date: June 26, 2025
SUMMARY
Upcoming modifications to California’s compliance regime covering renewable and carbon-free energy, the evolution of CPA’s energy portfolio, and the current Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) process, prompts a question for CPA:
• Should CPA adopt a formal goal to provide 100% Greenhouse Gas Free energy to all customers by 2035, 10 years ahead of state mandates? Embedded within that question are a series of key considerations regarding feasibility and cost that the organization will confront regardless of whether a 2035 target is set.
Maintenance of the organization’s current preference for renewable energy (compared to non-renewable carbon free sources like large hydropower) will lead to greater overall greenhouse gas emission reductions and is likely feasible but may come at a higher cost.
Including flexibility between renewable energy and carbon-free energy into CPA’s long-term energy portfolio targets for the Lean and Clean products could lower cost pressures but could also moderate CPA’s acquisition of new renewable resources and may make CPA’s long-term power portfolio differentiation with SCE less distinct.
Tariffs and the passage of H.R.1 on July 4, 2025, which introduced uncertainty regarding the availability of tax-credits, creates upward price pressure on renewables. Advances in new technologies in the coming decade may mitigate the impacts of tax credit phase outs, Agenda Page 4
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets but this is far from certain. Embedding flexibility between renewable energy and carbon-free energy into CPA’s long-term energy portfolio targets is likely the lowest cost option but will somewhat moderate CPA’s acquisition of new renewable resources and be subject to volatile market dynamics over the next decade.
CPA expects a Q1 2026 deadline to submit its IRP to the California Public Utilities Commission and direction from the Board and Community Advisory Committee on these key questions and considerations are requested at this point in the process in order to continue with the planning process.
BACKGROUND: “RENEWABLE ENERGY” AND “CARBON-FREE ENERGY” The California Energy Commission (CEC) determines what generation technologies qualify as “renewable” and which technologies qualify as “carbon-free.” Not all renewable resources are carbon-free, nor are all carbon-free resources designated as renewable; however, the most common sources of renewable energy are also carbon-free. A summary and diagram are provided below:
Diagram 1: Renewable and carbon-free technologies
The distinction between renewable and carbon-free energy is important because of the cost, availability and compliance implications of the different products. Historically, non-Agenda Page 5 Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets renewable carbon-free energy has been cheaper than renewable energy, but supply is finite (no new large hydroelectric dams are being built, for example) and is heavily weather dependent from year to year. In addition, while non-renewable carbon free energy can be used to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of CPA’s energy portfolio, including it in the portfolio does not reduce overall societal greenhouse gas emissions like building new solar or wind or geothermal facilities does.
CONTEXT
Changes of California’s Renewable and Carbon-Free Energy Compliance Regime – The Coming of “Clean Energy”
In September 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100 (SB100), which required California to achieve 100% clean energy (e.g. greenhouse gas free) electricity by 2045. SB100 also mandated that a minimum of 60% of the state’s electricity must come from renewable energy resources by 2030, followed by a 100% renewable/carbon-free clean energy mandate in 2045, with 60% renewable energy as the constant minimum.
In September 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1020 (SB1020) that builds upon SB100 by setting interim targets of 90% clean energy by 2035 and 95% clean energy by the end of 2040. As such, beginning in 2030, California’s clean energy compliance regime will be measuring two things: renewable energy which must remain at a minimum of 60% and “clean energy” for any amount above the 60% minimum; this greater than 60% clean energy can be any combination of renewable and carbon-free.
The CPUC is in the process of finalizing a proposal that aims to formalize a programmatic approach to achieving the State’s long-term clean energy and reliability goals through the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP), part of the IRP proceeding.
The RCPPP requirements are still unknown, and flexibility may be needed to adjust procurement according to the new requirements.
Agenda Page 6
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets Evolution of CPA’s Energy Portfolio
Largely as result of the preferred energy option and rate choices of CPA communities and customers, as well as the continued inclusion of renewable energy in the Lean (most years) and Clean (all years) rate products, CPA’s energy portfolio has far surpassed the 60% renewable energy minimum and is on track to meet the 2035 90% clean energy requirement by no later than 2030.
With the assumption that CPA’s top-tier 100% Green product remains 100% renewable energy and given April 2024 Board consensus on short-term product content for each of its rate products combined with CPA’s JPA goal of having an overall energy portfolio with lower greenhouse gas emissions than SCE, CPA staff has developed internal planning targets for gradually increasing the amount of renewables and carbon-free energy in the Lean and Clean products over the next decade. The targets ensure that CPA remains well above the 60% minimum renewable energy compliance requirement and that it meets the 90% and 95% total clean energy targets five years ahead of schedule (e.g. 2030 for 90% and 2035 for 95%).
The table below shows CPA’s forecasted renewable and carbon-free portfolio under the current plan to increase the renewable and carbon free energy content of the Lean and Clean products on a gradual trajectory.
Agenda Page 7
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets Table 1: Current CPA Targets for Clean Power and Lean Power with Compliance Requirements
Integrated Resource Plan
Every 2-4 years, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires all Load Serving Entities (LSEs) to conduct a multi-year forward planning process called an Integrated Resource Plan and submit that plan for approval. The goal of the IRP is to set electricity resource planning targets for LSEs within the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) balancing authority. The next IRP is expected to be due to the CPUC in Q1 2026.
The CPUC conducts modeling to determine filing requirements including the target GHG emissions reductions for a roughly 10-year planning horizon and LSEs must submit IRPs demonstrating that individual plans meet Commission required scenarios with the goal of using a diverse portfolio of resources that provides optimal integration of renewable energy to the California grid in a cost-effective manner.
In alignment with the IRP planning process, setting overall CPA organizational goals for its energy mix and in particular the trajectory of the Lean Power and Clean Power energy options is an important and necessary input for CPA’s next IRP.
Agenda Page 8
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets New Federal Landscape: Tax Credits and Tariffs
The passage of H.R.1 on July 4, 2025, introduced new uncertainty for new-build solar and wind projects, with lesser impact to technologies like geothermal and battery energy storage. Solar and wind projects will no longer qualify for the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC) unless the projects are under construction by July 4, 2026, or in-service by the end of 2027. There are a smaller number of projects in the current pipeline that can take advantage of these deadlines and still qualify for tax credits.
After 2027, new solar and wind projects will not benefit from the ITC or PTC, which covers 30% of eligible installed costs for a typical wind or solar project. Geothermal and battery energy storage projects can still qualify for tax credits, but it is unclear how accessible these credits will be in the future because of newly established Federal Entity of Concern (FEOC) restrictions. FEOC restrictions will limit the amount of equipment a project may source from specified foreign entities while still qualifying for federal tax credits and limit certain foreign financing, investment, and control for clean energy projects. Further guidance on how FEOC will be administered by the Department of Treasury is expected in August 2026.
The lasting impact of H.R.1 and the duration of the tax credit uncertainty is unknown. In the long term, the current tax credit landscape may persist, or new rules may be established with a new administration; this uncertainty gives cause to maintaining flexibility in procurement.
Market Conditions for Renewable and Carbon-free Energy
To understand the implications of pursuing renewable and carbon-free energy targets for Lean Power and Clean Power, the underlying assumptions about each type of product can help inform decision making:
Agenda Page 9
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets Carbon-free Energy
• Availability: Supply is constrained due to increased demand in the Pacific Northwest to retain carbon-free energy locally in order to meet emission reduction goals.
• Cost: Carbon-free energy traditionally has been about half the cost of renewable energy. Due to increasing demand in recent years, carbon-free energy is now roughly 65-80% the price of renewable energy and may reach parity by the end of the decade.
• New Project Development Opportunities: Opportunities for new-build non-renewable carbon-free resources are currently unavailable. • Long-term outlook: Absent new technology breakthroughs, availability constraints are expected to increase as demand for carbon-free energy grows to meet SB100 and SB1020 requirements.
Renewable Energy
• Availability: Renewable energy is readily available, though California will have to continue to expand renewable energy supply at a fast rate if all LSEs are to meet their compliance mandates.
• Cost: Renewable energy has traditionally been more expensive than carbon-free energy, however, that dynamic is changing as renewable energy becomes more available and carbon-free energy supply is constrained. The price of renewable energy attributes for 2026 is approximately $25 per megawatt hour, while carbon-free energy is $20 per megawatt hour. Recent changes to tax law may also create upward pressure on renewable energy prices.
• New Project Development Opportunities: New-build renewable project opportunities have been ample, with 70 offers received in each of CPA’s RFO cycles, on average. Opportunities may decline due to increased uncertainty related to tariffs and/or due to the phase out of investment tax credits, and increasing transmission constraints slowing the ability of new resources to interconnect to the grid.
Agenda Page 10
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets Long-term outlook: The impact of tariffs and tax credit phase outs may slow renewable build out in California however access to renewable energy supply is expected to continue in the near term. The mid- to long-term outlook is less clear given market uncertainty.
ORGANIZATION-WIDE ENERGY MIX TARGETS AND OPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THEM With CPA positioned to not only meet but exceed statutory requirements, staff is seeking the Board’s input to determine a threshold question: Should CPA go further than the state’s 90% GHG-free energy supply requirement by 2035 and aim to achieve a 100% clean energy portfolio by 2035?
If the Board’s interest is to explore options to achieve a 100% clean portfolio by 2035, and given that 68% of CPA’s energy load is served by the 100% Green product already, staff is seeking Board input on how quicky CPA should ramp to 100% clean power between 2027 and 2035 in the Lean and Clean Power products and with what mix of renewable and carbon free energy.
Lean Power Scenarios
The Lean Power product is the lowest-cost option for CPA’s customers. Historically, Lean Power has supplied ~40% clean energy. Lean Power has been the product with the most flexibility between renewable and carbon-free supply, allowing staff to source the most cost-effective options. Offered at a discounted rate, staff recommends continuing to set the Lean Power product content in a way that allows it to be priced cheaper than SCE most, if not all of the time.
Within this framework, there are two key questions for Lean Power:
1) Should minimum targets of renewable energy for Lean Power be established or should CPA plan to use the most cost-effective available mix of clean energy (either renewable or carbon-free energy) in any given year? 2) How quickly should CPA reach 100% clean for the Lean Power product? For example, should CPA steadily increase the percentage of clean energy in Lean Agenda Page 11
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets Power beginning in 2027, or should it hold the clean energy mix at 40% until the end of the decade and then have a steeper ramp up to 100% clean by 2035? The following charts provide illustrative examples for what these different trajectories could look like, with maximum flexibility for the mix between renewable and carbon-free.
LEAN POWER SCENARIO #1: STRAIGHT-LINE TRAJECTORY TO 100% CLEAN
Agenda Page 12
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets LEAN POWER SCENARIO #2: HOLD STEADY UNTIL 2030 THEN RAMP TO 100% CLEAN BETWEEN 2030-2035
Clean Power Scenarios:
The Clean Power product has generally been priced at parity with SCE and has historically ranged from 50-60% clean energy, offering mostly renewable content with a smaller amount of carbon-free energy. It has always had lower greenhouse gas emissions than SCE and, in most years, has also had a higher level of renewables than SCE.
Staff recommends continuing to beat SCE on GHG emissions, at a minimum. The key question for the Clean Power rate product is: should CPA also continue to pursue beating SCE on renewables, as has been the practice most years. 1 Chart 1 below shows an example of beating SCE on GHG emissions only while also reaching the 100% clean energy goal by 2035. Chart 2 below shows CPA reaching the same goal but with a level of renewables that is also expected to be better than SCE.
Scenario 1 below is likely to be less costly than Scenario 2; however, the cost differential 1 The trajectory options between Lean Power and Clean Power are structured differently, as the trajectory for Clean Power is intended to be benchmarked against SCE’s forecasted supply of carbon-free and/or renewable energy
Agenda Page 13
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 1: Clean Energy Targets between the two scenarios is likely to narrow in the coming years and achieving the target may be more a question of supply availability than cost.
CLEAN POWER SCENARIO #1: BEAT SCE ON GHG-EMISSIONS
CLEAN POWER SCENARIO #2: BEAT SCE ON GHG-EMISSIONS AND
RENEWABLES
Agenda Page 14
Study Session 2a
Asset Ownership: Power Ready
Agenda Page 15
Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: John Spector, Program Manager, Resilience and Grants Joanne O’Neill, Senior Director, Customer Programs
Matthew Langer, Chief Operating Officer
Subject: Power Ready (Local Projects) Asset Ownership Study Session Date: September 26, 2025
SUMMARY
The Board Retreat Study Session will review the Power Ready program and discuss specific opportunities, risks, and considerations for CPA to change the program’s delivery model to one where CPA develops and own behind-the-meter solar and battery storage backup power assets for critical agency and community sites instead of the current Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) model. The Board’s input and break-out group discussions will help strategize program enhancements, review the opportunities and risks associated with asset ownership, and determine what additional due diligence and planning may be required if the organization proceeds towards asset ownership.
INTRODUCTION
At its June 2024 retreat, CPA’s Board expressed interest in exploring asset ownership.
Based on that interest, CPA staff have explored several types of project ownership opportunities that might be appropriate given CPA’s expertise and growth trajectory. Staff determined that the Power Ready program is a promising opportunity for asset ownership because the scale of the program would minimize potential risk and it would also offer other important benefits to program delivery.
Agenda Page 16
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready During the Retreat, CPA staff will present key findings from research conducted to date on the following to inform a discussion and facilitate Board feedback:
• Power Ready project delivery methods, including risks and opportunities; • Program delivery cost analysis, including internal and external resources; • Additional factors, including relevant information on changes to the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the Direct Pay mechanism, and how other similar CCA programs are structured.
Board members will have the opportunity to join the following break-out groups to discuss specific components of the program:
1) Power Ready program structure
2) Enhancing efficiency in Power Ready’s project delivery 3) Reviewing opportunities and risks of Power Ready asset ownership
BACKGROUND
Power Ready is a community benefit program offered to CPA’s member agencies and community critical sites. The program enhances energy and community resiliency by installing solar-plus-storage systems as a clean energy backup source that is available when a power outage occurs. Eligible facilities include those that provide the continuation of a critical public service (emergency operations centers, police stations, fire stations, etc.), and those that serve as a place of refuge for the community (community centers, cooling centers, libraries, etc.).
Compared with typical solar + battery systems, the Power Ready program provides several unique offerings, including a guarantee that a portion of the battery will be available for planned and unplanned power outages for critical loads at facilities. CPA also guarantees that annual electricity charges for the host site will be equal to or less than the amount that would have otherwise been charged if they did not participate in the Power Ready program.
Agenda Page 17
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready CPA’s Power Ready program solves the following challenges encountered by member agencies in developing crucial resilience projects:
• Aggregates a portfolio of projects to realize economies of scale for a cost-effective portfolio
• Delivers a system that is optimized for providing back-up power during power outages
• Provides no charge technical consulting and subject matter expertise to participants
• Negotiates complex contracts directly with vendors on the participant’s behalf • Manages the performance of the systems through the full term of the project Power Ready Round 1 – Summary of Progress to Date
The Power Ready program was first presented to CPA member agencies in 2019. The Round 1 portfolio comprises 11 backup energy systems totaling 1.15 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic systems paired with 1.3 MW and 5.2 MWh of battery energy storage system (BESS) capacity, collectively. Substantial progress has been made to date which includes:
1. Signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with 8 member agencies across 11 projects in Power Ready ”Round 1”;
2. Issued a Request for Offer (RFO) and awarded a developer to implement the projects;
3. CPA’s Board of Directors approved a multi-site Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) on February 1, 2024, with Coast Energy DevCo, LLC (Coast Energy) for the Round 1 sites;
4. Executed the Site Lease Agreements (SLA) with 6 of the 8 member agencies between Coast Energy - the remaining two agencies continue to deliberate internally about if and how to move forward with their projects; and
5. Issued notices to proceed with design, interconnection applications, and permitting for 4 of the 11 projects.
Agenda Page 18
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready CPA expects Coast Energy to complete construction of the Power Ready Round 1 projects by Q4 2026.
Power Ready Round 2 – Summary of Progress to Date
CPA launched recruitment for a second round of Power Ready in February 2025 seeking additional sites to enroll in “Round 2” of the program. So far, CPA has received over 65 applications from 19 agencies and critical community sites. CPA is currently seeking additional member agencies and critical community sites to participate - the final deadline to submit applications is November 1, 2025. The delivery model of these Round 2 projects has not yet been determined and is pending Board feedback.
DISCUSSION
Staff are continually seeking to improve and enhance CPA’s customer programs. CPA conducted a comprehensive “lessons learned” exercise to review key challenges and recommendations to enhance the Power Ready experience for member agencies, reduce costs to administer the program, and to complete projects faster - from feasibility through implementation.
The Power Ready program offers a unique opportunity to explore asset ownership for the Power Ready systems – driven by the solutions to address project delivery as described below. Staff is seeking guidance during this Board Retreat breakout discussion if asset ownership should be considered for the Power Ready program which will inform the upcoming Round 2 project delivery method and related program resources.
Power Ready Program Enhancements
Staff has already incorporated several recommendations into Round 2, including:
• Simplifying the information required from participants to reduce their overall effort while producing detailed technical assessments.
• Opening enrollment to critical community sites that support member agency emergency operations and/or community services to increase the number of potential sites.
Agenda Page 19
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready • Developing a streamlined feasibility assessment methodology and review process to minimize unnecessary site visits.
• Developing a standard backup power recommendation per building use type to quickly identify critical loads based on the critical services the facility provides.
Power Ready Project Delivery Methods
CPA staff anticipates that, while the Round 1 PPA project delivery method has allowed CPA to make substantial progress to date, it will not be an effective delivery strategy to replicate for Power Ready Round 2 projects given the many challenges noted below. As an alternative to the PPA project delivery method, asset ownership of the Power Ready systems via an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contract could remedy many such challenges, but may also pose increased risks.
Power Ready Round 1 Project Delivery Method: Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) CPA utilizes PPAs as its contracting mechanism for power procurement, including for Power Ready Round 1 projects. PPAs mitigate CPA’s risk exposure from design, interconnection, permitting, and construction aspects that is solely the responsibility of the vendor to deliver operational projects to CPA. The Power Ready Round 1 PPA specifies that CPA pays for solar energy delivered to sites and battery capacity for backup power at a fixed price, dictates the Guaranteed Construction Start Date and Guaranteed Operational Date, includes penalties for delays and failure to deliver energy, and legally protects CPA and the participating Power Ready sites from non-performance over a project’s 20-year term.
Diagram 1: Power Ready Round 1 Contractual Agreements between Stakeholders Agenda Page 20
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready This contractual structure was designed to leverage CPA‘s power contract negotiation, and program management expertise and to cover the costs through a power purchase agreement (PPA). However, additional points of friction in the process are a result of the contractual relationships between parties, illustrated in Diagram 1 above and including:
1. Power Ready participants receive a project proposal for their facility‘s preliminary design and execute an MOU with CPA. Execution of this MOU often requires a City Council or Board of Supervisors vote and in many cases takes several months.
2. CPA then combines all projects with executed MOUs into one solicitation and selects a single developer with whom it signs a PPA.
3. The developer then executes a SLA with each member agency that allows the systems to be constructed at the property. Despite the fact that proforma SLAs were reviewed by the member agency prior to CPA’s developer solicitation, SLA’s have been subject to extended individualized negotiations and have, in some cases, taken more than a year to receive council approval and to execute.
For the PPA model to be successful, multiple projects must progress concurrently, including approval of each project‘s MOU and SLA. The Round 1 projects have been bid Agenda Page 21
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready and contracted for as a package to leverage economies of scale, which means that the slowest individual project dictates the pace of the entire program. Each member agency must follow their internal decision-making processes and typically bring the Power Ready MOU and SLA to their Council or Board of Supervisors for approval, which has resulted in significantly longer timelines than anticipated.
The PPA model requires a combined portfolio of at least the same solar and battery capacity as Round 1 (1.15 megawatts paired with 1.3 MW of battery energy storage system capacity), and ideally greater to achieve maximum cost savings for CPA to leverage the economies of scale. Typically, member agency sites are considered small-scale commercial projects and therefore multiple facilities are needed to aggregate a desirable and cost-effective portfolio offering to the market. The limited number of responses to the RFO (3 in total) indicate there’s a scarcity of developers interested in offering PPAs at the relevant scale, primarily driven by the number of sites within the portfolio and the complexity of the Power Ready program. If CPA were to continue the PPA model for Round 2, similar challenges will remain.
Diagram 2 illustrates the Power Ready Round 1 timeline and the major milestones that the portfolio has achieved (note: the timeline was also uniquely slowed by the impacts of COVID-19 and the need to establish new processes and documents to support project delivery):
Agenda Page 22
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready Diagram 2: Power Ready Round 1 Timeline
Power Ready Round 2 Proposed Project Delivery Method: Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) Contract
After conducting a Power Ready Lessons Learned exercise, upon which alternatives to the Round 1 structure were considered, CPA staff considered direct ownership of solar and battery storage assets by contracting with an EPC vendor to design and build the systems and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) vendors to maintain the systems.
CPA’s ownership of the Power Ready solar and battery storage assets could provide several benefits:
• Advance projects individually or in smaller batches as they are ready for construction, rather than waiting for all projects to be ready before moving forward. • Increase the number of contractors participating in solicitations since the scope of work solicited more closely aligns with typical market offerings from EPC contractors rather than integrated developers or developer + contractor teams. • Under some circumstances, lifecycle costs could be lower for each facility, potentially allowing for larger battery capacity and duration, and bill savings to participants.
Agenda Page 23
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready • CPA would directly negotiate the SLA with member agencies or community partners prior to CPA issuing solicitations, which may shorten the timeline by requesting one formal city council approval for both the MOU and SLA, instead of two separate votes for the MOU and SLA.
• Increased oversight and control by CPA during project development should help ensure the process runs smoothly.
• Enable CPA to access federal tax credits (described in more detail below).
Diagram 3: Power Ready Round 2 Contractual Agreements between Stakeholders Owning the Power Ready systems also carries certain responsibilities:
• CPA will be solely responsible for lifecycle project activities and ownership will increase CPA’s exposure to certain legal and operational risks. • CPA will require additional resources including new staff, additional outside counsel support, and new consultants to support implementation. Initial resources to carry out this type of program delivery model have been included in the FY2025/26 budget.
Agenda Page 24
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready Program Delivery Cost Analysis Factors
A comparison between the PPA costs and the estimated costs if CPA were to pursue ownership of the Round 2 portfolio of similar solar and battery storage capacity is described below.
Project costs specifically include the materials and labor required to deliver the turn-key implementation of engineering, construction, and operations. This includes the installation of solar panels, battery storage systems, electrical wiring and hardware, roof repairs, balance of systems, and construction labor, permitting and application fees, and the operations and maintenance after construction completion throughout the project’s 20- year term.
The following general assumptions were made for the cost comparison of both PPA and Ownership project delivery contracts:
• 10 projects of similar capacity as Round 1
o 1 MW solar and 1 MW / 5 MWh battery energy storage system • 2025 cost comparisons, assuming prevailing wages and excluding any impacts from tariffs
• CPA would purchase the assets upfront and not utilize debt financing • No Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) incentives are included (no additional incentives for these projects are anticipated to be allocated from the CPUC)
• 30% ITC on eligible project costs of the battery systems, consistent with current law
o Assumes compliance with Foreign Entities of Concern (FEOC) and similar provisions
• No ITC on solar systems (it is unlikely that the Round 2 Power Ready projects will meet the required construction milestones to be eligible for tax credits) Ownership of the Power Ready systems will require incremental programmatic resources for implementation and include:
Agenda Page 25
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready • Incremental Staff: New staff positions totaling 1.25 full time equivalents (FTE) for Power Supply and Legal to manage the EPC and O&M agreements and for CPA‘s Accounting Department to manage invoices. The incremental staff is estimated to cost $2.46 million over the project lifetime and will provide support during the pre-development stage and throughout the project’s 20-year term. • Consulting: External legal counsel assistance to support public works solicitation, develop new Master EPC and O&M form agreements, development of property agreements, and to claim tax credits. Technical consulting to develop comprehensive project specifications and advise on project development items.
The estimated Power Ready project cost comparison for the solar and battery system by different contract types are outlined below.
Table 1: Power Ready Estimated Project and Programmatic Cost Comparison over the 20-year Operational Term
Cost Category PPA* EPC Contract**
Power Ready Project Costs* $21,143,000 $14,858,000
Incremental Staff $0 $2,462,000
Consulting $1,000,000 $1,375,000
Total Project and Program Costs $22,143,000 $18,695,000 Total Project and Program Costs
(Net Present Value)*** $12,192,000 $12,687,000 *PPA includes payments from CPA to the developer under the PPA. CPA incurs no incremental costs during operation.
**Ownership includes materials and labor as milestone payments prior to operation, insurance, and operations and maintenance throughout the 20-year term. ***Net Present Value (NPV): Calculates the annual costs for PPA and Ownership terms based on a discount rate of 7%.
Table 2: Power Ready Program Cost Estimates throughout the 20-year Operational Term PPA EPC Contract
EPC Contract Lifecycle
Cost Notes
Pre-Development* Year 1 $0 $6,555,000 Milestone Payment Agenda Page 26
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready Operational Year 1 $2,082,000 $3,730,000 Milestone Payment Operational Years 2-9** $8,558,000 $3,076,000 O&M
Operational Year 10*** $1,095,000 $1,311,000
O&M and battery cell
replacement
Operational Years 11-19 $9,412,000 $2,717,000 O&M
Final Year 20**** $1,034,000 $1,309,000
End of term
decommissioning
Total $22,143,000 $18,695,000
*Pre-Development includes upfront milestone payments for system costs and labor **Operational Years 2-9 and 11-19 include system performance monitoring and Operations and Maintenance ***Operational Year 10 includes replacing the battery cells in addition to O&M ****Final Year 20 includes the default program option to remove the system The PPA project delivery method’s annual lifecycle costs are accounted for in the contract rate for energy and battery capacity. The EPC project delivery method will realize costs that vary from year to year, including upfront milestone payments in the pre-development phase that will support large-scale hardware purchasing and labor costs. Operational costs throughout the term include maintenance, battery cell replacement (estimated at year 10), and decommissioning of the systems at the end of the term (which is the default option for participants if they elect not to purchase the systems at fair market value at that time).
Additional Program Delivery Factors
Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Impacts
For Power Ready Round 2 CPA expects projects to receive 30% ITC on eligible project costs of the battery systems, and no ITC on the solar systems since the construction start milestone date to receive the ITC for solar systems is not achievable. To receive ITC for the battery systems, eligible project costs must be compliant with Foreign Entities of Concern (FEOC) and other provisions. Either project delivery scenario, PPA or EPC contract, will be required to meet these new requirements to receive the ITC.
Agenda Page 27
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready Federal Direct Pay Mechanism
Asset ownership has risen in popularity for tax-exempt entities since the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed in 2022 and allows local government entities, such as CPA, to receive the Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) directly as cash payments through the Direct Pay mechanism. Traditionally CPA has benefited from the ITC via third-party private entities that leverage the tax credits and offer a lower overall cost of energy and/or service for clean energy projects through PPAs.
Direct Pay still remains law. To directly receive ITC benefits, CPA is required to own the assets and can receive the ITC upon successful filing of project-specific tax returns with the IRS when the project is complete. Since Direct Pay remains intact, CPA could leverage this mechanism for the battery portion of future Power Ready projects.
Other CCA’s Ownership Activities
Staff has been consulting with other CCAs to leverage their collective knowledge of how they have approached similar projects. The three CCA’s that have a program similar to Power Ready are all pursuing asset ownership through the EPC project delivery method.
These three other CCAs are in various stages of implementing asset ownership Power Ready projects.
The most relevant example of a CCA shift towards asset ownership is in Ava Community Energy‘s (Ava) Resilient Facilities program. Ava originally pursued a PPA structure similar to Power Ready Round 1, however Ava recently changed course and entered into an EPC contract with a vendor. Ava was able to quickly pivot towards ownership since they had experience in owning electric vehicle charging assets through which they had developed internal capacity and staff experience. After nearly a year of PPA negotiations with a developer that was ultimately unsuccessful, Ava issued an accelerated RFP for an EPC vendor within two months and received 10 responses. The quick timeline and robust response emphasizes how this pivot towards ownership and EPC agreements was well received by the market.
Agenda Page 28
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready The following table illustrates known CCA ownership initiatives and status:
Table 3: CCA Ownership Status of their Similar Power Ready Programs CCA Program /
Project Ownership Status Ownership Justification
Ava Resilient
Facilities
Implementing Asset
Ownership
Ava recently approved an EPC
contract to implement their
projects; negotiations of a PPA
did not move forward given
current market uncertainty
PCE GovPV Implementing Asset
Ownership
PCE pursued ownership early to
quickly complete projects and
receive certain net metering bill
savings benefits. PCE recently
received their first Direct Pay ITC
check for their completed solar-only projects
RCEA
Redwood
Coast Airport
Microgrid
Implemented Asset
Ownership
Awarded DOE grant funds to
implement the project, project
operational
Agenda Page 29
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Power Ready Break-out Group Discussion Topics and Questions:
Staff encourages a robust discussion about the opportunities and risks associated with pursuing asset ownership of the Power Ready systems through the EPC project delivery method.
1. Power Ready program structure (Discuss the details of the current program offering)
a. How does a Power Ready system work, and what does a Power Ready system provide during an outage event?
b. What are the ideal types of sites for Power Ready?
c. Are there any improvements or modifications that would enable more participation?
2. Enhancing efficiency in Power Ready’s project delivery (Focus on streamlining key milestones, including technical feasibility and contract negotiations with member agencies)
a. What are the best practices for CPA staff to engage in contract negotiations, like the MOU and SLA, with agency staff – and how do we ensure timelines stay on track?
b. As Round 1 projects move forward into permitting, how can CPA and the member agency navigate the review process to receive approvals quickly? c. How do we align Power Ready with local priorities and ensure continued support throughout the life of the project?
3. Reviewing risks to Power Ready asset ownership (Assess the risks for future diligence)
a. What are some of the supplemental risks to asset ownership that CPA staff should further evaluate?
b. How have your agencies mitigated risks associated with asset ownership, of solar and/or battery systems, or otherwise?
c. Should CPA consider a limit to the size and/or scale of Power Ready asset ownership based on risk?
Agenda Page 30
Study Session 2b
Asset Ownership: Transmission
Agenda Page 31
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission Memorandum
To: Board of Directors
From: David McNeil, Chief Financial Officer
Ted Bardacke, Chief Executive Officer
Subject: Transmission - Opportunity Assessment
Date: September 26, 2025
SUMMARY
The Board Retreat Study Session will review the electricity transmission sector in California and discuss specific opportunities, risks, and considerations for CPA to own or lease transmission assets in partnership with the private sector. The Board’s input and break-out group discussion will help CPA prioritize further research and potential action in this emerging opportunity.
INTRODUCTION
At its June 2024 retreat, CPA’s Board expressed interest in exploring asset ownership.
Based on that interest, CPA staff have explored several types of project ownership opportunities that might be appropriate given CPA’s mission, expertise, and growth trajectory. Transmission ownership would offer CPA an opportunity to:
1. Improve electric bill affordability
• Transmission bill charges are expected to nearly triple in today’s dollars over the next twenty years. CPA can help to reduce transmission/delivery costs for customers
• By accelerating and deepening transmission investments, CPA could reduce generation charges on customer bills by reducing congestion costs and providing greater access to lower cost renewable energy.
Agenda Page 32
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission
2. Advance the clean energy transition
• Affordability and a lack of transmission infrastructure represent major threats to advancing the clean energy transition
• Transmission investments can expand the build out of renewable generating assets and reduce reliance on GHG emitting generation resources
3. Earn a fair and reasonable rate of return for CPA
• Regulation incentivizes public transmission owners to participate in transmission development by offering reasonable and equitable returns • These returns could be used to reduce generation rates, fund programs, and/or subsidize operating costs
4. Build capacity to support our members’ needs
• Better inform transmission planning at the community level, through improved understanding of the transmission planning and transmission alternatives
5. Control risks
• Through contract structures and the creation of bankruptcy remote entities, CPA can mitigate and manage major risks associated with transmission development
Board members will have the opportunity to join a break-out group to discuss transmission in California and do a deeper dive into an example of a transmission partnership arrangement.
Agenda Page 33
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission
BACKGROUND
Transmission System Overview
California operates in a regional transmission system which spans the entire western United States with connections into British Columbia, Canada and the northern parts of Baja California.
In the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO’s) area of operation, the transmission system connects generators with the distribution systems of Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) like Southern California Edison.
The transmission system (2,3,4) connects electric Generating Stations (1) to the Distribution System (5,6) through Transmission (2) and Sub-transmission (4) lines that exceed 200 kilovolts and 65 kilovolts respectively. The distribution system in turn connects to CPA’s residential and commercial customers.
Customer electricity bills are composed of charges related to generation (CPA) and distribution of electricity (SCE), plus added charges on the SCE side of the bill for public purposes programs and other state authorized items. Charges for the transmission of electricity currently comprise 7% residential bills and are a subset of charges on the SCE side of the bill. Transmission charges could increase to nearly 21% of bills Agenda Page 34
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission assuming other bill charges remain flat and no action to address transmission affordability is taken.
CAISO’s 20 Year Transmission Outlook
To achieve its reliability and renewable goals and support continued electrification, California requires significant investments in transmission infrastructure over the next 20 years. The CAISO’s 20-Year Transmission Outlook published in July 2024 estimated the need for up to $63.2 billion in future transmission investments.
Figure ES-1 provides an illustrative diagram of the transmission development required to integrate the resources of the 2045 portfolio and reliably serve the 2045 load forecast.1 This analysis focused on high-voltage bulk transmission, recognizing that local transmission needs and generation interconnections will ultimately need to be addressed as well. The grayed areas and associated blue arrows represent the locations and names of CAISO transmission zones respectively. Fine gray lines and circles represent existing transmission infrastructure. Thick black and dotted red arrows represent areas of future transmission development.
1 Source: see the CAISO’s 20-Year Transmission Outlook published in July 2024 Agenda Page 35
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission Table ES-1: provides the high-level summary of the transmission development required for upgrades to the existing ISO footprint, offshore wind integration and out-of-state wind
integration along with estimated cost. The range of cost estimate is commensurate with estimates developed at this stage of planning, with the costs in constant dollars.
Agenda Page 36
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission CAISO’s Transmission Planning Process
Transmission system upgrades and new development are authorized by the CAISO on an annual basis through its Transmission Planning Process (TPP). The TPP authorizes two types of transmission projects;
o New projects subject to competitive solicitation pursuant to FERC Order 1000. o Upgrades and improvements to existing transmission assets and some new projects which are awarded to the IOU owners of the underlying transmission assets without competitive bid.
Transmission that is planned and authorized by CAISO is owned and developed by Participating Transmission Owners comprised of:
o Investor-owned utilities: Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) o Private transmission developers: These include LS Power, NextEra and subsidiaries of Black Rock and Berkshire Hathaway.
o Partnerships of IOUs and Private investors and developers Agenda Page 37
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission While municipal electric utilities have owned, operated and maintained transmission infrastructure for over 100 years in California, with few exceptions municipal utilities have not owned or developed transmission assets in CAISO’s transmission network. Unlike states such as New York and Texas, in California public entities do not currently play a meaningful role in CAISO transmission ownership or financing; with the passage of recent legislation (SB254 described below in greater detail) there may be a greater role for public finance in this area over the next decade.
Owners of both new build and upgrade projects, typically elect to turn operational control of their facilities over to the CAISO and collect Transmission Access Charges (TAC) from electric utility customers. Transmission owners are responsible for maintaining the transmission system, complying with federal regulations governing reliability standards, insuring transmission assets from damage, and acquiring third party liability insurance coverage for harms caused by the transmission asset. The IOUs participate in the California Wildfire Fund. Private transmission developers insure transmission privately.
Current State of Transmission Financing
The IOUs, Private Transmission Developers and Private Investors provide debt and equity capital to finance transmission projects. They earn a rate of return on shareholder equity which is “grossed up” to account for the payment of income taxes and are compensated for taxable interest charges on debt at cost. Table ES2 estimates the component costs to rate payers of the projected 20 year build out of transmission using private sector capital;
Agenda Page 38
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission These project costs are included in the TAC along with maintenance costs. Ratepayer contributions to the California Wildfire Fund are paid via separate charges on the customer bill.
Pathways Initiative and Regional Transmission Planning
The Pathways initiative is moving forward following the California legislature’s passage of AB825 (formerly SB540) earlier this month. Pathways is expected to improve regional integration of electricity spot markets across the west, easing the transition to clean electricity, bolstering grid reliability, and reducing grid costs.
Historically, coordinated transmission planning between the CAISO and other western balancing authorities has been limited. Over time, Pathways may lead to improved regional coordination in transmission planning which would compliment the CAISO’s TPP and reduce overall transmission costs and more effectively facilitate the buildout of transmission lines from the best renewable resources in the West to the places with the highest electricity demand.
Improved regional transmission planning would represent a positive evolution in transmission planning and could present additional opportunities for CPA both to own and finance transmission and facilitate the construction of renewable generation resources.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRANSMISSION OWNERSHIP
California policymakers have recognized that public agencies, in partnership with the private sector, could play an important role in developing and financing transmission.
Public agencies such as the New York Power Authority in New York and Lower Colorado River Authority in Texas are leading transmission owners and developers in their respective states. California lacks a public partner in the transmission space.
Public agencies, including CPA, have the following important advantages in delivering low-cost financing for transmission projects;
• A cost of “equity” that is at least 28% lower than the private sector reflecting exemption from state and federal income taxes.
Agenda Page 39
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission • Authority to issue tax exempt debt which currently costs 20-25% less per annum than taxable debt.
CPA could bring additional competitive advantages, notably; • Significant capital market experience
• CPA has issued $6 billion of prepay bonds in the past three years • Sophisticated procurement expertise and experience
• CPA has procured over $16 billion of renewable energy and storage • Credibility and influence at the state and local level • Flexible return on investment requirements that consider the public good • Deep and active lines of communication with its member agencies and the constituents it serves
Transmission and Local Development
As the tragic events across California over the past several years have demonstrated, wildfires caused by failures in the electricity system can have devastating impact on our communities. Transmission planning can play a significant role ensuring community safety and resiliency in which transmission siting, alternatives to transmission, and undergrounding of transmission lines are all important considerations. By developing CPA’s knowledge and experience with the transmission planning and procurement, CPA could become a trusted partner to our communities as they evaluate transmission in their area, both as it relates to the operation and upgrading of existing transmission assets, and to new build transmission assets planned for their areas.
Transmission Partnership Example
The following example illustrates a possible CPA/IOU partnership to finance a transmission project using a Transmission Capacity Lease framework. A similar partnership could be achieved with an independent transmission developer. • IOU and CPA voluntarily partner on a transmission project. • IOU plans and constructs the project.
Agenda Page 40
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission • The IOU and CPA enter into a Transmission Capacity Lease Agreement under which the CPA agrees to lease 50% of the transmission line capacity for 30 years.
• The CPA issues tax-exempt bonds. The bond proceeds are used to prepay 30 years of lease payments to the IOU. The IOU is effectively paid upfront for 50% of the transmission asset.
• Under the lease agreement, the IOU maintains the transmission asset in return for a maintenance fee paid by the CPA.
• The IOU indemnifies the CPA from wildfire liability risks arising from the operation of the transmission asset, which is covered by the California Wildfire Fund.
• CPA enters into a Transmission Control Agreement with the CAISO in which it passes operational control of the leased transmission capacity to the CAISO.
• The CPA receives FERC approval to recover debt service, maintenance fees, and a “proper and equitable return”2 through the Transmission Access Charge on the customer bill.
As described in the previous section, this framework could reduce transmission costs associated with the CCA’s new investment for all ratepayers by about 20-30%. This framework is believed to be attractive to institutional investors and is therefore scalable.
Managing Risk
To manage risk, CPA would be selective in its choice of transmission investments, avoiding investments with elevated wild fire or other risks. CPA could also create and use a bankruptcy-remote entity. In the example above, the bankruptcy-remote entity, and not CPA, would enter into the Transmission Capacity Lease with the IOU and would issue the tax-exempt bonds. Bond holders would be secured by future payment from ratepayers and would have no claim against CPA. Bankruptcy-remote entities have recently been 2 “Proper and equitable return” is an established FERC approach to determining appropriate “equity” returns for municipal utilities, and lower than the return on equity awarded to IOUs reflecting CPA’s exemption from state and federal income taxes.
Agenda Page 41
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission used by the New York Power Authority to finance over $2 billion of transmission projects and are well established “tools” in the public agency toolbox. By using a bankruptcy remote entity and ensuring that the private sector partner indemnifies CPA from wildfire liability risks, CPA should be able to effectively manage and control risk. The allocation of risk between the bankruptcy-remote entity and its IOU or private developer partner would be negotiated bilaterally.
Next Steps for CPA
CPA is researching several mechanisms to establish the authority to own and finance transmission.
Existing Authority
AB 117, the CCA enabling legislation, does not explicitly authorize transmission ownership or development. CCAs may be able to own and develop transmission directly connected to generation resources for which they have contracts. Public sector entities that develop and own transmission generally only do so under explicit legislative authority.
CCAs have historically opposed efforts to amend AB 117 due to the risks and uncertainties associated with legislative outcomes.
Under California law, JPA’s exercise of power is restricted to the power of one of its contracting parties as designated in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)3. Per CPA’s JPA (Sec. 3.4), CPA’s exercise of power is restricted to the powers possessed by the County of Los Angeles.
Counties have authorities to develop transmission in accordance with California Government Code Sec. 25730.
The board of supervisors of any county may construct, acquire, and develop works… for the generation of hydroelectric power, and… for the generation of power produced by wind energy, and transmission lines for the conveyance thereof, and may operate and maintain the works, or contract for such operation or maintenance. The construction of the plant or plants and transmission lines may be financed by any method of financing county works.
3 Government Code §6509.
Agenda Page 42
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission Under the Joint Powers Act (Government Code Sec. 6500, ets seq.), CPA’s ability to own and develop transmission would be limited to Los Angeles County’s authority and that authority is limited to the generation of hydroelectric or wind power and related transmission. Potential Solution: CPA could work legislatively to amend Government Sec 25730 to expand the authorities of Counties at large to include transmission of all types.
New Legislation
The recently passed SB254 (Becker/Petrie-Norris) envisions the use of public agencies and finance to improve transmission affordability and potentially accelerate the build out of transmission investments. SB254 creates an “Accelerator” comprised of representatives from the CAISO, CPUC, the Governor’s Office and other state agencies which would identify new transmission projects subject to competitive solicitation that could be eligible for a public private partnership and financed by the California I-Bank.
SB254 does not authorize additional public agencies such as CCAs to own transmission and it is not clear which public entities have the desire or institutional capacity to serve this ownership or financing role. Further the Accelerator’s range of activity is limited to supporting new transmission projects while transmission upgrades, which represent a much larger share of required transmission investments, remain without a clear path for public/private partnerships. CPA lobbied the authors of SB 254 to provide CCAs with broad authority to own and finance transmission but this effort did not succeed.
Potential Solution: As commonly occurs with new initiatives, it may take the state several legislative sessions to refine its strategy for public sector participation in transmission ownership and financing Through additional education, engagement with stakeholders and broadening its base of support to include CalCCA, CPA could advocate for CCAs to be provided with clear authority to participate in the transmission projects during the 2026 legislative session.
JPA Establishment
Agenda Page 43
Board of Directors Retreat Study Session 2: Asset Ownership - Transmission Cities have constitutional authority to own and operate transmission4 and can accomplish this either individually or through the creation of a JPA. The Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) is an example of a JPA formed by municipal members to own and operate transmission.
Potential Solution: CPA could own and finance transmission via partnership with a newly created JPA composed of members with the authority (e.g. cities) to develop transmission. CPA could operate and capitalize this new JPA which, like CPA itself, could operate on a bankruptcy-remote basis from its members.
At the retreat, Board members will have the opportunity to join a break-out group to; • Discuss transmission in California
• Do a deeper dive into an example of a transmission partnership arrangement • Provide guidance on whether CPA should continue to pursue this transmission opportunity and if so, which potential solutions – be they legislative or using existing legal authorities – should be pursued to enable CPA to undertake projects in this area.
4 Under Article XI, Section 9(a) of the California Constitution “A municipal corporation may establish, purchase, and operate public works to furnish its inhabitants with light, water, power, heat, transportation, or means of communication.” Cities are routinely referred to as municipalities.
Agenda Page 44
Lunchtime Speaker/Q&A – Recent California
Energy and Climate Policy Initiatives and
Future Directions with Siva Gunda
Agenda Page 45
Siva Gunda, Vice-Chair, California Energy Commission
Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Gunda in February 2021 to serve as the Energy Commission’s public member and he was later appointed Vice Chair in September 2021.
Gunda is the lead CEC commissioner on Energy Assessments, Energy Reliability, and Long-term Electricity Planning (including Implementation of Senate Bill 100), among other things. In these capacities he has played a key role in the state’s response to grid instability earlier this decade and in standing up the state’s new Division of Petroleum Market Oversight.
Before joining the Energy Commission, he served in a variety of capacities at the Energy Efficiency Institute at the University of California, Davis, including as the director of research, where he directed the institute’s operations and research portfolio.
Gunda holds a master of science in mechanical and aeronautical engineering from Utah State University. Gunda is pursuing his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from UC Davis. He is a serious cricket fan and former captain of his college team. He lives with his family in Davis.
Agenda Page 46