EXHIBIT F
10 of 11
g. Applicant shall design the homes and site grading to ensure that the sidewalks maintain a maximum cross slope that do not exceed 2%. The use of rolled curbs, shall be approved by the City Engineer.
h. The use of stop control intersections within the development shall be supported by a warrant analysis consistent with the requirements of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
62. Sheet C6.0 Preliminary Utility Plan
a. The joint utility trench shall be installed under sidewalks where possible. b. The applicant shall be responsible for providing adequate easement area for transformers and related public utility equipment.
c. The applicant shall provide street lighting along Brickyard Cove Road consistent with the requirement of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
The lighting levels shall be as required by the City Engineer. d. The applicant shall provide street lighting along Brickyard Cove Road consistent with the requirement of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
The lighting levels shall be approved by the City Engineer. e. All streetlights shall be light emitting diodes with color temperatures of less than 3,000 kelvin. All fixtures shall be dark sky friendly. f. Applicant shall complete an inspection of the storm drain outfall consistent with the Pipeline Assessment Certifi cation Program as administered by the National Association of Sewer Service Companies. The applicant shall be responsible for rehabilitating the pipeline consistent with the inspection and as direct by the City Engineer.
63. Sheet C7.0 Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
a. The applicant shall complete all remedial actions at the site to mitigate soil contamination as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Design Review Board
64. The applicant shall meet with the Richmond Yacht Club (RYC) prior to the public hearing before the City Council to make a good faith effort to resolve issues including but not limited to the following: property boundary, drainage, stormwater, fencing design, access to lockers and open space.
65. Public art shall be required at the corner retail building.
66. Minimum bay trail setback from any house shall be a minimum of 12-feet.
67. Units in the middle of the project shall have a third story limited to 80% of the floor area below for 50% of the units.
68. The corner retail space shall provide a dumpster enclosure.
EXHIBIT F
11 of 11
69. The applicant shall add to Site Plan B a tree or mound (traffic control measure) at the center of drop off area.
70. The bay trail retaining wall guard rail shall be hot-dipped galvanized vertical pickets.
71. The bay trail retaining wall along the south shore and RYC lockers shall not exceed 6- feet in height.
72. The bay trail retaining wall shall be a minim of 3-feet away from the Richmond Yacht Club lockers and shall be maintained by the HOA with drainage to capture and divert water from the lockers.
73. The applicant shall return to the DRB at a future meeting for major design review of the architecture for the house plans, landscaping, lighting, and signage.
EXHIBIT G
APPLICANT RESPONSES TO DRB RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(11-7-22)
81. The applicant shall meet with the Richmond Yacht Club (RYC) prior to the public hearing before the City Council to make a good faith effort to resolve issues including but not limited to the following: property boundary, drainage, stormwater, fencing design, access to lockers and open space.
Response – Proposed COA #81 is acceptable as written.
82. Roof deck drawing to eliminate 5 roof top decks adjacent to RYC parking lot
83. Public art shall be required at the corner retail building.
Response – Proposed COA #83 is acceptable, but we would request the condition be reworded as follows –
“Public Art and/or elements of historical relevance shall be included in the design of the Gateway Plaza located adjacent to the retail node in the northwest corner of the site.”
84. Minimum bay trail setback from any house shall be a minimum of 12-feet.
Response – Applicant objects to the inclusion of this development standard as a Condition of Approval for the following reasons. Because 10% of the homes (16 residential units) in the Terminal One SFR Project will be affordable units in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (see proposed COA #10), the Project qualifies under the State’s Density Bonus Law for the waiver or reduction of development standards which would physically preclude construction of the Project as designed. Because application of a development standard that mandates a minimum setback of 12 feet for any home located adjacent to the Bay Trail (a) would require significant changes to the design of the Project that would impact the project density and (b) would preclude construction of the Project as designed, State law prohibits its imposition as a Condition of Approval. See the following Response to proposed COA #85 for a more detailed explanation of the provisions of the State’s Density Bonus Law that prohibit application of development standards that would physically preclude construction of the Project as designed.
Steps Already Taken to Address Concerns Regarding Bay Trail Setbacks -- It should also be noted that Applicant has already taken steps to address the concerns that have been expressed by TRAC with regard to the width of the Bay Trail and the setback of homes located adjacent to the Bay Trail. As a result of input from TRAC, significant modifications were made to the design of the Project during the design review process to increase both the width of the Bay Trail corridor located adjacent to the Yacht Club and the setback of the homes located adjacent to this segment of the Bay Trail. It is our understanding that the changes that were made to the design of the Bay
EXHIBIT G
Trail corridor adjacent to the Yacht Club are acceptable to TRAC. These modifications resulted in the loss of both a single-family home and an accessory dwelling unit and a commensurate reduction in Project density.
85. Units in the middle of the project shall have a third story limited to 80% of the floor area below for 50% of the units.
Response – Because 10% of the homes (16 residential units) in the Terminal One SFR Project will be affordable units in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (see proposed COA #10), the Project qualifies under the State’s Density Bonus Law which allows the design of a qualifying project to assume the waiver or reduction of otherwise applicable development standards and prohibits the imposition of any such development standards unless certain findings are made, none of which apply to proposed Condition 85. Accordingly, the approval of the Terminal One SFR Project cannot be conditioned as the DRB recommends because imposition of the proposed condition is inconsistent with and prohibited by State law.
Discussion
State Law Prohibits Imposition of the 80% Limitation on Third-Floor Massing -- In accordance with the requirements of Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Article 15.04.603 (Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing Linkage Fee), ten percent of the dwelling units in the SFR Project will be made available at affordable sales prices to moderate income households. As a result, the SFR Project qualifies under the State’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Sections 65915-65918) for a waiver or reduction in development standards that conflict with the design of the Project. As the Staff Report for the DRB public hearing held on October 26, 2022 provides at pages 4-5 -- Applicant has requested, and the design of the SFR Project contemplates, modifications to a number of the development standards that would have been applicable to the Project if the Terminal One Property was in a RM-1 zoning district. The development standards Applicant seeks to waive or reduce include the following limitation with respect to “Maximum Upper Story Massing ([as a] % of Ground Floor Footprint)”:
“The RM-1 zoning district sets forth a maximum upper story massing of 80% for the 3
rd story and above. Applicant requests for the ability to have a 100% upper story massing for the 3rd story.”
Recent case law interpreting the State Density Bonus Law prohibits the application of development standards such as the 80% limit on third-story massing to a development like the Terminal One Project that meets the requ irements for a density bonus , if imposition of the standard “would physically preclude construction of [the] project as designed.” See Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, 74 Cal.App.5th 755, at p. 776. Imposition of the 80% limitation for which provision is made in the DRB’s recommended Condition of Approval would preclude construction of the Terminal One SFR Project as it has been designed. As a result, the inclusion of this development standard as a Condition of Approval is prohibited by State law.
EXHIBIT G
Impacts of 80% Third-Floor Massing Limit on Design of SFR Project -- When early in our discussion with the Chair of the DRB, Mr. Livingston expressed a desire to see “a third floor mass reduction to mitigate the vertical mass” (see Jonathan Livingston’s notes from 6/22/22 DRB Study Session) and indicated an intention to apply the 80% third floor massing standard applicable in RM-1 zoning districts to the design of the SFR Project, we explained that:
• The Terminal One Property was zoned Planned Area (PA) District.
• One of the explicit purposes of a PA District is to enable a “superior development” by allowing the application of development standards under the PA District that are different from “the standards applicable to the underlying base district” (RMC Article
15.04.810.040F).
• Two features of the SFR Project which contribute to the superior character of the Terminal One development are the Junior Accessory Dwelling Units that are a featured component of the Plan 3 and Plan 4 residences and the flexible live/work-space of the Plan 6 Duet residences that can function as a home office, a commercial work place, or a fourth bedroom. These Junior ADU and flex-space features occupy the entire ground floor living areas of the larger three-story Latitude homes, where they can be accessed by separate entries. With the second floor of these three-story homes dedicated primarily to communal space (kitchen/dining/great room/study area), and with the floor area of the third floor limited by a building footprint that ranged from roughly 900 square feet (Plans 5 and 6) to roughly 1,200 square feet (Plans 3 and 4), special care was taken in the design of the third-floor to assure that the available space was allocated efficiently to accommodate a three-bedroom floor plan that would include a master bedroom/bath/walk-in closet.
• If the third-story floor area of one-half of the 64 homes that front on greenway corridors in the center of the project is limited to 80% of the area of the building footprint (as the DRB proposes), the impact on both the project economics and functionality would be severe.
• First, the Project would lose an average of roughly 200 square feet of living area per home resulting in a cumulative reduction of 6,800 square feet in the marketable square footage of the 34 homes that would be impacted. With an average home size of approximately 2,200 square feet, such a loss of marketable space would be the equivalent of reducing the unit count and density of the Project by three homes.
• Second, because the design of these homes involves an allocation of space that is already exceedingly efficient, if homes within the Project are required to conform to the RM-1 standard for third floor massing, not only would these homes lose roughly 200 square feet of living space, but they would also lose a bedroom which could not be recaptured either on the second floor without sacrificing communal space that is critical to the livability of the homes or on the ground floor without eliminating the Junior ADUs or the live/work flex space – features of the Terminal One SFR Project which make the Project unique and contribute to its superior design.
EXHIBIT G
• This loss of marketable square footage would come on top of the cumulative loss of approximately 23,300 square feet of living area under roof (or the equivalent of ten+ 2,200 square foot homes) occasioned by changes that have been made to the design of the Project in response to DRB input since the initial June 22, 2022 DRB Study Session.1 Any further loss of density or marketable square footage would be extremely consequential and pose a significant threat to the capacity of the Project to generate the home sale revenues required both to privately subsidize the 16 affordable units that will be an integral part of the Latitude residential neighborhood and to cover the extraordinary costs involved in redeveloping the Terminal One Site – costs which include approximately $18M- $20M to seismically stabilize the site, remediate the residual soil and groundwater contamination, structurally retrofit the Wharf, demolish the lead-paint contaminated 90,000+ square foot warehouse, mitigate for potential sea-level-rise, and build a public Waterfront Park which will occupy the Project’s entire shoreline and will include as its centerpiece the 100+ year old Municipal Wharf No. 1 repurposed as a public park facility as well as a shoreline extension of the Bay Trail.
Steps Already Taken to Address Concerns Regarding Third Floor Massing – It should be noted that the 154-home Project consists of six different single-family home plans which include both detached units and attached duplex units as well as two- and three-story residences. Although the Project is designed to feature the use of a “Coastal Modern” architectural vernacular that is themed to the Project’s unique location by the Bay, each of the six plans employ two or three distinct elevations and nine contrasting color/material schemes to affect a significantly higher level of design diversity than is commonly found in single-family subdivisions. In addition, a number of changes have been made to the design of the Project during the design review process to address concerns regarding the third-floor massing of the three-story homes. These modifications include:
• The diversity of unit types has been increased and the visual effect of the third-floor massing reduced by replacing 18 three-story homes with two-story homes.
• The design of the three-story homes has been revised to increase the use of contrasting colors, materials, and pop-out/step-back features to break up the verticality of the homes, give the homes a more layered sense of base/mid-section/top, enhance the articulation of the building facades, and give the elevations a more textured aesthetic; and
• A new plan has been introduced for the duet units that employs asymmetry to de- emphasize vertical mass and give additional expression to the horizontal elements of the building design.
1 The Conceptual Site Plan reviewed by the DRB at the June Study Session included 161 single family homes and a total living area under roof of approximately 366,500 square feet. As a result of changes made to the design of the Project in response to input from the DRB, the residential component of the Site Plan that has been recommended for approval by the DRB consists of 154 homes with a combined square footage of approximately 343,200.
EXHIBIT G
86. The corner retail space shall provide a dumpster enclosure.
Response -- Proposed COA #86 is acceptable, but we would request the condition be reworded as follows –
“The corner retail space shall provide a trash enclosure.”
87. The applicant shall add to Site Plan B a tree or mound (traffic control measure) at the center of drop off area.
Response -- Proposed COA #87 is acceptable, but we would request the condition be reworded as follows –
“If compatible with considerations of safety and efficiency of operation, a landscaped centerpiece shall be added to the turn-around bulb at the southern terminus of the Dornan Drive extension shown on the Alternative B Site Plan.”
88. The bay trail retaining wall guard rail shall be hot-dipped galvanized vertical pickets.
Response – Proposed COA #88 is unacceptable. Until improvement plans for the Bay Trail are developed during the Design Development phase of the Project, we will not know; • where a retaining wall will be required at the edge of the Bay Trail or, • if a retaining wall is required, whether the height of the retaining wall will warrant the installation of a guard rail at the edge of the Bay Trail, or • if a guard rail is required, how that guard rail will need to be designed to integrate with the design of the retaining wall and to assure safe passage of the Bay Trail users.
We object to this proposed condition of approval not only because it is premature to specify the design character of a guard rail before the engineering analysis involved in determining that design character is undertaken and completed, but also because the design both of the Bay Trail and of any safety features that are incorporated as part of the Bay Trail improvements requires engineering expertise that the DRB does not have. We would respectfully submit that, in making this recommendation, the DRB is acting beyond the design review authority it is authorized to exercise under Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.806 (Design Review), and that, for this reason alone, the Planning Commission should reject this recommendation of the DRB out of hand.
89. The bay trail retaining wall along the south shore and RYC lockers shall not exceed 6-feet in height.
EXHIBIT G
Response -- Proposed COA #89 is unacceptable. Until improvement plans for the Bay Trail are developed during the Design Development phase of the Project, we will not know where a retaining wall will be required at the edge of the Bay Trail or, if a retaining wall is required, what the height of that retaining wall will need to be. We object to this proposed condition of approval not only because it is premature to specify the height of a retaining wall before the engineering analysis involved in designing the retaining wall and determining its height has been undertaken and completed, but also because the design both of the Bay Trail and of any retaining wall that is incorporated as part of the Bay Trail improvements requires engineering expertise that the DRB does not have and involves a scope of review the DRB is neither qualified nor authorized to exercise. We would respectfully submit that, in making this recommendation, the DRB is acting beyond the design review authority it is authorized to exercise under Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.806 (Design Review), and that, for this reason alone, the Planning Commission should reject this recommendation of the DRB out of hand.
90. The bay trail retaining wall shall be a minimum of 3-feet away from the Richmond Yacht Club lockers and shall be maintained by the HOA with drainage to capture and divert water from the lockers.
Response -- Proposed COA #90 is unacceptable. In accordance with COA #81, we will be meeting with the Richmond Yacht Club in a good faith effort to resolve issues involving the common boundary separating the Yacht Club Property and the Terminal One Property. Any Yacht Club concerns regarding the retaining wall we will be constructing along this common border will be addressed in this meeting. These common boundary issues are not design issues that are subject to regulatory oversight by the DRB. As noted in our Response to COA #89, the design of the retaining wall requires an engineering analysis that has not been completed and that the DRB does not have the expertise to perform. This proposed condition is yet another example of an attempt by the DRB to extend the reach of the Board’s regulatory oversight beyond the scope of the design review authority the DRB is authorized to exercise under the Design Review provisions of the RMC and should be rejected by the Planning Commission.
91. The applicant shall return to the DRB at a future meeting for major design review of the architecture, landscaping, lighting, and signage.
Response – We request that this proposed condition be reworded as follows:
“The applicant shall be required to return to the DRB at a future meeting to complete design review of the building architecture (consisting of the architectural plans for the 154 single-family homes, the Resident Recreation Building, and the Retail Building), landscaping, lighting, and signage. All other elements or aspects of the design of the Terminal One SFR Project are deemed to have been subjected to Major Design Review under Article
15.04.805 (Design Review) and approved by the DRB at the Public Hearing held on October 26, 2022. “
December 6, 2022
City Attorney's Office
DATE: December 6, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
James Atencio, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Council Direction on Requested Changes to Cannabis
License Ordinance
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Click or tap here to enter text.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
City staff is seeking City Council direction on a former cannabis dispensary license holder’s request to amend
the Cannabis Ordinance to allow for issuance of an
additional cannabis retailers license within the City of Richmond.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
PROVIDE direction to City staff on whether amendments
to the Cannabis Ordinance should be prepared
increasing the number of cannabis retailer licenses – City Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire 510-620-6509). This
item was continued from the November 22, 2022,
meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Background
AGENDA
REPORT
December 6, 2022
Richmond’s medical marijuana Ordinance No. 28-10 NS (“Ordinance”), adopted on September 21, 2010, permitted and regulated medical marijuana collectives. The Ordinance was amended on November 16, 2010, to permit marijuana collectives to operate in Regional Commercial (C-3) Zoning Districts at certain minimum distances from schools and other specified facilities. In order to operate a marijuana dispensary in compliance with the Ordinance, collectives were required to obtain approval for a location from the City Council. Richmond Patient’s Group (“RPG”), Holistic Healing Collective, Inc. (“HHC”) and 7 Stars Holistic Foundation, Inc. (“7 Stars”) were the only three permitted dispensaries operating in the City of Richmond since the Ordinance was passed.
In December 2011, Richmond Compassionate Care Collective (“RCCC”) was approved to establish a medical marijuana dispensary in Richmond, at 2920 Hilltop Mall Road.
In March 2012, the Ordinance was amended to allow collectives to transfer their permits to another location and increasing the number of allowed dispensaries to six. Around the same time RCCC decided not to open a dispensary at 2920 Hilltop Mall Road because of concerns regarding federal law enforcement and it therefore terminated its lease for that location. RCCC intended on transferring its permit to a new location and resumed a search for a new location to open its dispensary.
In December 2014, the Ordinance was amended to reduce the number of cannabis retailer permits from six to three. It was further amended to state that if a permitted dispensary (here, only RCCC) did not open within six months after issuance of the permit, the permit would expire and become void. This amendment went into effect in early January 2015.
In 2015, RCCC leased property at 3190 Klose Way and applied to transfer its permit, but the request was denied by the City on May 19. RCCC also pursued other properties but was ultimately unable to obtain a location before its permit expired. On November 3, 2015, RCCC sought an extension of time to find a location to commence operations, but the City Council did not approve the application.
RCCC sued RPG, HHC, and 7 Stars (collectively referred to as “defendants”) and others alleging various claims relating to interfering with RCCC’s ability to obtain a permit. RCCC’s lawsuit alleged that the defendants’ actions constitute an unlawful group boycott in violation of California’s Cartwright Act, causing RCCC to suffer millions of dollars in damages. When the case ultimately went to trial in August 2021, the only remaining defendants were three RPG owners and directors. On September 23, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in RCCC’s favor, awarding damages of $5,000,000 which were automatically trebled to $15,000,000.
RCCC is now requesting that, given RCCC’s successful litigation against RPG, the City Council consider amending the City’s Cannabis Ordinance to increase the number of allowed cannabis retailer permits to at least four so they can get their retailer permit reinstated.
December 6, 2022
However, amending the Ordinance would not in of itself guarantee that RCCC would successfully obtain a retailer permit. The current Ordinance provides for a competitive process to be followed in the event the City were to allow additional retailer permits.
The City Council previously directed City staff to return with a Cannabis Equity Program (“CEP”) that would prioritize the issuance of any new retailer licenses (either storefront or non-storefront) to equity candidates. Per the City Ordinance a Retail Facility is defined as “a facility where cannabis, cannabis products, edible cannabis products, or devices for the use of cannabis or cannabis products are offered for retail sale, including an establishment that delivers cannabis and cannabis products as part of a retail sale.” The City’s Ordinance also includes a Non-Storefront Retail Facility use defined as a facility that is closed to the public where cannabis, cannabis products, edible cannabis products, or devices for the use of cannabis or cannabis products are offered for retail sale exclusively by delivery, in accordance with State Law.
The City applied for and received state grant funding to create a CEP for Richmond.
Once developed, the CEP will support local equity applicants impacted by prior criminalization of cannabis with starting and/or growing their cannabis business. The initial approach that the Council desired was to prioritize the issuance of any new retailer licenses (either storefront or non-storefront) to equity candidates.
As part of the CEP development, the City Council will need to decide the maximum numbers of retailer licenses it will allow in the City. Staff will research and present the City Council with options on establishing a new maximum number of retailers licenses based on best practices as part of the ordinance amendments proposed to implement the CEP. As part of these anticipated CEP Ordinance amendments, the City Council could also direct staff to draft an amendment that would make allowances for operators who previously had their retailer permit expire and who wish to be reinstated.
City Staff is seeking City Council direction on whether City Council would like staff to return with a draft amendment to the Ordinance to increase the number of allowed retailer permits and any other related amendments to address RCCC’s request.
DOCUMENT ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – RCCC Letter
November 9, 2022
Richmond City Council Members
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Re: November 15, 2022, Agenda Report-Adding One Additional Dispensary Permit
Dear Mayor Butt and the Richmond City Council:
My name is John Valdez of Richmond Compassionate Care Collective, Inc. (RCCC). I am writing to you regarding the Agenda Report for November 15th written by City Attorney, Mr.
Dave Aleshire and Senior Assistant City Attorney, Mr. James Atencio who are seeking the councils direction to amend the cannabis ordinance to allow an additional cannabis license for RCCC.
RCCC was the first dispensary that was awarded a permit in 2011 with a unanimous vote from the city council. As RCCC tried to find many code compliant properties all while paying the quarterly permit fees ($380,000.00), the defendant dispensaries (Green Remedy, 7 Stars, Holistic Healing and the owners) along with others who aided them, Lisa Hirschhorn, Antwon Cloird conspired to keep RCCC out of the Richmond dispensary cannabis market. Defendant William Koziol and Darren Parle (Green Remedy Dispensary) attempted bribery of Richmond officials, purchased real property in order to block RCCC, intimidated landlords and many other illegal actions in order to block RCCC from ever opening there dispensary for the purpose of excluding competition.
Police Chief Chris Magnus of the Cannabis Regulatory Unit wrote an official letter to Bill Koziol and Darren Parle of Green Remedy advising them that they were illegally operating for 13 months with no permit at the Hilltop location and specifically referencing that “once you vacate the Hilltop property for another permitted dispensary, including Richmond Compassionate Care Collective” the only other licensed dispensary without a location.
Two officers from the Cannabis Regulatory Unit, Sargent Michael Rood and Detective Eric Oliver testified at the antitrust trial on RCCC’s behalf that indeed the defendants did block RCCC from opening a dispensary in Richmond and that everyone knew this, they also attempted to bribe officer Oliver and spread false allegations against me, John Valdez, the CEO of RCCC which I was completely vindicated by a jury and court of these allegations. It was also mentioned that several Richmond City Council members were involved and RCCC’s permit was revoked with the ordinance being changed to reduce the dispensary permits from 4 to 3, only the 3 defendants permits, thus getting rid of RCCC for good.
RCCC won the initial “competitive application process” when it was awarded the first dispensary permit. The 2 current operating dispensaries (7 Stars and Holistic Healing) were both originally denied dispensary permits when they applied the first time through the “competitive application process” by the City of Richmond because they were not qualified to open a cannabis business but somehow were then awarded permits by Richmond?
Since the City of Richmond and its Cannabis Regulatory Unit vindicated RCCC in a court of law, I am requesting that the City of Richmond reinstates my dispensary permit.
I am truly trying my hardest to discreetly and diplomatically resolve this situation on my own without legal implications as I would like to have a harmonious relationship with the City of Richmond and its citizens. It would only be a positive for Richmond as you would be taking in millions of dollars in tax revenue for the city. I am asking you to right the injustice by allowing me to open our dispensary business by giving us the opportunity to become valued members of the business community.
Please contact me at 415-990-2111 or by email, [email protected] if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
John Valdez
CEO, Executive Director, General Manager and Permit Qualifier, Richmond Compassionate Care Collective, Inc.
December 6, 2022
City Council
DATE: December 6, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Vice Mayor Martinez
SUBJECT:
Electric Vehicle Fleet
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost related to this informational item. If the City Council wishes to proceed with a transition to electric vehicles, the financial impact will include the cost of the vehicles minus the rebates offered.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City Council has expressed interest in transitioning to an electric vehicle fleet. The current fleet of vehicles is down by more than a dozen vehicles. As the City
positions itself to replace vehicles, it would be helpful to receive information on the benefits of an electric fleet.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE a presentation from MOTIV PS on the benefits
of transitioning to an electric fleet – Vice Mayor Martinez (510-620-6593). This item was continued from the
November 22, 2022, meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The City is in the process of repairing and replacing vehicles to replenish the fleet.
Through the California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, the City has requested over $900k in rebates to replace over one dozen AGENDA
REPORT
December 6, 2022
vehicles that are out of commission. The City Council has expressed interest in transitioning to all electric vehicles. Per the request of Vice Mayor Martinez, MOTIV PS has been requested to provide a presentation to the City Council on the benefits of said transition.
California’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) plays a crucial role in the deployment of zero-emission and near-zero-emission technologies. HVIP accelerates commercialization by providing point-of-sale vouchers to make advanced vehicles more affordable. Launched by the California Air Resources Board in 2009, the project is part of California Climate Investments. HVIP is the earliest model in the U.S. to demonstrate the function, flexibility, and effectiveness of first-come, first-served incentives that reduce the incremental cost of commercial vehicles.
https://californiahvip.org/
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
None
1 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential Click to edit Master title style
City of Richmond City
Council Meeting
November 22, 2022
Andrew Gibbs
[email protected]
650 730 0274
2 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential
3 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 3© 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential
ATTENDEES/ PRESENTERS
The Ford Store – Morgan Hill
• Mark Wexler – Commercial Vehicle & Fleet Sales Director Motiv Power Systems
• Gary Schmidt – SVP Sales and Marketing
• Matt Hultman – Director Channel Sales
• Andrew Gibbs – National Account Manager
• Jacob Panachaveettil – Sales Engineer
4 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 4© 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential • Headquartered in Silicon Valley, CA
• Electronics manufacturing in Hayward, CA
• Pre-delivery and service center in Stockton, CA
• Applications and manufacturing center near
Detroit, MI
• Chassis electrification in Indiana and Michigan
Motiv is a decade-plus innovator of medium-duty electric trucks and buses designed to power the backbone of modern commerce. We deliver all-electric vehicles for a wide variety of medium duty applications. We utilize our proprietary Adapt EV software, patented power electronics, and industry- leading truck and bus body partners for the commercial EV market.
HOW MOTIV IS FREEING FLEETS FROM FOSSIL FUELS
5 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential WHY GO ELECTRIC?
6 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 6 WHY MOTIV:
YOUR PATHWAY TO ELECTRIFICATION
HIGHEST-TOUCH
CUSTOMER SUPPORT
Dedicated support for
infrastructure and depot
electrification planning, vehicle
procurement, and driver and
maintenance training for
post-deployment success.
ROAD TESTED, PROVEN,
& RELIABLE
1.7 M real-world miles with
98% uptime across diverse
medium-duty truck and bus
applications deployed in
North America.
COMPLETE
ENERGY SOLUTION
Electrification beyond
vehicles, including charge
stations, turnkey installation,
financing, and more.
7 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential Driver Training
YOUR PATHWAY TO
ELECTRIFICATION
Project
Planning
Project
Execution
Customer
Support
Securing
Infrastructure
Incentives
Assistance
COMMITTED TO YOUR SUCCESS
8 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential Reducing tailpipe
emissions
by over
2.1+
70 3.4
150 150
MILLION
customer
driven miles
Over
MILLION
Proven
performance:
MILLION pounds
DELIVERY
STOPS
per day
Single-charge range
with 3-ton payload:
MILES
pounds of
deliveries
Electrifying the Backbone of Modern Commerce
Motiv Power Systems
9 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 9
10 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 10 MEETING EV NEEDS FOR MEDIUM-DUTY
TRUCK & BUS FLEETS
EPIC6
19,501 – 26,000 lbs
EPIC4
14,001 – 16,000 lbs
EPIC5
16,001 – 19,500 lbs
Motiv Product
Vehicle Application
Step Van
176”
14,500 lbs
Type A
158”
14,500 lbs
Box Truck
158”, 176”, 190”
14,500 lbs
Work Truck
158”, 176”, 190”
14,500 lbs
Shuttle Bus
158”, 176”, 190”
14,500 lbs
Step Van
208”
19,500 lbs
Step Van
178”, 208”
22,000 lbs
11 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential Motiv’s Epic E-450 Upfit Options
12 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential MOTIV’S EPIC E-450
Battery
Motor
Control
Assembly
Charge Plug
13 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 13
VEHICLE APPLICATIONS AND BODY PARTNERS
EPIC6
19,501 – 26,000 lbs
EPIC4
14,001 – 16,000 lbs
EPIC5
16,001 – 19,500 lbs
14 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 14© 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential
CUSTOMER SUCCESS STORIES
ARAMARK
• 31 step vans deployed across 5 depots
• > 530,000 miles
• 30 additional trucks for delivery in 2022
GOOGLE/MOUNTAIN VIEW
• 6 shuttles deployed in 2015-16
• > 580,000 miles
• Longest running Motiv fleet, still in daily
operation
TYPE A SCHOOL BUSES
• 25 buses deployed across school
districts in CA, CT, AZ, and NY
• > 195,000 miles
ALSCO
• 4 vehicles deployed in 2021,
2 are in USA’s first zero-emission
delivery zone
• > 36,000 miles
PUROLATOR
• 5 step vans deployed in 2021
• > 31,000 miles, > 99% uptime
BIMBO BAKERIES
• 28 step vans deployed across 5 depots
in CA, PA, and NY
• > 85,000 miles
• 30 in production for 2022, 30 on order
for 2023 delivery
15 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential PLANNING: CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Plan for infrastructure in tandem with your vehicle
purchase. Do not wait until there are only weeks
before deployment.
2. Talk to your electric vehicle OEM, power utility, and local Clean Cities Coalition about infrastructure
funding programs.
3. Learn about electric vehicle charging and
infrastructure requirements.
16 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential California Hybrid & Zero Emission Truck & Bus Voucher
Incentive Program (HVIP)
Agencies: CARB, CALSTART, Tetra Tech
Funding Type: Voucher Reimbursement
Program Status: First-Come, First-Served basis.
Vehicle Weight Class Base voucher Amount
Class 4-5 (14,001 – 19,500 lbs GVWR) $60,000 per Vehicle Class 6-7 (19,501 – 26,000 lbs GVWR) $85,000 per Vehicle $38 Million available as of November 14, 2022
Voucher Amounts
17 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 17© 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential HVIP Funding & Approval Process
* We have worked diligently to apply for HVIP funding since March 2022
* We have achieved “Funding Set Aside” status at this point $60,000 x 14 units E450 = $840,000
* Funding is NOT officially approved until Richmond finalizes the order with a PO.
18 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 18 TCO Analysis
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cost
Years
Total Cost of Ownership Analysis
ICE Vehicle VS. Battery Electric Vehicle
ICE Vehicle Battery Electric Vehicle
High Level
Comparison Values ICE Vehicle Battery EV Savings
Avg Annual Fuel Cost $18,490 $3,170 $15,319
Avg Maintenance Cost $4,490 $1,796 $2694
Total Cost of Ownership $314,798 $196,672 $118,126
Payback Period ~4-5 years
• ~ 38% Saving, using an BEV over ICE, over 10 years
• ~ 60% Maintenance savings
• ~ 82% Fuel savings
ASSUMPTIONS
Comparable ICE Vehicle Price $85,000 EV Purchase Price - Before Incentives $210,000 ICE Efficiency (mpg) 10 EV Incentives $60,000
ICE Fuel Price ($/gal) $6.00 EV Price - After Incentives $150,000 Electricity Price ($/kWh) $0.15 Miles per Day 80
Operating Lifetime (years) 10 In-Use Days per Year 250
19 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential
CUSTOMER SERVICE/ WARRANTY
Headquarters & Service Center
Foster City, CA
Manufacturing/ Warehouse
Hayward, CA
Service Center
Stockton, CA
Vehicle Warranty Coverage
Traction battery 5 years or 100,000 miles
All other powertrain
components
3 years or 50,000 miles
HVAC (Battery & Cabin) 5 years or 100,000 miles
Chassis Warranty Ford Warranty – Pass Thru
Each vehicle has a diagnostic computer,
collecting vehicle/ performance data.
80% of field issues can be remotely
diagnosed and fixed.
Typically less than 24 hrs. for technicians
to be on-site, in the unlikely event of parts
swap or repairs.
20 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 20© 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential
NEXT STEPS
• We are deeply committed and invested with hundreds of hours into this project with the City of Richmond
• We need a “Go” or “No-Go” decision on if the City intends to move forward
• THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SUPPORT IN THIS EV PROJECT!
21 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential© 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential
MOUNTAIN VIEW/
GOOGLE COMMUNITY
SHUTTLES
CHASSIS
• Built on EPIC4 with 127 kWh
FLEET
• 4 shuttles deployed in 2015, 2 more in 2016
PROOF OF PERFORMANCE
• 13-mile loop, 30 stops, 5-6 routes per day per vehicle, 65-85 miles per day
• > 580,000 miles, > 18,000 routes, > 850,000 passengers • Extremely positive feedback from Mountain View
residents, continue to use buses beyond designed
project life
• > 458 metric tons of tailpipe emissions reduced
Case Study
22 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential© 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential
SACRAMENTO AREA
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
(TYPE A SCHOOL BUSES)
Case Study
CHASSIS
• Built on EPIC4 with 106 kWh
FLEET
• 11 buses deployed in 2018
PROOF OF PERFORMANCE
• Routes range from 45-75 miles
• Motiv provided driver training and mechanic
training to maximize performance and reliability
• > 126,000 miles
• > 102 metric tons of tailpipe emissions reduced
23 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential EPIC4 TRUCKS OPTIONS
Chassis EPIC4
Battery Technology Lithium-Ion
Battery Capacity 127 kWh
Real World Range 105 miles
Level 2 Charging 19.2 kW / J1772
Level 3 Charging 60 kW / CCS
Regenerative Braking
Multiple levels, driver
selectable based on
preference/comfort
Hill Hold Yes
Wheelbase Options 158” to 190”
24 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential 8 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR GOING ELECTRIC
Charging
Infrastructure
Compliance
Driver Training
& Vehicle Support
Incentives
Return on
Investment
Routes & Usage
Patterns
Sustainability
Goals
Vehicle
Performance
BUILDING THE FLEET
OF THE FUTURE
25 © 2022 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential Click to edit Master title style
25 THANK YOU
© 2021 | Motiv Power Systems Inc.® | Proprietary & Confidential Andrew Gibbs
National Account Manager
Motiv Power Systems
[email protected]
December 6, 2022
Mayor's Office
DATE: December 6, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Tom Butt, Mayor
Subject: MCE Presentation
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
MCE had its annual board retreat in September, where
staff and board members reviewed progress,
achievements, and challenges. I have represented the
City of Richmond on MCE’s Board of Directors for a
decade, currently as the chair. I invited MCE sta ff to provide a similar report in front of the Richmond City
Council, city staff, residents, and community members.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: RECEIVE a presentation from MCE – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
DISCUSSION:
AGENDA
REPORT
December 6, 2022
The City of Richmond was the first MCE expansion city outside of Marin County. Unless they opt out, all Richmond businesses and residential electricity users are served by MCE generation sources, which are cheaper and greener than electrical power from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). In 2022, MCE is on track to save its customers over $74 million. Joining MCE has, by far, had the most impact on reducing greenhouse gases and meeting the goals of the city’s Climate Action Plan.
MCE has a half billion-dollar annual budget and serves 1.5 million homes and businesses in four counties – Marin, Contra Costa, Napa, and Solano. MCE has a higher credit rating than PG&E. During the COVID-19 pandemic, MCE used some of its revenue to provide relief to qualified homeowners and businesses. MCE is committed to supporting the use of electric vehicles (EVs) and providing EV charging stations and rebates for qualified EV vehicle buyers. MCE’s power content is almost 100% carbon free.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – MCE’s Presentation
MCE Power Supply Statistics
December 6, 2022
1
OUR MISSION Confront the climate crisis by eliminating
fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions,
producing renewable energy, and creating
equitable community benefits.
Lead California to an equitable, clean,
affordable, and reliable energy economy by
serving as a model for community-based
renewable energy, energy efficiency, and
cutting-edge clean-tech products and
programs.
OUR VISION
37 Member Communities
3 4 Bay Area
Counties
573,000
Accounts
1 million +
Customers
MCE + City of Richmond
City of Richmond Snapshot
• 82.1% enrolled in MCE service, 2.5% enrolled in MCE’s Deep Green 100% renewable service option and 7.6% have solar on their home or business. • 31% enrolled in California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), which provides up to 35% monthly discount on electricity for qualified households.
Community Sponsorships and Collaborations
• Sponsored City of Richmond’s Juneteenth event, Drive Clean Bay Area events, and programs with Rich City Rides, Urban Tilth, Groundwork Richmond and Collaborising for California Clean Air Coalition’s Clean Air Day. • Hosted multifamily workshop with APEN and SOMAH for HOAs, affordable housing developers and CBOs throughout Contra Costa County.
• Virtual Power Plant (VPP) Program launched: an opportunity for 42 small businesses, 4 large industrial customers,10 zero net carbon homes, and 90 residential homes to participate and receive new equipment and technology. • Working with city staff to advance Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) grant to advance EV charging opportunities is select zip codes. 4
Key Drivers of Power Supply Statistics
• MCE’s Integrated Resource Plan
• Actual vs. forecasted retail sales
• Actual vs. forecasted renewable energy production
• Variable hydrologic conditions
• Product availability: RPS & GHG-Free
• AB 1110 emission accounting methodology
5
MCE Planning & Procurement Process
• MCE’s resource planning process utilizes a two-phased approach with attention given to:
• Clean-energy commitments: resource commitments and open positions are evaluated in consideration of current IRP targets.
• Price risk mitigation/budgetary certainty: resource commitments are evaluated in consideration of potential market price exposure and budgetary/rate impacts. • Clean-energy purchases/sales are pursued to align resource commitments with IRP targets on a projected basis.
• Additional clean-energy purchases or sales may be executed throughout the year to balance commitments relative to needs.
• Certain contractual commitments are specifically executed to minimize MCE’s exposure to market price volatility but may not impact power supply stats. 6
MCE Historical Retail Sales Growth
7 -
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 GWh
MCE Retail S ales
MCE 2021 Sales & Customer Snapshot
• MCE’s Peak Demand of ≈1,240 MW occurred on September 8, 2021, (Hour Ending 17) • 3.5% decrease in peak demand relative to 2020
• Peak demand of ≈1,284 MW on September 7, 2020 (Hour Ending 18) • MCE experienced a 1.3% increase in retail sales relative to 2020 (5,262,209 MWh)8 % of Retail S ales Retail S ales (MWh) Cus tomers (as of 12/ 31/ 2021) MCE L ight Green T otal: 96.48% 5,145,607 534,982 Residential 49.54% 2,641,902 479,340 Non-Residential 46.95% 2,503,705 55,642 MCE Deep Green T otal: 3.51% 187,021 12,058 Residential 1.41% 75,182 8,878 Non-Residential 2.10% 111,839 3,180 MCE L ocal S ol T otal: 0.01% 578 223 Residential 0.01% 557 216 Non-Residential 0.00% 21 7 MCE Grand T otal: 100.00% 5,333,206 547,263
MCE 2021 Supplier Inventory
9 MCE received
specified
source energy
products from
≈36 unique
suppliers in
2021
S mall World T rading, 0.00%
CMS A, 0.01%
Larkspur RE Partnership, 0.01%
Hayworth -Fabian , 0.03%
DRE S Quarry, 0.05%
S an Rafael Airport , 0.06%
Northshore S olar Partners, 0.07%
RPCA S olar, 0.08%
WAPA, 0.21%
RP Napa S olar, 0.32%
G2, 0.38%
Waste Management , 0.39%
MCE S olar One, 0.41%
Genpower , 0.47%
E BMUD, 0.61%
Powerex , 0.95%
GS Renewables, 1.07%
Dominion , 1.07%
Geysers/ Calpine , 1.24%
Portland General , 1.90%
Clean Power Allianc e , 2.37% Caltex , 2.51%
T he Energy Authority , 2.98% Brookfield , 4.28%
Consolidated Edison , 4.41% E DF, 4.66%
S E NA, 4.74%
T ioga Energy, 4.86%
T erra-Gen , 5.12%
BPA, 5.14%
PG&E, 6.13%
S CE, 6.64%
Little Bear , 6.76%
T enaska, 7.02%NextE ra, 7.87%
Morgan S tanley , 15.21%
MCE 2021 Resource Locations
10 Over 95% of
specified source
power delivered
from California
and Pacific
Northwest in
2021
California, 64.1%
Arizona, 0.0%
Nevada , 0.9%
Washington, 28.7%
Idaho , 0.6%
Montana , 0.1%
B ritish Columbia, 2.4%
Oregon, 2.0%
Unspecified, 1.1%
MCE 2021 POWER CONTENT LABEL
11 2021 POWER CONTENT LABEL
MCE
mceCleanEnergy.org/energy-sources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity
(lbs CO2e/MWh) Energy Resources 2021 MCE
Light Green
2021 MCE
Deep Green
2021 MCE
Local Sol
2021 MCE
Green
Access
2021 CA
Power Mix
Eligible Renewable 1 60.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 33.6%
Biomass & Biowaste 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%
75 0 0 0 456 Geothermal 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% Eligible Hydroelectric 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%
Solar 31.3% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 14.2%
Wind 16.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4%
Coal 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%
Large Hydroelectric 36.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2%
Natural Gas 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.9%
Nuclear 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.3%
Other 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Unspecified Power 2 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Percentage of Retail Sales Covered by Retired Unbundled RECs3: 0% 0% 0% 0% 1The eligible renewable percentage above does not reflect RPS compliance, which is determined using a different methodology. 2Unspecified power is electricity that has been purchased through open market transactions and is not traceable to a specific generation source. 3Renewable energy credits (RECs) are tracking instruments issued for renewable generation. Unbundled renewable energy credits (RECs) represent renewable generation that was not delivered to serve retail sales. Unbundled RECs are not reflected in the power mix or GHG emissions intensities above.
For specific information about this electricity portfolio, contact: MCE 1 (888) 632-3674
For general information about the Power Content Label, visit: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/ For additional questions, please contact the California Energy Commission at: Toll-free in California: 844-454-2906 Outside California: 916-653-0237
2021 M CE Light
Green Power M ix
2021 M CE Deep
Green Power M ix
2021 M CE Local Sol
Power M ix
2021 CA Utility
Average
2021 M CE Green
Access Power M ix
0 200
400
600
800
1000
2021 MCE Light Green Power Mix
2021 MCE Deep Green Power Mix
2021 MCE Local Sol Power Mix
2021 MCE Green Access Power Mix
2021 CA Utility Average
2021: Statistical Highlights
• 98.3% Clean Energy = RPS-eligible Renewable + Carbon-Free + ACS • 61.9% RPS-Eligible Renewable
• 58.0% Bucket 1
• 3.9% Bucket 2
• Zero Bucket 3
• 35.5% Large Hydro*
• 0.9% Nuclear*
• 64.1% California-based supply
• 83.2% California-based renewables, as a % of total renewables • Light Green Emission Factor (AB 1110): 75 lbs CO2e/MWh (92% GHG-Free equiv.) *Includes proportionate allocations from Asset Controlling Supply purchases12
MCE Historical Power Content (2012-2021)
13 25% 20%
27%
38%
53% 59% 61% 62% 63% 62%
29%
31%
30%
15%
3%
3% <1% 0% 0% 0%
7% 10%
9% 11%
13%
26% 26% 29%
36% 36%
373 364
324 323
279
109
122
190
75 72
-
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Other Ca rb on-Free* % Unb und led Renewab le %
Bund led Renewab le % MCE Pre-AB1110 E mission Ra te (lb s CO2e/ MWh) MCE Post-AB1110 E mission Ra te (lb s CO2e/ MWh) *Includes energy delivered by large hydroelectric generators and Asset Controlling Suppliers
MCE & PG&E Five-Year Portfolio Summary
14 *Includes eligible renewable, large hydro and nuclear power sources PG&E’s Base Plan power portfolio included 39.3% nuclear energy PG&E’s Base Plan Emission Factor = 89 lbs CO2e/MWh (MCE Light Green Emission Factor = 75 lbs CO2e/MWh) 2017-2021 Source Data: Annual Power Source Disclosure Reports, as provided by the CEC, and related Power Content Labels 62% 62% 62% 61% 60%
33% 39% 29% 31%
49%
89% 88%
91%
99% 98%
79% 85%
100%
84%
92%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Clean E nergy Comparison: MCE vs. PG&E
MCE Light Green: Renewables PG&E Base Plan: Renewa bles MCE Light Green: Clea n Energy* PG&E Base Plan: Clean Energy*
Other Considerations
• Renewable and Carbon-free energy supply
• PG&E Hydro Allocations
• Ongoing drought conditions have created supply constraints and uncertainty regarding future resource availability • CPUC Procurement mandates
• Increased competition amongst CCA buyers
• Supply constraints have resulted in sustained price increases • Evolving resource mix/requirements
• Hourly portfolio balancing
• Promoting reliability within a substantially carbon-free supply portfolio 15
Thank You
Mariela Herrick, MCE, Community Development Manager
Lindsay Saxby, MCE, Director of Power Resources
16