power purchase agreement

Community choice aggregators (CCAs) are growing in popularity as an alternative electricity provider for communities that want more local control over their energy mix. And so, financiers, CCAs and other business leaders must assess what this growth means for the electric grid, utility business models and project finance. While there’s a primary focus on California, increasing energy loads being served by CCAs and other non-utility suppliers have been trending across the country.

The recent American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) Forum united dealmakers, policymakers and systems experts to confront the business opportunities, policy and regulatory issues, and technology challenges associated with integrating high-penetration renewable electricity on the grid. The goal of ACORE’s 2019 forum was to advance efforts for a modernized grid that values flexibility, reliability and resilience. One important session was Community Choice Aggregation: Impacts on Project Finance and Grid Management, which was moderated by Ed Zaelke of McDermott Will & Emery and included panelists Nick Chaset of East Bay Community Energy, Daniela Shapiro of ENGIE, N.A. and Britta von Oesen of CohnReznick Capital.

A Brief History

The first CCA formed in 2010 in Marin County, CA, and since then, the CCA movement has grown very quickly to 19 agencies (19 of California’s 58 counties). Notably, CCAs serve over 10 million Californians today. Helping local governments accelerate climate action is foundational to CCAs, with many seeing CCAs as a positive catalyst in promoting climate action, cleaner energy and finding ways to make the necessary energy investments to actuate transportation electrification and building electrification.

In a nutshell? They want to offer lower-cost energy that is cleaner and find ways to invest in local communities.
Continue Reading

The US Court of Federal Claims awarded damages of more than $206 million to the Plaintiffs in a case with respect to the cash grant program under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Section 1603 Grant). In its opinion, which was unsealed on Monday, October 31, the Court held