Recommended Budget Volume One.book - Chief Executive Office ...

2. Electricity: Reflects a decrease in funding based on the
current year expenditure trend, partially offset by
anticipated electricity rate increases from the City of
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) and
SCE.
3. Water and Other Utilities: Reflects a decrease in
funding based on the current year expenditure trend,
partially offset by anticipated water and industrial waste
rate increases from DWP and various water companies.
4. Cogeneration and Power Plants: Reflects a net
increase in funding primarily for the boiler burner
retrofit at the Pitchess Cogeneration Power Plant to
comply with a South Coast Air Quality Management
District mandate.
5. Energy Management Programs: Reflects a decrease in
anticipated contract and support costs for engineering,
retrofit, and a regulatory consultant needed for
retro-commissioning projects and the County‘s Office of
Sustainability.
6. Barakat Settlement: Reflects a reduction in funding for
the remainder of the Barakat agreement with DWP for
the electricity overcharges to public agencies.
7. PIF Grant and Loan: Reflects a decrease in funding
based on the final PIF grant and loan agreement.
8. EECBG: Reflects a reduction for projects funded by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
9. EECBG - California Energy Commission (CEC):
Reflects a decrease in funding for the remaining balance
of the intergovernmental contract with CEC to
implement residential energy efficiency retrofit projects
under the LACEP.
10. CPUC Partnership Program: Reflects a decrease in
funding for the remaining balance of the multi-year
(fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12) CPUC Partnership
Program as approved by the Board of Supervisors on
February 16, 2010. This program continues to focus on
identifying energy efficiency activities in County
facilities in support of the adopted Energy and
Environmental Plan.
11. EECBG – Retrofit California: Reflects an increase in
funding for the remaining balance of the grant funding
needed for fiscal year 2011-12 to implement the LACEP.
12. EEMIS Expansion: Reflects an increase in funding for
the EEMIS program expansion to be fully funded by
44 cities and SCE.
13. SCE Grant: Reflects an increase in funding from SCE to
develop a program of standardized technical resources
to be utilized by local governments to implement
energy efficiency projects in government buildings.
Gross
Appropriation
($)
Expenditure
Distribution/
IFT
($)
Revenue
($)
UTILITIES
Budget Summaries
Net
County Cost
($)
(1,712,000) (1,585,000) (127,000) -- --
(884,000) (818,000) (66,000) -- --
218,000 202,000 16,000 -- --
(683,000) (632,000) (51,000) -- --
(3,276,000) -- (3,276,000) -- --
(262,000) -- (262,000) -- --
(4,500,000) -- (4,500,000) -- --
(4,589,000) -- (4,589,000) -- --
(500,000) -- (500,000) -- --
4,412,000 -- 4,412,000 -- --
831,000 -- 831,000 -- --
200,000 -- 200,000 -- --
Total Changes (16,189,000) (7,872,000) (8,308,000) (9,000) 0.0
2011-12 Recommended Budget 213,496,000 159,272,000 54,005,000 219,000 0.0
FY 2011-12 Recommended Budget Volume One 60.2 County of Los Angeles
Budg
Pos