C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-17
25 Modeling process and community engagement timeline
Finalizing scenariosModelingFeedback and analysisReviewing and finalizing IRPFinal approval 1/1: IRP must be submitted to the California Energy Commission AugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuary
8/23: STAG finalizes community scenarios for modeling
9/15: Initial modeling results available
10/15: Draft IRP written
11/6*: IRP presented to GWP Commission
12/5*: IRP presented to City Council
*Dates pending.
Date TBD: Townhall 4
26 Questions and discussion (30 min)Scenario100% clean energy dateMeets CA mandateMeets Glendale goalBaseline assumption changesCA mandate2045X --Glendale 2035 goal2035XX--CA mandate – least cost2045X •Not all power supplied to Glendale has to be 100%clean.Local resources + accelerated electrification2035XX•Integrates all City Council clean energy goals.•Assumes maximum customer DER participation.•Assumes maximum utility-owned solar + storage inGlendale.•Assumes accelerated electrification.Middle path + long duration energy storage2042X •Assumes higher customer DER participation thanbaseline (lower than above).•Assumes higher utility-owned solar + storage inGlendale than baseline (lower than above).•Assumes LDES cost declines and earlier availability,with project in Glendale.
What could make this IRP process a success for the Glendale community? 27 +What programs would you be interested in seeing from GWP to move toward clean energygoals?+What strategies are needed to increase customer access to and involvement in cleanenergy programs (e.g., demand response or rooftop solar)? Appendix slides
Background on Glendale Water & Power+GWP is a not-for-profit municipally owned utility serving approximately 90,000 customers. 85%
15%<1%GWP customers (by number of customers)
ResidentialCommercialIndustrial 40%
32%
28%
GWP customers (by energy usage)
30 By 2026, Glendale will get nearly 60% of its energy supply from resources inside the city but will count on remote generation for a large portion. +By 2026, 59% of Glendale’s power supply will be local [236 MW]: +Grayson natural gas [48 MW]+Magnolia natural gas [47 MW]+Grid-scale battery storage [75 MW]+Scholl Canyon landfill gas [11 MW]+Natural gas internal combustionengines [55 MW]59%41% Glendale Power Supply as of 2026 (Projected)
LocalRemote
31 Power entering Glendale from outside the city is constrained to just two transmission lines. +These transmission constraintsmean:+Glendale is particularly vulnerable toany transmission outages+Glendale is dependent on otherutilities (LADWP) for access totransmission resources+Glendale cannot meet 100% of itsenergy needs through importingresources 32 As a result, GWP is using a variety of local resources to meet energy needs, such as distributed energy resources. 2023:Solar PV: 26 MWGrid scale storage: 2 MWSmall scale storage: 1 MW 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023 Distributed Energy Resources Installed Capacity (MW)Fiscal Year EndSolar PVPumped HydroFuel CellsGrid Scale StorageSmall Scale Storage 272 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-18
Figure 72. Townhall 3 Presentation Slides
33 GWP also invests heavily in energy efficiency and is among the best performing publicly owned utilities in energy efficiency savings.
0.00%0.20%0.40%0.60%0.80%1.00%1.20%1.40%1.60%1.80% Net savings percentage (% of retail sales), as of 2022 34 How is Glendale’s energy mix evolving into the future? +GWP is making changes to its portfolio toincrease clean energy and reducegreenhouse gas emissions.+Expected changes in the next decadeinclude:+Intermountain Power Plant converting fullyto hydrogen+Addition of Eland solar and storage project+Addition of Scholl biogas (landfill gas)+Grayson repowering and battery storage+This IRP will focus on how to close thegaps to meet CA and Glendale cleanenergy goals. 35 How is Glendale’s energy mix evolving into the future? IPP Coal Generation Retires
273 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-19
Townhall 4: Thursday, November 16, 2023 The fourth, and final, Townhall was held on Thursday, November 16, 2023 at the Sparr Heights Community Center, 1613 Glencoe Way, from 6:30 PM–8:30 PM. Approximately 20 people attended the fourth Townhall. Townhall 4 Summary The fourth and final townhall presented results of the IRP modeling for all six scenarios. Ascend Analytics also discussed several key findings from the IRP, namely a need for technological innovation to reach clean energy goals; a strategy to transition local natural gas resources; and a need to expand geothermal, wind, and storage resources to complement existing and new solar. Following this presentation, GWP introduced its preferred scenario, the California Policy scenario, and explained how it arrived at this recommendation. Strategen and GWP discussed the ways that community input has been integrated into the IRP, areas of community interest that have arisen across the process for GWP to explore further, and lessons learned for the next IRP process. Main takeaways from this townhall included: § Multiple attendees asked questions about the hydrogen assumptions feeding into the model and why hydrogen is so prominent in the scenarios’ results. The group discussed pending hydrogen projects in California and the region and their implications for GWP. While neighboring utilities such as LADWP are betting heavily on hydrogen, GWP shared that the future of hydrogen is still highly uncertain, and it therefore chose not to rely on it in its preferred scenario for this IRP. § One attendee expressed concern about pursuing a 2045 clean energy scenario that does not result in the retiring of natural gas resources. They asked if it was possible to follow a more ambitious scenario in the near-term, then reevaluate in five years if technologies like hydrogen will be available in time to meet Glendale’s 2035 clean energy goal. § Multiple attendees called for more innovative community outreach to encourage behavior change and customer participation in energy efficiency, demand response, and rooftop solar programs. Two attendees encouraged GWP to evaluate time-of-use rates as a way to incentivize off-peak energy consumption. § Numerous attendees asked questions about how GWP is planning to expand avenues for consumers to participate in the clean energy transition. They suggested new clean energy programs GWP could explore (for example, community solar, virtual power plants) and new technologies that may help GWP meet its clean energy goals (for example, vehicle-to-grid charging). 274 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-20
Townhall 4 Presentation
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + November 16, 2023
GWP 2024 Integrated Resource Planu
Townhall 4
2 +Who here has attended any previous IRP townhalls? +Who here has attended allprevious townhalls? Welcome! 3 Townhall reminders!
+We have translators available in Armenian and Spanish. Please ask if you know someone who may need translation help. +Look out for the nametags! +Please hold any questions on presentations until the Q&A portions. +We’ll try to create opportunities for as many folks to contribute as possible, so please allow space for other perspectives. +Please use a microphone when speaking so the recording equipment can hear you.
Integrated Resource Plan process overview
4 1. GWP and a Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) made up of 13 Glendale community members developed 6 future energy scenarios to model.2. Ascend Analytics tested these strategies in their model to see how they compare on reliability, sustainability, and affordability. 3. GWP and STAG were presented these results and discussed implications. 4. Based on the results, GWP chose a “preferred portfolio” of resources it recommends developing. 5. GWP is now presenting the selection to the public and will present it to City Council on December 5th for approval. 5 How has community input been integrated into the IRP so far? +STAG considered community input provided at townhalls in all phases of its scenario development. Its scenarios integrated: +Heavy emphasis on customer resources (rooftop solar, energy efficiency, demand response) +Preference for local renewables +Clean energy timelines that exceed California’s 2045 mandate +In response to community feedback at townhall 3, Ascend and GWP added a third community scenario to the IRP modeling, for a total of 6 scenarios. +Ascend also conducted social cost of carbon analyses for all scenarios based on community interest. 6 Modeling results
7 Summary of scenariosScenario100% clean energy dateMeets CA mandateMeets Glendale goalKey features 1CA policy 2045X •Serves 91% of load with clean energy•Keeps existing natural gas resources with reduced use2Glendale 2035 goal2035XX •Transitions natural gas to hydrogen in 2035•Increases utility scale renewables early3CA policy –with offsets2045X •Relies on REC purchases for 10% of the clean energy mandate 4Local resources + accelerated electrification2035XX •Integrates all City Council goals for clean energy and distributed energy resources (DERs) •Modeled accelerated electrification and energy efficiency•Highest assumptions on DERs and local resource potential5Gradual decarbonization path2042 (with 90% by 2035)X •High DER and local resource potential assumptions•Natural gas replace by hydrogen in 2042•Magnolia retires in 20386Moderate transition to carbon free2040 (with 90% by 2035)X •High DER and local resource potential assumptions•Natural gas replaced in 2040•Renewables and storage added to fill resource needs earlier 8 Summary of model resultsScenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4Scenario 5Scenario 6 Costs in $M Net Present Value (2024 -2045) CA Policy Carbon Free 2035CA Policy w/OffsetsCarbon Free 2035 -High DER Carbon Free 2042 -Magnolia Retire 2038Carbon Free 2040New Resource Capital Costs$535$1,296$491$1,145$897$867Operating Costs1,0739701,0981,0861,1311,142Total Costs 1,6082,2671,5892,2312,0272,009TOTAL with Social Cost of Carbon1,9182,4901,9172,4402,2782,274Cost per MWh$93.97 $129.80 $92.88 $130.40 $118.48 $117.41 Cumulative Carbon Emissions (Tons)2,597,041 1,642,076 2,765,838 1,434,151 1,816,241 2,035,232 GHG Emission Reductions from Generation in 2035 compared to 202467%100%63%100%72%71%% Clean in 203591%109%84%129%103%95% 275 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-21
9 2035 resource mix
Key finding 1A transition to a clean energy system relies on technical progress. +Long Duration Storage (multi-day)+Able to shift variable generation over several days+Not yet commercially available+Some pilot projects are being planned with small capacities+Installation requires large amount of land –(Form Energy states 3MW per acre)+Medium Duration storage (Eight to ten-hours)+Commercially available but not yet widely installed+Shifts variable generation from low demand to high demand hours within a day+Clean Firm Generation (Dispatchable)+Most promising technologies are Green Hydrogen, CCUS, Renewable Natural Gas, and Small Modular Reactors+Not yet commercially available+Of the possible options, Green Hydrogen is considered the most likely and most cost-effective, but requires infrastructure and technical advancement 11 Clean dispatchable generationHydrogen powered CTs or ICEs+IPP will be one of the first hydrogen facilities in the world when it comes online+Provides carbon-free, fully dispatchable generation+Large losses occur when transforming renewable energy to hydrogen and then back to clean power+Infrastructure is needed to get hydrogen to the power plantsNuclear Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)+Small design compared to traditional reactors+Provides carbon-free, fully dispatchable generation+Costs will likely be higher than hydrogen 12 Long duration storage+Form Energy is developing a 100-hour Iron-air battery+Currently plan for small pilots with multiple utilities+ESS is developing a 12-hour Iron flow battery, also in the pilot stage+Long duration storage provides dispatchable capacity by shifting generation over many hours+The down-side of long duration storage are:+Low efficiency; roughly 50 –60% efficient+High land requirements; cells cannot be stacked Key finding 2 A full transition requires replacement of Grayson 9, ICEs and Magnolia with firm, clean options.+Retirements of in-basin natural gas resources create reliability challenges for GWP+GWP is required to maintain operational reserves based on the N-1-1 contingency planning +In 2035, peak load is projected to be 416 MW+For N-1-1, GWP can rely on 100 MW from the SWAC line, remaining capacity must be local+Remaining resources add up to 376+GWP must add 416 –376 = 40 MWof local capacity to meet load growth N-1-1 Resource ContributionSWAC line (without STS)113DR 8City Solar10Magnolia35ICE 54Grayson 948Eland Solar and Storage25Energy Storage75Scholl’s Canyon8Total Resources376 Key finding 3Based on the projected resource costs and market outlook, the capacity expansion model selects geothermal, storage, hydrogen generation, and wind.+Solar is not selected by the capacity expansion models due to the heavy build out of solar in California which has pushed market prices lower during solar hours. Ascend added solar per the scenario requirements by replacing a portion of wind with solar.+Geothermal was selected as soon as possible in all scenarios due to its capacity and high RPS contribution.+Storage, especially long-duration, was selected to boost capacity and manage renewables. 15 Scenarios by % clean energy
0%
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
10 0%
12 0%
14 0%
20 2420 2520 2620 2720 2820 2920 3020 3120 3220 3320 3420 3520 3620 3720 3820 3920 4020 4120 4220 4320 4420 45 Clean Energy Guidelines (%)
CA P oli cyZe ro CarbonCA P oli cy w/RECsST AG 1ST AG 2ST AG 3 16 Scenarios by annual carbon dioxide emissions
-
5 0,0 00
1 00 ,00 0
1 50 ,00 0
2 00 ,00 0
2 50 ,00 0
3 00 ,00 0
20 2420 2520 2620 2720 2820 2920 3020 3120 3220 3320 3420 3520 3620 3720 3820 3920 4020 4120 4220 4320 4420 45 CO2 Emissions (MT)
CA P oli cyCA P oli cy with Mag SeasonalZe ro CarbonCA P oli cy w/RECsST AG 1ST AG 2ST AG 3 276 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-22
17 Scenarios by annual total cost
$0
$5 0,0 00 ,000
$1 00 ,00 0,00 0
$1 50 ,00 0,00 0
$2 00 ,00 0,00 0
$2 50 ,00 0,00 0
$3 00 ,00 0,00 0
$3 50 ,00 0,00 0
20 2420 2520 2620 2720 2820 2920 3020 3120 3220 3320 3420 3520 3620 3720 3820 3920 4020 4120 4220 4320 4420 45 Annual Total Cost
CA P oli cyZe ro CarbonCA P oli cy w/RECsST AG 1ST AG 2ST AG 3 18 Selecting a preferred scenario
19 STAG’s scenario preferences
+Note: Cost data has been updated since the STAG scenario preference survey, meaning these results cannot be interpreted to reflect current STAG preferences. These should be understood as a snapshot in time of STAG’s opinion. +Results show highest interest in scenarios 1 and 4, with scenario 5 as a backup for many.+Scenario 1 was the group’s preference, both by the number of members listing it as their top choice and the total points allocated to it in a weighting exercise. +New cost information means this result may have changed somewhat. +Key perspectives raised by STAG in this survey included: +A preference for relying on existing technologies to avoid risk +Concern about the use of RECs to achieve clean energy goals +Differences of opinion on the path to 100% clean energy+Some called for the fastest possible timeline to decarbonization, while others raised affordability concerns with a rapid timeline Scenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4Scenario 5Scenario 6Costs in $M Net Present Value (2024 -2045)CA Policy Carbon Free 2035CA Policy w/OffsetsCarbon Free 2035 -High DERCarbon Free 2042Carbon Free 2040ORIGINAL New Resource Capital Costs$535$1,887$497$1,815$1,344$1,363UPDATED New Resource Capital Costs$535$1,296$491$1,145$897$867 20 GWP’s preferred scenario+The California Policy Path (scenario 1) is preferred by GWP. It: +Provides balance between sustainability, reliability, and affordability. +Achieves 91% clean energy serving load by 2035. +In line with California policy+Potential improvements if Magnolia operates differently+Allows GWP flexibility to adjust path towards a more aggressive carbon timeline. +Increased DERs may be possible, allowing GWP to build more resources locally+GWP will work with co-owners of Magnolia to reduce carbon emissions+Does not rely on emerging resources like hydrogen or long-duration storage. +Pipeline development in Glendale is very uncertain+Outlook for hydrogen may change if major pipeline is built 21 California policy scenario snapshot
ENHANCES ENERGY SECURITY AND RESILIENCE
OFFERS COST EFFECTIVE-SOLUTION COMPARED TO OTHER SCENARIOS
ALIGNS WITH STATE RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD AND EMISSIONS MANDATES
LONG TERM VIABILITY AND ADAPTABLE TO FUTURE INNOVATIONS AND CHANGING ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES 22 GWP’s action plan moving forward from this IRP+GWP will continue procurement activities for clean resources: +Geothermal+Solar+Wind+Storage+GWP will participate in decisions around Magnolia’s emission reductions. +GWP will continue to push for more adoption of distributed energy resources and demand response and look for innovative models to engage customers in these programs. +GWP will learn from the Intermountain Power Plant’s conversion to hydrogen. +GWP will continue to collaborate with LADWP and the City of Burbank on transmission and renewable resource development. 23 Things we heard from you across this process+High interest in customer energy efficiency, demand response, and solar and storage programs.+High interest in improved engagement with renters and multi-family units in customer clean energy programs.+High interest in GWP accelerating progress toward 100% clean energy.+Desire for thinking outside the box on local resource options (e.g., virtual power plants, new locations for solar development).+Concern about lack of transmission and what GWP is doing to overcome this challenge. 24 Lessons learned for the next IRP+GWP plans to position itself to allow for more in-depth stakeholder discussion and analysis early on in the IRP process.+GWP will continue to enhance opportunities for community engagement, including through public townhalls and advisory groups.+GWP plans to improve the diversity of community voices participating in IRP decision-making.+GWP will continue to explore avenues for public transparency in future IRP. 277 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-23
Q&A and discussion
25 Next steps
Public release and inputFinal approval
1/1: IRP must be submitted to the California Energy Commission for approval NovemberDecemberJanuary
11/6:IRP presented to GWP Commission
12/5: IRP presented to City Council
11/16:Townhall 4Late November:IRP publicly released
City Council consideration
Appendix slides
28 Scenarios by RPS compliance
0%
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
10 0%
12 0%
20 2420 2520 2620 2720 2820 2920 3020 3120 3220 3320 3420 3520 3620 3720 3820 3920 4020 4120 4220 4320 4420 45 RPS Guidelines (%)
CA P oli cyZe ro CarbonCA P oli cy w/RECsST AG 1ST AG 2ST AG 3 29 GWP California Policy Build Out
30 GWP California Policy Capacity
31 GWP California Policy Energy Mix
32 GWP California Policy RPS/Clean Generation
*RPS and Clean Energy percentage is measured compared to wholesale load in this slide. The California policy is measured against retail sales. Clean energy equal to 90% of gross load is approximately 100% of retail sales. 278 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Community Townhalls
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-24
Figure 73. Townhall 4 Presentation Slides
33 STAG survey results
Scen.# members listed as top 3 scenario# members listed as top overall scenario 19 625 --34 --46 559 266 --
279 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-25
STAKEHOLDER TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP (STAG) The STAG was designed to be composed of people representing diverse segments of the Glendale community to advise on developing GWP’s 2024 IRP.
The STAG’s Role in the IRP The role of the STAG was to help develop community-informed strategies to meet Glendale’s energy needs and clean energy mandates. They acted as the bridge between the broader Glendale community and the IRP modeling team by ensuring community voices were incorporated in the IRP process, and the Glendale community was updated on the IRP process throughout. The ultimate goals of the STAG were two-fold: for STAG members to impart valuable insight and input to the overall development of the IRP, and to devise portfolio scenarios that were modeled and analyzed as a fundamental part of the overall IRP development. Initially, we planned for the STAG to create two portfolio scenarios. In the end, driven by community request, they created three scenarios that were central to the modeling and analysis process for developing the IRP. Chapter 11. Portfolio Analysis and Results discusses these scenarios in detail. GWP formed the STAG to pave an avenue for consistent and detailed stakeholder input into the IRP process. As a utility, GWP gained meaningful community perspectives and preferences. By organizing the advisory group, GWP ensured that a range of voices in the Glendale community (including those who may not traditionally engage in larger community forums) were able to add valuable insight into the IRP process. As such, the STAG complemented broader engagement that resulted from the community Townhalls. Stakeholder outreach through STAG also increased members’ understanding of integrated resource planning and GWP’s everyday operations. During the IRP process, STAG members discussed, in detail, GWP’s current situation, its goals, and anticipated future energy demand. They created candidate resource portfolios that balance the need for adequate energy, reliable power, fair costs, and environmental responsibility. They updated the Glendale community on the IRP process and shared community feedback with GWP. The STAG also reviewed and commented on the IRP’s results as they were finalized.
How the STAG Was Formed The STAG was formed using a two-pronged approach developed jointly by GWP and its consultant Strategen. First, GWP identified twelve individuals who represent specific organizations in Glendale to participate in the STAG. These individuals were invited on behalf of their organizations because they represent important segments of GWP’s customer base and the larger community. They included large and small businesses, environmental organizations, low-income assistance organizations, youth, immigrant community groups, 280 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-26
homeowners’ associations, renters’ groups, and others. Some of these original invited individuals recommended someone else in their organization. Ultimately, eight of these twelve invited individuals chose to join the STAG. Second, GWP developed selection criteria to inform a process for selecting and reviewing applications from prospective at-large STAG members. GWP announced an open call for STAG applications on its website to allow other interested community members to serve as at-large members and to promote a diverse and inclusive set of viewpoints. The application (Figure 74) was available from June 16 through July 5, 2023. Applications were also advertised via emails and at the first community Townhall held June 29, 2023. Attendees could submit physical applications at the Townhall. GWP received 22 applications for at-large STAG members. Strategen reviewed the applications based on the following evaluation criteria. STAG Application 1. Please state your name. 2. To confirm that you are a GWP customer or work for an organization that is a GWP customer, please list the account holder name and address affiliated with your GWP account. If you are affiliated with more than one account (for example, you are a GWP residential customer and work at an organization served by GWP), feel free to list all that apply to you. 3. What type of GWP customer are you affiliated with? If more than one customer type, please select all that apply. a. Residential b. Small or medium commercial c. Large commercial d. Industrial 4. Why would you like to serve on the STAG? Write up to 100 words. 5. What types of stakeholder groups, organizations, or communities are you affiliated with (for example, low-income residents, environmental advocates, small businesses)? Write up to 100 words. 6. What priorities do you feel are most important to consider as GWP is planning for the next 20 years of its power system in this IRP? Write up to 100 words. 7. Are you able to attend STAG meetings on the following dates, to be held in the evening in person at the GWP office? Please select those you can attend. a. Wednesday, July 12 b. Wednesday, July 19 c. Wednesday, August 2 d. Wednesday, August 9 e. Wednesday, August 23§ f. Wednesday, September 27§ 8. Have you reviewed, and do you agree to, the member expectations outlined in this linked document? (Note that STAG members will be required to sign this form.) a. Yes b. No § The fifth STAG meeting was changed to Wednesday, September 6, 2023; the sixth and final STAG meeting was changed to Wednesday, November 1. Figure 74. STAG At-Large Member Application 281 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-27
At-Large STAG Member Application Evaluation Criteria The overarching philosophy behind selecting STAG members was to encourage a diverse set of community voices. To this end, GWP selected members with the following characteristics: Demographic Diversity. Members who represent a diversity of demographics, including (but not limited to) race, ethnicity, gender, age, income, and socioeconomic status. Diversity of Perspective. Members who provide diverse perspectives and priorities, which included representation from a variety of customer classes, interest groups, and geographic regions across Glendale. Community Connection. Members with strong connections to different segments of the Glendale community, in particular, to groups who are traditionally underrepresented in decision-making processes. Track Record. Where possible, members with a track record of high integrity and strong character who have demonstrated their ability to work with people who hold views and perspectives different from their own. Subject Matter Familiarity. Where possible, members with relevant technical expertise who are familiar with energy systems, energy resources, and utility operations and planning. Finally, all members were either GWP customers or worked at an organization that is a GWP customer who agreed to adhere to a set of member agreements (Figure 75). Members were not City Council members or GWP Commissioners, or staff of either of those bodies, GWP, or the City of Glendale. 282 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-28
At-Large Member Selection Process To ensure impartiality and fairness in the STAG at-large member selection process, Strategen Consulting was the sole reviewer of applications. The quality of the applications The quality of the applications created a competitive selection process. Due to the number of evaluation criteria to consider, Strategen created a matrix to better compare the applicants and select STAG members. The applicant pool was not as wide ranging as hoped (for instance, nearly all applicants were residential customers), which limited how the evaluation criteria was applied. Nonetheless, Strategen evaluated each applicant as best as possible in applying the evaluation criteria. First, Strategen eliminated the applications that were incomplete as they hindered the selection process. Strategen tried to ensure that demographic diversity was as wide-ranging as possible, although this goal was somewhat constrained given the applicant pool. To cultivate a diversity of perspectives, Strategen gave higher consideration to applicants who stated multiple priorities for this IRP (that is, reliability, sustainability, affordability). In addition, Strategen considered an applicant’s stated expertise an asset for selection, although lack of familiarity or expertise in the energy industry was not a disqualifying factor. Strategen ensured the final selected applicants resided in various sections of the city. And finally, Strategen highly considered those applicants who could attend all or nearly all scheduled meetings. At first pass, Strategen chose ten applicants as potential STAG members. After presenting these choices to GWP staff and discussing the ideal size of the group (given the eight confirmed invited members), Strategen ultimately offered membership in the STAG to the top seven applicants. Thus, the STAG was initially composed of 15 members: the seven selected at-large members and the eight people invited from organizations. One at-large member and one invited member tacitly resigned after the start of the process, so the final STAG was composed of 13 individuals, three women and eleven men with one youth representative. All but one member lives in Glendale, the other works in Glendale. 283 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-29
Here is an alphabetical list of the STAG members and the organizations they represent. Zanku Armenian, Armenian National Committee (ANC) Mike Borisov, Resident at-large member Anita Quiñonez Gabrielian, Glendale Latino Association (GLA) Peter Hebert, Resident at-large member Karin Kachler, Resident at-large member Karen Kwak, Glendale Tenant’s Union (GTU) Grant Michals, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council (GHCC) Gustavo Moreno, Resident at-large member Glenn Pittman, Resident at-large member Kurt Sawitskas, Resident at-large member Greg Tan, Glendale Chamber of Commerce Pierre Thompson, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) STAG Member Agreement This document outlines the responsibilities and expectations for members of GWP’s IRP Stakeholder Technical Advisory Committee (STAG). Interested participants should review this document before considering joining the STAG to ensure they are able to fulfill these requirements. Time commitment: 1. STAG members are required to spend 12 hours total* in six in-person meetings from mid-July to late September. These meetings will be held evenings at the GWP office on the following dates: a. Wednesday, July 12 d. Wednesday, August 9 b. Wednesday, July 19 e. Wednesday, August 23§ c. Wednesday, August 2 f. Wednesday, September 27§ 2. In addition to these STAG meetings, members are highly encouraged to attend larger community Townhalls, to be held in person throughout Glendale. The dates and times for these meetings will be announced on the GWP IRP website as they are finalized. 3. STAG members must be responsive to other forms of communication as appropriate (for example, emails or surveys) that are sent outside meeting times. Membership agreements: 1. I commit to attending all STAG meetings in person. If I am not able to attend a particular meeting, I will discuss my absence with the organizers before the meeting. 2. I will respect the Chatham House Rule that (Figure 76) governs STAG meetings, as well as any confidentiality requirements for information shared with me during the IRP process. 3. I recognize that, by serving on the STAG, I am representing the larger Glendale community and any unique constituencies or organizations of which I am a part. I understand that STAG members are encouraged to engage with their communities and organizations to solicit their opinions on, and keep them informed of, IRP-related matters. 4. While I am encouraged to engage with the broader community related to the IRP, I understand that I alone serve on the STAG, meaning I cannot deputize others to serve in my stead or include others in STAG meetings and communications. 5. I commit to engage with other STAG members, GWP, and consultants with respect. I will strive to work through differences in opinion and reach common understanding. 6. I will make my best effort to engage in other aspects of the IRP stakeholder engagement process, including attending community Townhalls when possible and spreading the word about the IRP development in my community or organization. 7. I acknowledge that the names and affiliations (if any) of STAG members will be listed on the GWP website to promote transparency and I agree to be listed as such. 8. I recognize that the STAG follows a collaborative and co-creative process, and that membership does not allow me to speak on behalf of the STAG as a whole, represent the positions of the overall STAG publicly, or represent the positions of other STAG members without their express permission. However, I understand that as a member of the Glendale community, I am permitted and encouraged to represent my own opinion on the GWP IRP process. 9. I understand that serving on the STAG is a privilege and that violations of these member expectations and agreements may result in my removal from the STAG.
Jack Walworth, Glendale Environmental Coalition (GEC) * STAG members ultimately spent 18 hours in meetings. § The fifth STAG meeting was changed to Wednesday, September 6, 2023; the sixth and final STAG meeting was changed to Wednesday, November 1. Figure 75. STAG Member Agreement 284 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-30
All STAG members agreed to represent the larger Glendale community—not only their own interests—and to solicit the opinions of their unique communities and organizations, and to keep them informed of IRP-related matters. We highly encouraged all STAG members to attend the community Townhalls to hear input from their residential and work neighbors.
The Chatham House Rule encourages inclusive and open dialogue in meetings, creating a trusted environment to understand and resolve complex problems. The Rule reads as follows: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker, nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Any group of individuals in any sector can use the Rule as a pre-agreed guide for running an event, especially when sensitive issues will be discussed. Used effectively, the Chatham House Rule helps to bring people together, break down barriers, generate ideas, and agree to solutions. Figure 76. The Chatham House Rule ABOUT THE STAG MEETINGS As listed in the STAG Member Agreement (Figure 75), GWP held six in-person STAG meetings, facilitated by Strategen Consulting. GWP, Ascend Analytics, and Strategen participated in giving presentations at the STAG meetings, after which STAG had ample opportunity to ask questions and discuss the information presented. To provide public transparency to the content of STAG meetings, we compiled detailed minutes of each meeting, which were posted publicly on the STAG webpage, along with meeting presentations. These minutes demonstrate the depth of discussion at each meeting, and the high level of engagement among the STAG members, GWP’s consultants, and GWP staff. For GWP, the proceedings at the STAG meetings proved to be captivating, insightful, educational, and thoughtful, as the meeting minutes for each meeting can attest. Included are the slides from the actual presentations given at the first five meetings to educate and induce comprehensive deliberations. At a glance, the STAG meetings included the following content and discussions. For more detail on each, refer to the meeting minutes and slides. Meeting 1: An overview of GWP’s system, key planning constraints in this IRP, and STAG’s role in the IRP. This meeting included extensive questions and discussion among members, GWP, and its consultants as a way to build STAG members’ knowledge before entering into scenario development. Meeting 2: A deeper dive into GWP’s system and challenges around transmission, local resource development, and meeting clean energy goals. This meeting also included extensive discussion among members and initial brainstorming about priorities to include in STAG’s scenarios. An informal brainstorming exercise revealed members held a range of opinions on when Glendale should meet its clean energy goals, which resources it should use to do so, and which resources it should exclude from its portfolio. Meeting 3: A continuation of STAG’s scenario discussion, with a poll conducted to gauge STAG’s interest in various scenario elements. Members had a wide-ranging discussion on potential avenues to take for their 285 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-31
scenarios but ultimately coalesced around a first scenario concept. This scenario was designed to reach 100 percent clean energy by 2035 and maximize local resources, including by integrating City Council’s goal of 100 MW of DERs and 10 percent of customers having rooftop solar and storage systems. STAG opted for this scenario to take more aggressive assumptions on electrification than GWP’s baseline. Meeting 4: A presentation of example modeling results by Ascend Analytics, to help STAG members grasp the outputs of the modeling process. A presentation and discussion on the modeling inputs and assumptions developed by GWP and Ascend for STAG members’ discussion and feedback. Members then continued the scenario development process and agreed to a second scenario designed as a middle ground between their first scenario and GWP’s 2045 scenarios. This scenario was designed to reach 90 percent clean energy by 2035 and 100 percent by 2042, with a long-duration energy storage project built in Glendale during the IRP period. The scenario also emphasizes local resource development, but with less ambitious assumptions than STAG’s first scenario. Meeting 5: A presentation of initial capacity expansion modeling results from STAG’s first two scenarios and a discussion among STAG. Strategen then presented feedback received at the third community Townhall for STAG’s consideration in developing their third scenario. STAG discussed scenario options and ultimately decided on a third scenario that fell between their first two. This scenario was designed to reach 90 percent clean energy by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040, while developing 75 MW of DERs (a slight reduction from STAG’s first scenario). Meeting 6: A presentation of modeling results for all six portfolio scenarios and a discussion of the implications for reliability, clean energy, and cost was planned. 286 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-32
STAG Meeting 1: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 STAG Meeting 1 Minutes Overall Takeaways 1. Some members of the STAG had an interest in maximizing energy resources sited in Glendale (including DERs such as customer-sited solar and storage) to both achieve clean energy goals and overcome challenges associated with GWP’s transmission constraints. The constraint on GWP’s transmission capacity was of particular interest to the group, and multiple members expressed a desire to discuss this challenge more and explore solutions through the IRP and other avenues. 2. Customer education and behavior change was a recurring theme across the meeting, with multiple members expressing interest in strategies to engage customers in energy saving and clean energy programs. Members discussed that customer behavior change is an essential component of successful DER programs, including energy efficiency, DR, and customer-sited solar and storage programs. 3. There was a desire from multiple members to make sure the IRP is not just rubber stamp process and that there’s adequate opportunity and time for both the Glendale community and the City Council to review and provide feedback before finalization. Members also wanted clarity on how GWP will ultimately choose its preferred scenario from this IRP. Member Introductions 1. All members introduced themselves by stating their name, affiliation, location in Glendale, customer type, and one thing they’d like to contribute or get out of the STAG process. 2. Most STAG members represent residential customers, with several representing larger commercial interests. Many have lived in Glendale for years and have a desire to get more involved in the future of the city. 3. Themes that arose when members spoke about what they’d like to contribute and get out of the STAG included: a. A desire to make sure there’s true community involvement in the IRP process so it’s not just a “rubber stamp” exercise. Some members raised a desire to conduct outreach to their communities to get their input on the STAG process (for example, via polling), which is welcome. b. A commitment to representing voices that are often underrepresented in city planning processes, for instance, renters, immigrant communities, low-income residents, youth, and other marginalized groups. Some members raised a desire to help these groups overcome barriers to participation in the IRP process and make this plan work for the entire community. 287 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-33
c. Emphasis on clean energy, sustainability, and affordability as central priorities for this IRP, reflected by numerous STAG members. Several STAG members also raised the importance of reliability, especially for commercial customers with high energy demand. GWP Presentation about Its Power System and Integrated Resource Planning 1. GWP presented slides 8–17 of the STAG Meeting 1 Presentation (page C-37). 2. GWP presented an overview of its power system, including its customer types, peak energy demand, and progress on DER and energy efficiency programs. 3. GWP also provided an overview of integrated resource planning and the central planning considerations in IRPs (meeting reliability standards and clean energy mandates at the lowest possible costs), including constraints unique to Glendale (such as transmission). 4. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. Transmission i. Multiple members were interested in further discussing access to transmission resources as a key factor in designing community-preferred modeling scenarios. ii. GWP shared that it has tried multiple ways to get access to more transmission, but that the utility has a limited ability to act on its own given its small size. GWP must coordinate any efforts related to transmission with LA and other surrounding municipalities, given these communities share these resources. iii STAG members asked questions about what transmission projects are in the queue and when additional transmission capacity might come online. GWP shared that many projects are in the queue, but that it commonly takes a decade or more to build new transmission lines. With that in mind, GWP suggested the group should not count on new projects coming online in the IRP planning period (20 years) and instead operate under the assumption that GWP’s existing transmission resources will be what is available to the utility for the coming future. b. Local vs. remote energy resources in Glendale’s power mix i. STAG members asked questions about what portion of Glendale’s power comes from inside the city, versus is imported to the city via transmission. Strategen will prepare this information to share with members next time. ii. Some members saw Glendale’s transmission constraints as a factor that should lead to the expediting and expanding of rooftop solar in Glendale. Some were curious what amount of power that strategy could generate. GWP shared that it is looking into local solar projects, including on parking lots, and into other options to promote local resources (like tariffs and small-scale power purchase agreements). 288 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-34
It also shared that, while rooftop solar can play a role in meeting Glendale’s reliability and clean energy goals, not every rooftop may be suitable for solar given their angles and that the utility must also have energy resources available when solar isn’t producing. c. System reliability i. In response to GWP sharing about the reliability standards it must meet in its IRP planning and operations, some members asked questions about whether GWP has ever faced a “contingency” event (where the utility’s largest transmission or generating resource fails). GWP responded that the utility came very close to such a failure this past winter, with a transmission outage in LADWP’s system that affected Glendale. During this event, the utility was monitoring things closely to see if it would have to institute blackouts. GWP said it was able to survive this situation because of low energy demand at that time (the utility experiences peak demand in the summer), resource reserves, and effective technical planning. d. Consumer behavior i. Some members were interested in discussing the ability to change consumers’ behavior, including turning off lights, adjusting thermostats, or using appliances at certain times of day to take advantage of renewable energy production times. Consumer education was raised as a central way to change behavior. Ascend Analytics Presentation about the IRP Modeling Process 1. Ascend Analytics presented slides 18–24 of the STAG Meeting 1 Presentation (page C-37). 2. Ascend presented an overview of its work on IRPs, the way that modeling is used to evaluate the future of Glendale’s power system, and how its model is built. 3. It also presented results of analysis it conducted showing how Glendale’s energy portfolio would evolve into the future (assuming no new resources are added to the system beyond those Glendale has already developed or contracted). This included presenting information on what percentage of clean energy Glendale will achieve by 2030 with these existing resources. 4. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. Glendale’s energy demand i. STAG members asked how Ascend is projecting future growth in energy demand for the city, considering factors such as electrification and increased electric vehicle (EV) adoption. Relatedly, one also asked whether Ascend will be considering growth in population as a factor that might increase Glendale’s energy demand, including growth in housing supply. Ascend is working with GWP on projections for future energy demand and will consider factors such as electrification and EV adoption. b. Consumer-facing resources and consumer behavior 289 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-35
i. Some STAG members expressed particular interest in customer-side resources and programs as resources to prioritize in modeling. ii. One member asked how Ascend considers consumer behavior in its model, especially when evaluating the contribution of customer-dependent resources. Strategen Presentation about the IRP Community Engagement Process and the STAG’s Role 1. Strategen Consulting presented slides 26–36 of the STAG Meeting 1 Presentation (page C-37). 2. Strategen presented an overview of the STAG’s role in the IRP process and the expectations for members. This role includes developing at least two community-preferred scenarios for Ascend/GWP to model in this IRP process, as well as acting as a bridge between the Glendale community and the modeling team. 3. It also covered the STAG timeline and key deadlines in the IRP process. 4. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. GWP’s decision-making in this IRP i. One member asked for clarification on who the GWP Commission is and what their role is in creating the IRP and deciding on GWP’s preferred scenario. GWP responded that the GWP Commission is a group of five Glendale residents appointed by the City Council who advise on GWP’s operations. They will be informed of, but not have decision-making power over, GWP’s IRP. ii. Some members asked for clarification about who at GWP will make the decision about which scenario to select from this IRP. GWP responded that their IRP team (including the Assistant General Manager for Power Management, Integrated Resource Plan Manager, and others) will analyze the modeling results, in coordination with Ascend Analytics, and make a recommendation to GWP’s General Manager on the utility’s preferred scenario. After GWP has selected its preferred scenario, it will be presented to City Council, who must approve it before the plan is finalized. b. The timeline for IRP review i. One member asked if there will be enough time in December for Glendale City Council to meaningfully review and provide comment on the IRP before it breaks in mid-December. They raised the concern that presenting the plan to Council too late could result in a “rubber stamp”-type process. GWP and Strategen responded that the proposed timeline is tentative and it’s possible to bring the IRP to City Council sooner than the suggested date of 12/5/23. GWP shared that Council will be receiving updates on the IRP prior to December, including an update on modeling results in September. That means the December meeting won’t be the first time the Council or community is hearing about the IRP results and GWP’s preferred scenario. c. Community outreach 290 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-36
i. Some members asked about the outreach being done to promote the IRP process. Members acknowledged the multiple languages spoken in Glendale and the various communities in the city and wanted to make sure the promotion plan is accessible and that no one is left behind. GWP responded that it sent out mailers to approximately 25,000 customers (who have no email address registered with GWP). These mailers included QR codes to translate them to other languages (for example, Armenian, Spanish). GWP has also been advertising community Townhalls and other IRP-related updates in its newsletters and customer emails. At community Townhalls, GWP is proving translation in multiple languages and is hosting Townhalls in different locations across Glendale to reach different segments of the community. ii. One member asked if it’s possible to do in-bill flyers about the IRP, in addition to the mailer already sent out. GWP responded that this is possible, but it takes ~two months for in-bill flyers to reach all customers given the billing schedule. Any customer receiving paper bills has already received a mailer, and any customer receiving electronic bills has already received IRP emails. 291 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-37
STAG Meeting 1 Presentation GWP, Ascend Analytics, and Strategen Consulting gave the following presentation during the first STAG meeting. GWP presented an overview of its power system and of integrated resource planning (slides 8–17). Ascend discussed its work on IRPs, how a model is built that evaluates Glendale’s power system and its future evolution, and GWP’s clean energy portfolio by 2030 given existing resources (slides 18–25). Strategen described the STAG’s role in the IRP process—developing at least two community-preferred scenarios to be modeled—and how it will act as a bridge between the Glendale community and the modeling team (slides 26–37).
+ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + GWP 2024 Integrated Resource Planu
Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group KickoffJuly 12, 2023 2 Agenda+STAG member and team introductions (30 min) +Introduction to GWP’s system, requirements, and challenges for this IRP (15 min) +Scott Mellon, GWP +Overview of modeling and initial study results (10 min) +Zachary Brode, Ascend Analytics +Overview of STAG’s role, responsibilities, and expectations (10 min) +Dhruv Bhatnagar, Strategen Consulting +Mapping community-preferred scenarios (50 min) +Debrief on community preferences from first townhall+Building out scenario preferences 3 Objectives for this meeting
+Introduce STAG members to each other and key GWP, Ascend, and Strategen staff+Gain understanding of GWP’s system, requirements, and challenges for this IRP+Define STAG’s role in the IRP modeling process+Agree on initial direction of priority community modeling scenarios 4 What’s the goal of the STAG?
+Desire to increase communityengagement from the 2019 IRP.+Wanting to provide a way forcommunity members to provide bothhigh-level and more technical inputon the 2024 IRP.+STAG is meant to be the bridgebetween the community and the IRPteam and ensure community voicesare integrated throughout the IRPprocess. 5 What does it mean! Chatham House Rule
+This is meant to let folks speak openly andfreely.+STAG meetings are closed-door andunattributed.+No sharing slides, agendas, or other materialswithout permission.+In most cases, you can use the informationyou hear at STAG meetings, but don’tattribute it to the speaker.+There may be some sensitive informationthat we ask members not to share.+This isn’t meant to prohibit folks fromtalking about STAG! We want you to be ableto spread the word and raise awareness inyour communities. 6 ExamplesChatham House Rule
+Do:+“At the STAG meeting, some folks weretalking about…”+“We discussed scenarios and resources atthe STAG meeting and it sounds like thegroup is really interested in utility-scalebatteries.”+Don’t:+“At the STAG meeting, Christina said…”+“At the STAG meeting, StrategenConsulting said...”+“At the STAG meeting, John, the owner ofthe coffee shop, was advocating for…” 292 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-38
7 Introductions!
+Name, affiliation, customer type, location+What’s one thing that’s important for you to contribute or get out of this STAG process? Scott Mellon, GWP
Introduction to GWP’s system and considerations for this IRP Introduction to Glendale Water and Power+Glendale Water & Power is a municipally owned utility serving approximately 90,000customers.+85% residential+15% commercial+Less than 1% industrial+By energy usage…+40% residential+32% commercial+28% industrial+Our peak energy demand is in the summer (normally between 4-5 p.m.), driven by ACdemand.+Local codes and state and federal policies are all driving GWP toward increased electrificationand decarbonization. 10 GWP is seeing an upward trend in distributed energy resource growth 11 In 2021, GWP led California publicly-owned utilities in energy efficiency performance and targets.
These trends and goals mean we need to the plan for the future of our system. We do so with Integrated Resource Planning. 12 +IRPs are planning documents required to be developed by California law every 5 years.+They study how much energy GWP will need in the future and develop potential strategiesto supply that energy over the next 20 years.+The IRP will answer important questions about Glendale’s future energy system:+Where will Glendale get its power?+How much of that power will be renewable or clean?+How much will that power cost?+IRPs are a snapshot in time. They represent our best understanding of our system’s needs–and options to meet it – at this moment.+Things change quickly, which is why it’s important to update this plan regularly.
What do IRPs do?
13 IRPs help GWP prepare for the future by developing multiple potential strategies (called“scenarios”) to meet Glendale’s future energy needs.The scenarios can test:Different mixes of energy resources (rooftop solar, wind, energy efficiency, etc.)Different timelines for achieving clean energy goalsDifferent cost preferencesOther variablesThe scenarios are then explored to see how they’d perform in the future in terms ofreliability, environmental responsibility, and cost.Based on the results, GWP will choose the scenario that best meets its need for reliablepower, while minimizing costs and maximizing environmental performance.
How will the IRP be developed?
14 1.GWP, STAG, and the Glendale community will develop multiple future energy scenarios totest in the IRP modeling process.2.Ascend Analytics will test these strategies in their model to see how they compareon reliability, costs, and environmental responsibility.
3.GWP will present and discuss the results with the STAG and thecommunity to provide an opportunity for feedback.4.Based on the results, GWP will choose a “preferred portfolio” ofresources it will develop to meet Glendale’s energy needs overthe next 20 years. 293 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-39
15 Central planning considerations in this IRP +Reliability: GWP must meet or exceed certain reliability standards in planning and operations.+Federal planning standards: cannot exceed one day of outage in ten years+Operating standards:+Must have sufficient unused resources in reserve (reserve margin) to cover a portion of our peak demand+Must be able to operate if largest transmission or generation resources fail (N-1 and N-1-1 contingencies)+Sustainability: GWP must meet or exceed California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)requirements.+SB100:+60% renewable energy by 2030+100% zero-carbon by 2045+Glendale goal: 100% clean energy by 2035+Affordability: GWP must accomplish these first two while maintaining lowest possible costs.Costs are a direct result of how reliable and sustainable GWP’s portfolio is. 16 Meeting reliability and clean energy requirements depends heavily on our ability to get power from the Western U.S. into Glendale. 17 Glendale’s system is constrained by only two transmission lines.
Zachary Brode, Ascend Analytics
What are we studying in this IRP, and how?
19 Introduction to Ascend Analytics+Software and advisory services firm based in Boulder, CO.+Provides analytical solutions and consulting support for resource planning, power systemoperations, and portfolio risk management.+We work with utilities across the United States and have completed multiple IRPs forCalifornia utilities.+Glendale and Ascend have worked together since 2018.+PowerSIMM modeling software provides a full suite of tools to support Glendale’s resourceplan.+Ascend and GWP model the full GWP system to understand the impact of an evolvingenergy supply. 20 IRPs use modeling to evaluate multiple future energy paths for GWP. +The future is uncertain, and testing different versions of the future allows us to plan for that uncertainty.+Modeling is a way to simulate the future so we can study it.+IRP models simulate GWP’s energy demand and supply to project how resources operate under future conditions.+Power system models provide estimates of future system costs, GHG emissions, renewable generation, and many more outputs.+To create a model, we need to determine assumptions (model inputs) about the future.+What technologies will be available and what are their characteristics?+What is the risk of certain events (like wildfires) impacting GWP’s system?+What does future electricity demand look like?+What are Glendale’s clean energy policies DQG targets?+What will future energy and fuel prices be? Can we project or estimate them? RT Price Spikes
VolatilityLong-run on/off-peak forwards
Price Shapes
Fundamentals
Ancillary Prices
Structural Basis
LoadRenewable GenerationDispatchable Assets
Portfolio Configuration
Hedge Instruments
Meaningful Uncertainty
Portfolio Positions
Cash Flows and Budgets
Automated and Timely ReportingStrategy and What-ifs
Distributions and Payoffs
@ Risk Metrics
Outputs100s of variables and metrics
Ascend PowerSIMM model – what goes in, what comes out?
22 Types of modeling used in IRPs +The future GWP system must be reliable, sustainable, and affordable. We use threedifferent types of models to ensure GWP’s portfolio meets these needs.+Resource adequacy models+Will a portfolio ensure the lights stay on, especially during very hot or cold days?+Capacity expansion models+What resources will be in the portfolio to meet Glendale’s energy needs, and how much of it willbe renewable?+Production cost models+How much will the portfolio cost? 294 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-40
23 What changes are already expected to GWP’s system?+GWP is making changes to its portfolio toincrease clean energy and reducegreenhouse gas emissions.+Expected changes in the next decadeinclude:+Intermountain Power Plant converting fullyto hydrogen+Addition of Eland solar and storage project+Addition of Scholl biogas (landfill gas)+Grayson repowering and battery storage+This IRP will focus on how to close thegaps to meet CA and Glendale cleanenergy goals. 24 How is Glendale’s energy mix evolving into the future? IPP Coal Generation Retires
Q&A (15 minutes)
Dhruv Bhatnagar, Strategen Consulting
What is the STAG’s role in this IRP?
27 STAG’s role in IRP process+The STAG is the bridge between the broader Glendale community and the IRP modeling team.+Translating the direction we get from Glendale community into workable community-informed scenarios for modeling.+Updating their communities on the IRP process and sharing community feedback with the IRP team.+Providing other input on the IRP process and results to the GWP, Strategen, and Ascend teams.+STAG will be informing two community-preferred scenarios to test in modeling this IRP, answering key questions like:+Preferences on energy resources to include in portfolios+Timeframes for deploying certain resources+The timeline for GWP to achieve clean energy goals 28 Key IRP deadlines
Preparation and study designModelingCommunity feedbackReviewing and finalizing IRPFinal approval 1/1: IRP submitted to California Energy Commission
JulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuary
8/11: All scenarios ready for modeling
9/15: Initial modeling results presented
10/15: Draft IRP written 11/6*: IRP presented to GWP Commission 12/5*: IRP presented to City Council
*Dates pending
29 Community and STAG engagement in IRP process
7/12: STAGmtg 17/24: Townhall 2 8/30*: Townhall 3 10/4*: Townhall 411/6*: Opportunity for public comment at GWP Commission 12/5*: Opportunity for public comment at City Council
Preparation and study designModelingCommunity feedbackReviewing and finalizing IRP JulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember
*Dates pending
7/19: STAGmtg 28/2: STAGmtg 38/23: STAGmtg 5
9/27: STAGmtg 68/9*: STAGmtg 4
30 Member responsibilities and expectations+Committing to attendance+Chatham House Rule and information confidentiality+Engaging with and representing the community+Acting with respect and striving for common understanding with others+Transparency of STAG member list+Being involved in the broader IRP process, where possible+Speaking for yourself, not STAG, unless otherwise permitted 295 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-41
Figure 77. STAG Meeting 1 Presentation Slides
Discussion: Delving into scenarios!
32 Debrief on first community townhall – major learnings+There was a strong desire for transparency and community input in the IRPprocess.+Clean energy seemed to be attendees’ top priority.+The community sees customer solar and energy efficiency as key resources.+Community members expressed that energy efficiency should play a large role andcustomer training should be a critical part of making it effective.+For other resources, concerns were expressed for large resources beingdeveloped in Glendale vs. outside Glendale. 33 Results of community resource preference activityResourceGreen stickersRed stickersUtility scale solar9Utility scale wind5 4Green hydrogen1 7Natural gas5 22Grid-scale energy storage10Small modular nuclear reactors17Geothermal4 1Customer-sited storage5 8Customer-sited solar16Energy efficiency and demand response14 34 Discussion questions+What are members’ views on the balance of reliability, affordability, and environmental goals?+What types of potential futures for Glendale would STAG members like to see explored in this IRP?+What resources would we like to evaluate?+Renewable resources: solar, wind etc.+Firm and flexible resources: energy storage, green hydrogen, renewable natural gas, etc.+What would our timeline be for achieving clean energy goals?+What information would be helpful for STAG members in building out scenarios?+Ex. Background on Glendale’s system, resource costs, state DQG federal policy drivers, key challenges in decarbonization 35 Discussion – Scenarios+Scenarios GWP is currently considering:1.Glendale goal: 100% clean energy by 20352.California mandate in SB 100 and SB 1020:+60% renewable energy by 2030+100% zero-carbon by 20453.Lowest cost portfolio for California mandate compliance +Other examples:+High distributed energy resource adoption+Use of emerging technologies, even at higher cost+Large buildout of energy storage resources+Caps on year-over-year rate increases 36 Discussion questions+What other items would you like to see addressed in the IRP process thatwe have not covered?+What would make this STAG process/the stakeholder process a success? 37 Thank you and next steps!
+7/19: STAG meeting 2+This meeting will be a deep dive intopotential scenarios to present to thecommunity at the second townhall.+7/24: Townhall 2+Sparr Heights Community Center,6:30-8:30 p.m.+This townhall will be a deep dive intothe community-informed scenarios tobe explored in modeling. 296 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-42
STAG Meeting 2: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 STAG Meeting 2 Minutes Overall Takeaways 1. STAG members are very interested in having more information to inform scenario development. Areas where additional context is required include what resources can be developed inside Glendale vs. outside Glendale and how to consider Glendale’s transmission constraints. 2. The group seemed to agree that they were not interested in seeing further development of fossil resources in their scenarios. But they differed on when Glendale should achieve its clean energy goals. Some members suggested 2035, others early 2040s. 3. The group seemed to share an interest in focusing heavily on resources that could be developed inside Glendale, given GWP’s transmission constraints. This can include a focus on customer-sited resources or local utility-developed resources. Introductions 1. STAG members re-introduced themselves and shared one thing they got out of the last STAG meeting. Some takeaways included: a. Having learned more about GWP’s energy system b. Concern and interest in Glendale’s transmission constraints and its dependence on other utilities to solve that challenge c. Commitment to the STAG process and to engage the community in the IRP more broadly d. Recognition of the complexity of this type of planning and the balance in priorities. Presentation from Strategen Consulting 1. Strategen gave the STAG Meeting 2 Presentation (page C-47). 2. Strategen presented answers to STAG member questions raised since the last meeting, provided a readout of the results of the first community Townhall, and gave an overview of modeling considerations to help in STAG scenario development. 3. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. Customer types, energy use, and rates: i. One member asked why electricity costs are lower for industrial and commercial customers than for residential customers if they’re using so much more electricity than residential accounts. They noted that it doesn’t seem that the percentage of costs allocated to each customer type match what they pay. 297 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-43
Strategen responded that electricity rates are typically allocated by the costs it takes to send electricity to each customer type. That’s usually more for residential customers (considering individual homes vs. larger industrial units), which is typically why rates are higher. GWP noted that this is a complex topic. This dynamic isn’t isolated to Glendale and is typically the same across the board. ii. Another member asked why certain charges are set at a given time of year, then carried out throughout the year, versus there being a twice-a-year calibration. For instance, it could be winter, but customers still pay summer prices. b. GWP’s scenarios i. After presenting GWP’s intended modeling scenarios, several members asked for clarification on how finalized these scenarios are. GWP answered that there are more details to be determined for each of these scenarios (mainly the inputs and assumptions that will drive the model) and that those have not yet been decided. The STAG can have input on some of these factors. GWP also does not intend to put too much detail in its scenarios, as it plans to let the model identify the lowest-cost portfolio that could meet the confines of each scenario goal. c. Reactions to Townhall 1 community resource preference activity: i. Some STAG members wondered how representative the attendees at the first community Townhall were of the Glendale community, and whether the responses were mostly from environmental advocates who might have felt more strongly against natural gas usage. Other members pushed back on the assumption that environmental advocates aren’t representative of the Glendale population. ii. Several STAG members raised questions about how feasible it would be to site certain resources in Glendale, for instance small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) or hydrogen. GWP responded that Glendale likely doesn’t have the available land or storage for SMR, so it’s not a feasible option for development in the city. While there is also some land for utility-owned solar development, it isn’t enough for what people think of as true utility-scale solar. GWP and Strategen will be more specific in future conversations about what resources are options for development in Glendale vs. outside. iii. Some STAG members asked about why Townhall attendees might have put so many red stickers on green hydrogen. Strategen responded that it did not have time to ask people that question at the Townhall. One STAG member responded that people might be worried that ‘green’ hydrogen might not actually be green, but rather just industry marketing. 298 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-44
Another responded that it might be better to store energy in a battery rather than through hydrogen, given the energy lost in conversions (converting renewable electricity into hydrogen, then back to electricity). Group Discussion on Scenario Planning 1. Questions on LA’s 100 percent clean energy study a. Has GWP looked at the LA100 study (100 percent clean energy by 2035)? i. GWP responded that the utility has looked at it. They noted that GWP doesn’t necessarily agree with the results of the study, given that it depends on some assumptions that may not be guaranteed (for instance, the ability to generate hydrogen in the LA basin). ii. GWP shared that it did its own similar study in 2019 that looked at the feasibility of 100 percent clean energy by 2030. For this study, they only considered options available today. That means they didn’t consider hydrogen availability or new hydropower. The study found Glendale could get to 89 percent clean by 2035. b. One member commented that maybe taking hydrogen out of that study wasn’t something City Council would’ve wanted us to do, so we could’ve considered it in the way LA did. Would a scenario that includes hydrogen be realistic? i. GWP responded that hydrogen could provide dispatchability for its system, meaning it could ramp up and down quicker (like natural gas) and react to the GWP network. ii. One member asked a question about whether hydrogen burns with nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. GWP responded that it does, but that there are processes in place that could manage for that, as is done at current natural gas units. 2. Questions about the modeling process: a. How much time, effort, and cost does it take to run another scenario through the model? (For instance, if STAG developed an idea, got results, then wanted to tweak it and run it again.) i. Ascend Analytics responded that it could take several days, but it would depend on how different a new scenario is from an existing scenario. For instance, adding or taking out a resource is a fairly simple change. Changes that are more foundational (like assuming Glendale’s energy demand is 20 percent higher) would alter the results more and take more time (1–2 weeks). ii. GWP responded that they will make modifications to scenarios after initial results and see how model responds. But that each scenario doesn’t only get one “run” through the model—there are hundreds of runs that are undertaken in combination for each scenario that ultimately create results. b. Is it possible through the model to let cost results determine when the best date is for a 100 percent clean energy goal? So STAG could choose the most optimal date for that goal after results, versus before modeling? i. The IRP team responded that this isn’t possible with the way the model is configured. The group will have to input the date it wants to achieve 100 percent clean energy first. 299 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-45
3. Conversation on transmission and local vs. remote resources: a. Multiple members raised questions of how to develop scenarios in a way that considers Glendale’s transmission constraints. i. The IRP team described that STAG could consider constraints by, for instance, placing emphasis on customer-sited or local utility-owned resources in its scenarios. But the model already takes Glendale’s transmission capacity into consideration, so all results will automatically consider transmission constraints. ii. GWP suggested that members not plan for any new transmission capacity when developing their scenarios, given the length of time it takes for projects to be approved and built. b. Some members suggested that this might indicate STAG should focus more heavily on the resources that are in Glendale’s control inside the city. A few members are less concerned with what Glendale gets from outside city limits. i. GWP noted this is a fundamental problem because a significant portion of Glendale’s resources come from outside the city. There are multiple reasons for that, including the scale of external projects and the need for regional and resource diversity. ii. GWP shared that the spot market for energy purchases is sometimes all that’s available to GWP to meet local load. iii. GWP shared that they have less control over external resources because these depend on how quickly the outside is moving to renewables and where those are located. c. One member suggested that the focus on inside vs. outside resources can be a distraction from the larger point of the STAG, which is to provide GWP with guidance on its priorities, like affordability and renewable energy. i. GWP responded that STAG can do a mixture of both. If STAG didn’t focus on resource location, it could just suggest developing more renewable energy. That could be developed internally as much as possible, then whatever’s not possible could go external. ii. GWP also expressed interest in STAG’s opinion on when to achieve 100 percent clean energy, for instance by 2035 or later, noting that this date will have implications for system costs. d. One member raised that it might be more of a challenge to think about providing renewable energy locally than remotely, because GWP can just buy clean power from the market. i. GWP explained that if the utility was just buying any type of energy (not necessarily renewable), it’s a buyer’s market. But it gets more challenging when buying renewable energy because every utility in California is trying to do the same thing. As a result, it’s harder to buy renewable energy on the open market. e. One member noted that transmission capacity is a legal and political matter, not just a technical one. They described that conversations were had between leaders of Glendale and LA on getting more transmission capacity for the city and the answer was no. They noted that STAG could potentially make different assumptions about these politics. f. One member asked about future transmission projects in the pipeline. 300 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-46
i. GWP responded that there’s an upgrade happening to a transmission line between Utah and CA, with that upgrade tied to the Intermountain Power Plant in Utah (which GWP participates in). 4. Scenario ideas presented by STAG members: a. Could STAG form this IRP just around meeting the 2030 renewable portfolio standard goal of 60 percent? i. The IRP team responded that the plan must be written for the next 20 years, so the group will have to look beyond the 2030 timeframe. b. One member suggested STAG scenarios should set an earlier date for 100 percent clean energy than is mandated by California law, recognizing that projects often don’t finish in time. Maybe could plan to get there in 2042 or 2043. c. One member suggested using City Council’s 2035 clean energy target as the baseline for both scenarios. d. STAG members generally seemed to agree that they were not interested in developing new fossil resources, beyond what’s already baked into GWP’s portfolio. e. One member suggested thinking of newer technology alternatives to solar + storage, for instance vehicle-to-grid charging through electric vehicles. f. One member asked how scenarios could consider heat management strategies like pavement cooling paint, which could reduce energy demand rather than focusing on generating electricity. They asked how that can be done through city planning. i. One member responded the City plans to increase urban tree canopy cover over the next 10 years and is looking at local projects for street and freeway painting. ii. The IRP team responded that these strategies generally require coordination among multiple city departments and are a challenge to model in the IRP process. 5. Additional information STAG requested to inform scenario development: a. What is the maximum transmission capacity for Glendale? How much is that capacity as a percent of the load GWP anticipates in the future? b. How much rooftop space is there for solar, and how much of that space is feasible for development? c. What times of day and in what seasons is GWP most dependent on natural gas? Do we expect it to be the same in the future? i. GWP responded that the city is most dependent on natural gas in the summer, and particularly in summer evenings. They do not expect this trend to be the same, considering electrification efforts. 301 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-47
STAG Meeting 2 Presentation Strategen Consulting gave the following presentation during the second STAG meeting. The presentation contained answers to STAG member questions raised since the first meeting (slides 6–7), conveyed the results of the first community Townhall (slides 8–10), and explained the modeling process to help the STAG develop its scenarios (slides 11–18).
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + GWP 2024 Integrated Resource Planu
Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group Meeting 2July 19, 2023 2 Agenda+Quick reminder round of introductions (15 min)+Setting the scene for scenario discussion (30 min)+Presentation from Dhruv Bhatnagar, Strategen Consulting (15 min)+Q&A (15 min)+Brainstorming community-preferred scenarios (60 min)+Full group discussion to brainstorm potential ‘versions of the future’ to model (30 min)+Breakout discussions to detail draft scenarios (30 min)+Break (5 min)+Full group debrief on breakouts (40 min)+Debrief on breakouts and align on STAG-proposed scenarios to present at townhall 3 Objectives for this meeting
+Brief STAG members on community concerns, questions, and preferences expressed at first townhall.+Gather STAG perspectives on potential community-preferred scenarios to test through modeling process.+Coalesce around STAG-preferred scenarios to be able to present at the next townhall for community feedback. 4 Meeting reminders!
+Feel free to share what we discuss at STAGmeetings with your communities, but pleaseremember the Chatham House Rule!+Please treat other STAG members and ourIRP team with respect and aim for commonunderstanding at all times.+We’ll try to allow plenty of time fordiscussion and Q&A but may need to cutthings short to accomplish what we need toaccomplish each week.+If you have questions or thoughts that wedon’t have time to get to, please talk to ourteam so we can capture them.+We’ll aim to vary our discussion setups sowe can hear from every STAG member, butplease be cognizant of others whenspeaking or asking questions so everyonehas a chance to contribute to the discussion. 5 Introductions!
+Keep it to 30 seconds!
+Name, affiliation (if any).+What’s one thing you took away from the last STAG meeting? 6 Closing the loop on your questions+Q: Why isn’t the GWP Commission involved in STAG?+A: The STAG process is meant to be independent of city staff and officials, and since the GWPCommission is appointed by City Council, their involvement wouldn’t be appropriate. GWPCommission will have a chance to review the IRP this fall and provide recommendations as anadvisory body, but it doesn’t have the authority to make decisions on the IRP.+Q: Why do industrial customers account for 28% of Glendale’s energy use if they onlymake up 1% of customers?+A: Industrial customers are those that hit a certain threshold of energy usage. Because they havesuch high energy usage, they account for a disproportionate share of GWP’s electricity demandeven though the total number of customers is small. Examples of industrial customers includemanufacturers (GlenAir, Ambrit Industries, Automation Plating Corp) and production studios (WaltDisney, Bunim Murray Productions). 302 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-48
7 Closing the loop on your questions (cont’d)+What portion of GWP’sresources are in the city vs.outside the city?+A: With current and plannedcontracts, 59% of Glendale’spower capacity will be localby 2026.+Includes Grayson andMagnolia natural gas units,grid-scale battery storage,Scholl Canyon landfill gas,and natural gas internalcombustion engines. 59%41%
Glendale Power Resource Distribution(Capacity), as of 2026 LocalRemote
8 Major learnings from first community townhall (June 29) +There was a strong desire for transparency and community input in the IRPprocess.+Clean energy seemed to be attendees’ top priority.+The community sees distributed energy resources (customer solar, energyefficiency, demand response) as key resources.+Community members expressed that energy efficiency should play a large role andcustomer training should be a critical part of making it effective.+For other resources, community concern was generally higher for resources beingdeveloped in Glendale vs. outside Glendale.+Ex. Attendees expressed concern about local wind projects (due to the view) and concern withcustomer-sited batteries (due to fire risk). 9 Resource options presented at townhallCustomer side resources+Distributed solar+Distributed energy storage+Energy efficiency & demand response Utility scale resources+Intermittent+Solar+Wind+Firm or flexible+Natural gas+Green hydrogen+Geothermal+Small modular nuclear reactors+Grid scale energy storage 10 Results of community resource preference activityResourceGreen stickersRed stickersUtility scale solar9Utility scale wind5 4Green hydrogen1 7Natural gas5 22Grid-scale energy storage10Small modular nuclear reactors17Geothermal4 1Customer-sited storage5 8Customer-sited solar16Energy efficiency / demand response14 11 Background on scenarios+GWP’s anticipated scenarios will test high-level policy goals:1.California mandate: 60% RPS by 2030, 100% zero-carbon by 20452.Accelerated pathway: 100% by 20353.Affordability: Lowest cost portfolio for California mandate compliance+STAG will be responsible for developing 2 community-preferred scenarios, guided bycommunity input shared at townhalls.+Examples of potential scenario elements for STAG to consider:+Maximum distributed energy resource adoption+Maximum grid-scale solar usage+Use of emerging technologies, like long-duration energy storage+Retirement or conversion of existing natural gas units 12 Example scenarios
+Timing: 2035 - 90% clean target; 2045 - 100% clean+Goal: Customer resources+Resources:+Preference on distributed energy resources+Maximize local solar + storage in Glendale+Aggressive assumption on demand response: EVdeployment; customer response+Aggressive energy efficiency+Retire fossil plants (e.g., Grayson)+Utility scale storage in Glendale for flexibility+Renewable imports on existing transmission+Exclude: New fossil, green hydrogen, hydropower Example scenario 1: DER Heavy+Timing: 2040 - 100% clean target+Goal: Affordable path to clean energy target+Resources:+Convert Grayson and Magnolia to clean fuel(i.e., green hydrogen or renewable gas) forflexibility+Renewable imports on existing transmission+In-Glendale long duration energy storage+Exclude: New fossil, nuclear Example scenario 2: Fossil Replacement
13 Things to know about the modeling process+All resource options are “on the table”, but Ascend’s model prioritizes the lowest-cost resourcesfirst.+If you don’t want the model to consider all available resources, you need to tell it so.+If you want the model to select a certain amount of a certain resource (i.e., a certain amount ofbatteries), you need to tell it to do so.+If you want the model to prioritize other factors over cost (i.e., choose customer-located resourcesfirst), you need to tell it to do so.+Ascend will be inputting the predicted future prices of resources and anticipated futureelectricity demand based on detailed forecasting.+There is an opportunity to both test different scenarios (different future paths) and run“sensitivity tests” on scenarios that change certain variables.+Sensitivities are meant to show how much future portfolio costs might change due to a change inassumptions for variables like load growth and market prices. They can test higher or lower futureprices for certain resources, or higher or lower EV adoption, for instance.
Q&A (15 minutes)
303 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-49
Figure 78. STAG Meeting 2 Presentation Slides
15 Discussion questions+What potential ‘versions of the future’ are you interested in testing through the modelingprocess? +Think of…. +Resources to prioritize+Resources to exclude or phase out+Timeline for achieving clean energy mandates +Write your ideas on sticky notes and put them on the whiteboard. 16 Divide into 3-4 groups. Breakout discussions
+What resources will you prioritize inyour scenario? What resources willyou exclude?+What timeline considerations will youintegrate in your scenario?+Ex. Phasing out certain resources,meeting clean energy mandates at/aheadof schedule+How will your scenario balanceaffordability and achievingenvironmental goals? 16 17
Full group debrief
+Have one person from each groupshare out about the results of yourbrainstormed scenarios.+What is common across thesescenarios?+What areas of difference are there?+Anything you really like or don’t likein these scenario ideas?+How can we find a middle groundbetween these scenarios to take tothe townhall? 17 18
Upcoming meetings
+7/24: Townhall 2+Sparr Heights Community Center,6:30-8:30 p.m.+This townhall will be a deep dive intothe community-preferred scenarios tobe explored in modeling.+STAG members should attend if able!+8/2: STAG meeting 3+This meeting will be a debrief of thetownhall and a deeper discussion oncommunity-preferred scenarios. 304 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-50
STAG Meeting 3: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 STAG Meeting 3 Minutes Overall takeaways 1. There are a range of opinions in the STAG about the priorities to reflect in STAG’s scenarios. Many members are interested in clean energy goals, while others prioritize reliability and cost. a. Some members seem to be interested in scenarios that test aggressive assumptions around clean energy adoption. Others seem to want more moderate assumptions. 2. STAG members seem interested to know more details about the modeling process, what results it yields, and what possibilities there will be for iteration as they develop their scenarios. Presentation from Strategen Consulting about takeaways from previous STAG meeting and second community Townhall 1. Strategen Consulting gave the STAG Meeting 2 Presentation (page C-47). 2. Strategen presented the results and learnings from an informal STAG brainstorm conducted at the end of the prior meeting that asked members to list their preferred 100 percent clean energy target date, preferred energy resources, and resources they’d like to exclude from scenarios. They also provided a readout of the poll results of the second community Townhall. 3. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. How to consider broader sustainability approaches that could indirectly influence GWP’s energy supply or demand, like composting (which reduces the amount of methane produced from landfills) or shading (which can reduce AC demand). i. The STAG agreed to put these types of ideas in a ‘parking lot’ for reflection in the IRP, but to not aim to integrate them into the IRP modeling directly given they are somewhat outside the scope of the document. b. How will the model account for reductions in production from the Scholl Canyon landfill gas project? i. The IRP team responded that Ascend is using the projected methane creation output from the site in the model, which is slated to taper off in line with the lifespan of the Scholl gas supply. c. How might hydrogen potentially show up in GWP’s system? i. GWP responded that, if it were to use hydrogen, it would buy it as a fuel, not produce it. Someone else would have to produce it. GWP would use green hydrogen (produced from renewables). ii. GWP noted that the infrastructure for hydrogen transport is not in place at this point. Similar to how Glendale is transmission constrained, it is also pipeline constrained. SoCalGas does have existing gas pipelines and rights of way. They could use this for hydrogen distribution (for example, put a hydrogen pipe inside a natural gas pipe). Doing this wouldn’t 305 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-51
necessarily be easier than building new transmission, though. SoCalGas also has its Angeles Link project which is aiming to create a separate hydrogen pipe system to deliver hydrogen to the LA basin. iii. GWP could use its Wartsila engines with a hydrogen blend. The engines GWP will be using were recently tested on a 25 percent hydrogen, 75 percent natural gas mix. iv. One STAG member asked if hydrogen production from offshore wind is a future possibility. GWP responded that it could be, but more would need to be known about offshore wind projects first. v. GWP clarified that hydrogen wouldn’t be piped to individual households. It would be piped to a natural gas power plant, like Grayson, or a Wartsila engine that then produces electricity. STAG discussion on example scenario elements presented by Strategen 1. Strategen presented four example scenarios to STAG as a starting point for discussion to determine the scenario elements of interest to the group. These were developed based on the results of both Townhall and STAG polls and discussions. 2. See slides 11–12 in the STAG Meeting 2 Presentation (starting on page C-47) for the example scenarios presented by Strategen Consulting. 3. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to these examples included: a. Energy storage: i. One member asked if there is a possibility for the use of ‘emerging’ energy storage technologies inside Glendale, or only outside Glendale? The Ascend team responded that there will be ‘emerging’ storage options commercially available, like long-duration storage, over the IRP study period. If STAG is interested in considering these technologies (like long-duration storage), it could direct the model to develop a certain amount of it in Glendale (that is, assume a project is built in a certain year). ii. How will inefficiencies in battery technology be considered? The IRP team responded that these technology constraints are accounted for in the model. b. Customer solar: i. One member asked how realistic it is to increase solar adoption significantly, like to 20 percent of customers compared to 3 percent today. Another STAG member responded that the reason behind City Council’s goal to have 10 percent of customers adopt solar was because that percentage is closer to the California state average. STAG members discussed whether the 10 percent goal was more of a ‘stretch’ goal or a directive from City Council. Members seemed to have differing views on how achievable this goal was for Glendale. GWP clarified that it is viewing the 10 percent target as a goal rather than a hard directive. It also shared that getting to that goal will cost money and that the utility cannot itself pay to achieve that goal. One member asked whether City Council provided GWP with funding to get to the 306 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-52
10 percent goal. GWP responded that the first step is for GWP to provide information to Council on how it could reach that goal. They went through a request for proposals (RFP) process to select a company to conduct a study to figure out how they could reach 10 percent. GWP will be going to City Council later this month to get their approval to award the contract to that company. When that study is finished, GWP will provide an update. One STAG member raised concern about the length of time it took to get the RFP out for that study and the pace of progress on the goal since passed, noting urgency due to climate change. c. Electrification and load growth: i. Multiple STAG members were interested in integrating higher electrification assumptions in STAG’s scenarios. ii. Some STAG members raised questions about the best way to consider electrification rates in STAG’s scenarios and whether it was appropriate to integrate an assumption about accelerated electrification in a single scenario, or all scenarios. Ascend shared that it will be running ‘sensitivity’ analyses related to load for all scenarios. These analyses will aim to see how sensitive the scenarios are to a potential increase in load (for example, how large would Glendale’s energy shortfall be if energy demand turns out to be higher than they anticipate?). These sensitivity analyses are different than scenarios, which are more like holistic changes to the future. STAG could choose to integrate different assumptions on electrification and load growth in its scenarios, relative to GWP’s scenarios. iii. One member asked how Glendale’s ‘reach code’ for new buildings (requiring all-electric buildings with solar installations and EV charging capability) is being integrated into the model. GWP responded that what is code will be integrated, but aspirational goals will not. STAG could assume in its scenarios that both codes and goals are achieved. d. STAG scenario assumptions: i. After hearing the example scenarios (which suggested more ambitious assumptions related to emerging technology cost, customer resource adoption, and electrification), several members asked questions about if STAG could also assume less success in electrification, achieving City goals, technology commercialization, etc. in its scenarios. One member noted that it’s possible that technologies materialize less quickly than we might anticipate. Another member noted that fluctuations in fuel prices (for example, natural gas) could make it so that electric vehicles become less attractive, which would impact customer electrification. ii. The IRP team responded that it is possible to model these things based on its best guess at the future. There is a limit to the number of permutations that can be run, so it might not be able to test every possible scenario when it comes to resource prices, customer technology adoption, etc. STAG will have to choose which assumptions it is most interested in. 307 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-53
Polling exercise on scenario elements of interest to STAG 1. Strategen conducted a poll of the STAG to gauge their interest in different scenario elements used in Strategen’s example scenarios. These were used as a starting point for discussion among the group. 2. The poll asked members to rank the scenario elements (from Strategen’s examples) they felt were most important. The options were: a. High utility-owned solar and storage potential in Glendale b. High customer adoption of solar and storage c. High customer participation in energy efficiency and demand response programs d. Higher electricity demand driven by electrification e. Early fossil retirement f. Availability of emerging technologies The results of this poll question are as follows:
Figure 79. STAG Poll Scenario Assumptions Response 3. The poll also asked members to rank the clean energy timelines presented in the four example scenarios. The options were: a. 100% by 2035 (this option was offered twice as it was included in 2 example scenarios) b. 95% by 2030, 100% by 2040 c. 90% by 2035, 100% by 2042 Which of these scenario assumptions do you feel is most important?
How do you feel about the clean energy timeline reflected in thiese scenarios?
308 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-54
The results of this poll question are as follows:
Figure 80. STAG Poll Clean Energy Timeline Response 4. Lastly, the poll asked members if anything was missing from the examples that they would like to see tested in the IRP. There were seven responses to this poll question: § Laws change. So do political policies § Testing for different intermittency scenarios since we are looking at introducing more intermittent resources to factor in reliability. § Changes in staff with a clean energy mandate and a more aggressive approach to DERs. § 100 percent clean internal by 2043, except that we could import from biomass or nuclear sources. § How realistic are the target, that is, solar adoption. I would like to know more about the cost to residents of 100 percent by 2035. § Assuming reach codes are fully met and we continue to be leaders in demand response programs and incentives. § Dramatically faster adoption of electrification and what that means for resource needs (more than what you have so far—more and faster demand). Discussion on polling results and scenario development 1. Polling results: a. Some STAG members shared that ‘emerging technology’ as a category isn’t specific enough, and they want to better understand what emerging technology options are. b. One STAG member expressed interest in developing scenarios solely based on results of the poll, while others wanted to debrief and discuss. It was ultimately decided that STAG would discuss results and aim to achieve as much consensus as possible.
Which of these scenario assumptions do you feel is most important?
How do you feel about the clean energy timeline reflected in thiese scenarios?
309 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-55
2. Clean energy mandate and goals: a. Some members raised questions about the implications of setting a 100 percent clean energy by 2035 requirement in STAG’s scenario. If STAG decided that, would GWP risk reliability (potential blackouts, etc.)? i. The IRP team responded that, in the model, all scenarios will be built to meet minimum reliability requirements. b. Some members raised discomfort with reaching 90+ percent clean energy by 2035 and said the goal might be unrealistic. c. One member asked what would happen if GWP didn’t hit California’s 100 percent by 2045 mandate. i. GWP responded that it would have to go to City Council and explain why they couldn’t meet it. Council then has the authority to issue a statement to say GWP tried but is falling short. d. One member raised questions about whether biomass generation is considered in the definition of “100 percent zero-carbon” per California law. They noted that California law doesn’t require energy lost in transmission to be zero-carbon, which allows for a certain percentage of carbon emitting resources in 2045. They noted they’d like more clarity in how biomass is being considered. i. Another member responded that California included biomass and biomethane in its renewable portfolio standard as a renewable resource. ii. GWP shared that it is excluding biomass from its potential resources per City Council decision. Its understanding was the City Council decision prevents GWP from developing more biomass locally or entering into contracts for biomass resources from outside the city. e. One member stated that the procurement timeline for some resources may make achieving the 2035 clean energy goal unrealistic or extremely expensive, given transmission constraints and the dates new lines could be available (which could be beyond the timeline of the IRP). i. Another member pushed back on the characterization of how expensive or difficult the 2035 goal might be. ii. GWP shared that it does have some transmission capacity coming online in 2027 that will be considered in the model. 3. Reliability: a. One member raised concern that GWP doesn’t have enough energy generation capacity to meet existing demand and that there could be greater shortfalls in the future with increasing demand. i. Another member pushed back on the assumption that GWP’s system isn’t able to maintain reliability, asking when the last blackout the city had was. ii. GWP shared that the local generation it currently has in Glendale is less than it’s ever had before (due to Grayson closures). There are solar, battery, Wartsila engine, and Scholl landfill gas projects coming online in the next few years, but the total sum is still short of Glendale’s energy demand. b. One member raised concern about having ambitious assumptions on customer solar adoption. If customer solar were to underperform, how could they make up for reliability? 310 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-56
c. One member asked how Ascend’s model measures reliability. i. Ascend responded that it simulates forced outages, like on a very cold or very hot day, on each portfolio and examines how that situation would impact customer energy demand and resource production. They usually do 200–300 simulations of this type over many future scenarios. Ascend then uses that information to know what the probability is for every hour of the year that GWP can’t meet load (meaning GWP might need to ‘shed load’ or institute blackouts). Ascend then sums that hourly data for the entire year to develop metrics that tell them if that portfolio meets federal reliability guidelines. ii. Those reliability guidelines specify that utilities can have a maximum of one day of outage spread out over 10 years. This means utilities don’t build their system for the most stressed hour, they should build it for all hours except for one day over 10 years, during which time you assume that you could rely on your neighbor (a nearby utility) for help. Ascend explained that some people argue that relying on a neighbor for even one day over 10 years might not be safe enough because there’s a chance a neighbor can’t cover your shortfalls. GWP is fortunate that LADWP has strong planning reserves, though, which have helped the city avoid blackouts. iii. Ascend explained that if a portfolio comes back in its model as having to shed load for more than one day every 10 years (or 2.4 hours per year), they need to firm it up and determine how to address the shortfall. The shortfall could be because there’s not enough generation, or there is enough generation but not at the right time. If it’s the latter, the portfolio could be supplemented with storage to provide energy during peak demand. Ascend will be doing this analysis for all scenarios. iv. Ultimately, reliability will be reported as the number of hours of blackouts per year for each scenario/portfolio. d. One member asked a question about what has saved GWP in the past from blackouts. i. GWP explained there were two recent situations where it was close to instituting blackouts. One was in the winter, and one was in September. In September, GWP gives credit to the responsiveness of their customers, who reduced their energy usage systemwide. That response only lasted for a few days, though, before customers upped their energy demand because it was too hot. At that point, GWP brought some resources online to make up the shortfall. The winter situation was different because one of LADWP’s transmission lines was out, and LADWP thought it might have to take down another line to fix the first. This was a freak event with ice on the transmission line, but it was an eye opener for GWP. GWP was prepared to shed load, but LADWP ultimately waited a bit longer than they wanted to, to bring down the line and do repairs. That, combined with bringing some reserve units up and running, avoided blackouts. e. One member noted that GWP could be headed toward higher risk, because future customer energy demand will be concentrated in electrification. 311 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-57
4. Social cost of carbon: a. One member shared that using California carbon prices (set through the cap-and-trade program) doesn’t include all costs of carbon. They wanted to know more about how the social cost of carbon would be factored into the model. i. Ascend responded that the social cost of carbon incorporates more externalities, which aren’t necessarily what California is charging. The impact of putting a social cost of carbon on scenarios is that carbon-emitting resources run a lot less in the near term and would stop running by ~2040 because it’d be more expensive to use them. ii. Strategen will circle back to the social cost of carbon conversation for the next STAG meeting once it’s clearer how this analysis will be integrated in modeling. 5. Distributed energy resources: a. Some members expressed that Glendale’s existing incentives for distributed energy resource/demand response participation might not be enough to encourage adoption. b. One member raised that losing the Sunrun virtual power plant (VPP) project was a big loss for Glendale. The project was originally 50 MW, then brought down to 25, then eliminated. They noted GWP should find a way to replace that. i. There was disagreement between members about why the VPP didn’t happen, and whether it was due to cost. One member noted there are other variables to consider, like Glendale having had a different City Council at the time the project was being discussed. They noted GWP should look to the future and come up with a VPP system that can work. 6. Modeling results: a. One member asked what the output of the model looks like. i. Ascend responded that it will show what each scenario’s energy mix looks like based on the established constraints, inputs, and assumptions. ii. Ascend clarified that the IRP is for 20 years, but the plan gets adjusted every five years. The overall goal is to express what the future could look like so GWP can take initial actions now. GWP will look at the IRP, tweak it and update it to meet its needs. Ascend cautioned against thinking that the results of the IRP will lock the group into a given path for the next 20 years. Outcomes of the meeting 1. STAG coalesced around one scenario that will reach 100 percent clean energy by 2035. This scenario will also emphasize local resources, with ambitious assumptions on customer adoption of solar + storage, energy efficiency, and demand response, and ambitious assumptions about GWP’s ability to develop solar + storage resources locally. The scenario will also assume accelerated electrification compared to GWP’s scenarios. 2. Strategen will send out a survey to STAG members to respond to before next week’s meeting to add additional details to this scenario and brainstorm possible directions for STAG’s second scenario. 312 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-58
STAG Meeting 3 Presentation Strategen Consulting gave the following presentation during the third STAG meeting. The presentation contained the results and key points from the informal STAG brainstorm conducted during the second meeting about their preferred 100 percent clean energy target date, preferred generation resources, and resources to exclude from scenarios (slides 2–6 and 16–28). Also included were the poll results from the second community Townhall (slides 7–15).
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + GWP 2024 Integrated Resource Planu
Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group Meeting 3August 2, 2023 2 Agenda+Readout on results of last STAG meeting and second townhall (20 min)+Presentation from Strategen (10 min)+Q&A (10 min)+Setting the scene for scenario discussion (35 min)+Presentation from Strategen (20 min)+Q&A (15 min)+Break (5 min)+Full-group discussion on community-preferred scenarios (95 min)+Wrap up and next steps (5 min) 3 Objectives for this meeting
+Brief STAG members on outcomes of second IRP townhall.+Discuss options for community-preferred scenarios.+Where we want to land by end of meeting:+Narrow down the key elements of STAG’s preferred scenarios to explore deeper next time.+Finalize scenarios by the end of next meeting. 4 IRP community engagement process – what have we learned? +STAG members might feel they need more information to be able to make informeddecisions on scenarios (e.g., cost, local resource potential). Members seem to have astrong desire to ground scenarios in what is technically possible.+It might not be clear to STAG members exactly what decisions need to be made at eachmeeting. Better clarifying decision points can make this easier.+More time for Q&A and discussion in both STAG meetings and townhalls is alwayswelcome.+Some STAG members have strong interest in preparing for STAG meetings, sendingresources, and engaging in discussion via email.+This type of engagement is encouraged, but the Strategen team also wants to be sensitive thatnot everyone may have the capacity for that level of activity.+STAG members would like to have more clarity on what we’ll be covering at each meetingfurther in advance. 5 Takeaways from second STAG meeting – clean energy timelineTimelineMembers in favorComments203562040120422 20431 100% renewable, not clean. Also suggested interim schedule before 2043 target. Other1 Comment suggested following mandated timeline, but unclear if this referred to CA mandate or Glendale goal. 6 STAG member preferred resourcesPreferred resourceMembers in favorCommentsSolar6 Two comments specifically mentioned rooftop solar. One of those mentioned the 10% rooftop solar goal.Energy storage/batteries4Wind2Green/clean hydrogen2Energy efficiency2 One comment mentioned more incentives for efficiency. Nuclear2 One comment mentioned small nuclear. One comment mentioned being okay with nuclear if outside state. DERs 2 No further description of which DER types. Natural gas1 Member was okay with NG due to transmission issues. Low-carbon local generation1 No further description. Demand response1 One comment mentioned time-of-use rates. 313 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-59
7 STAG member non-preferred resourcesNon-preferred resourceMembers againstCommentsNatural gas3 One comment specified no new natural gas. Coal 2 One comment specified no new coal. Geothermal2Nuclear2Fossil fuels1Any carbon-emitting resources1 8 Takeaways from second townhall (7/24) +Distributed energy resources continue to be of interest to the community, but significantconcern arose around how to engage renters and people living in multi-family buildings onthis strategy.+Some attendees also expressed that they’d experienced challenges installing rooftop solar, eventhough they had the ability to opt-in to it, in theory.+Some attendees pushed back on the assumption that achieving 100% clean energy on aquicker timeline could raise system costs and expressed that it’s unfair to ask communitymembers (particularly low-income residents) to choose between these two priorities.+Questions arose on the difference between clean, zero-carbon, and renewable energy. Someattendees raised that what counts as “renewable” might not really be clean, or vice versa.+Concern arose about the potential use of renewable energy credits (RECs) to meet cleanenergy mandates and whether GWP might use RECs to claim its energy as “renewable”without actually supplying renewable electricity to the community.+Some attendees wanted more data on how distributed energy resources are being accountedfor in Ascend’s modeling and in projections of future energy demand. 9 Townhall preference activity results (1)
10 Townhall preference activity results (2)
11 Townhall preference activity results (3)
12 Townhall preference activity results (4)
13 Townhall preference activity results (5)
14 Remaining questions and topics from townhall
Incentives for multi-family units
Give the community an opportunity to weigh in on scenarios and assumptions being used in modeling I want details of the model as it develops (e.g., shared through STAG meeting minutes) Why is solar thermal not a higher priority?
Is there a better way to inform us about new, safer, and more efficient technology? Please explain how the analysis will value different energy resources, including whether and how it will incorporate indirect and noneconomic costs. 314 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-60
Q&A (10 min)
16 GWP’s modeling scenarios – what’s being planned?
+Will follow requirements ofCalifornia’s SB 100 and SB1020:+60% renewable by 2030+90% zero-carbon by 2035+95% zero-carbon by 2040+100% zero-carbon by 2045+Will result in all energybrought to Glendale being100% zero carbon by 2045. +Will meet mandates of SB100 and SB 1020 at thelowest possible cost,without necessarilymeaning all energy broughtinto Glendale is 100% zerocarbon.+Could mean greater useof renewable energycredits (RECs).+Meant as reference toscenario 1 for lowestpossible cost of compliance.
California clean energy mandateAffordability first+Will meet Glendale’s 100%clean energy by 2035 goal.+Will result in all energybrought into Glendale being100% clean by 2035.
Accelerated clean energy pathway (Glendale goal)
17 What makes a scenario? +An overall goal: Think of each scenario as being defined by the high-level goal or ‘vision of the future’ itwill aim to test.+A timeline: Choosing a timeline for 100% clean energy will impact the resources the model selects andthe price of the resulting portfolio.+Assumptions: A scenario can choose to test ‘worldview’ assumptions about the future that are differentthan other scenarios being run. This could include different assumptions about what technologies mightbe available, how much of Glendale’s energy demand certain resources could meet, and what Glendale’sfuture electricity demand might be.+Resource details: A scenario can include details on specific resources that will be prioritized in theresource portfolio, but it doesn’t have to. Without these details, the model will pull together multiplepotential resource portfolios that could meet the confines of the scenarios, at the lowest possible cost.+Any exclusions: Scenarios could explicitly exclude certain types of resources entirely, or after a certaindate. All scenarios will automatically exclude new biogas development, per City Council policy.+Retiring certain resources at a given date (e.g., early closure of natural gas facilities) would qualify as an exclusion. 18 Delving into community-preferred scenarios+Strategen has developed 4 example scenarios, based on what we’ve heard from STAG and townhall meetings. These are meant to be starting points for discussion, not an attempt to create your scenarios for you!+Things we tried to reflect in these scenarios:+Preference for 2035 clean energy timeline, but not unanimously+Preference for internal-to-Glendale resources+High interest in customer-sited resources, with need for new models+Concern about hydrogen, natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal, but not unanimously+Some curiosity about newer technologies, like long-duration energy storage, vehicle-to-grid, or small modular reactors+We’ll explore what you like and don’t like about these ideas and use them to develop2 high-level scenarios by the end of this meeting.+We’d love for all STAG members to support both community-preferred scenarios, but we understand that might not be possible. At the very least, we hope every STAG member has at least one scenario they feel good about. 19 Resource summaries – what’s technically possible?
+Utility-owned energystorage (under 8 hours)+Utility-owned long-durationenergy storage (8+ hours)+Customer-sited batteries+Customer-sited solar+Utility-owned solar+Hydrogen combustion+Hydrogen fuel cells+Natural gas+Customer energy efficiency+Customer demandresponse+Existing biogas Local resource options (inside Glendale)
+New biogas+Nuclear (incl. smallmodular reactors)+Utility-scale wind+Geothermal+Carbon capture forGrayson, Magnolia Excluded local resources
+Utility-scale solar+Utility-scale wind+Utility-scale energy storage(under 8 hours)+Utility-scale long-durationenergy storage (8+ hours)+Offshore wind+Hydrogen combustion+Hydrogen fuel cells+Natural gas+Nuclear (incl. smallmodular reactors)+Geothermal+Existing hydropower Remote resource options (outside Glendale)
+Coal+New hydropower
Excluded remote resources
20 Baseline assumptions informing scenarios+The modeling team has a sense of some assumptions that will inform GWP’s scenarios, butothers are still in the works.+Load forecasting is currently in the works, considering historical trends, new customer growth,electrification growth, and energy efficiency participation (this will build on CEC CA load forecasts).+Ascend has updated price projections for individual resources. Market price projections are underway.+Assumptions related to the maximum potential of customer-sited resources (customer solar, customerstorage, energy efficiency, demand response) are ongoing.+All scenarios will be modeled with a cost applied to carbon emissions, per California cap-and-trade values.+We’re currently reviewing additional social cost of carbon analyses for the scenarios.+For today, we want to align on high-level goals that are of interest in STAG’s two scenarios sowe can focus more on assumptions and other specific details next meeting.+That means agreeing on things like “test higher adoption of customer solar than we’d otherwise thinkpossible.”+We want to save conversation on exact numbers until after we’ve aligned on the directionwe’re taking and after the modeling team has draft assumptions. 21 Example scenario 1: Maximizing customer contributions to clean energy+Overall goal of scenario: To test the maximumcontributions that customer-facing programs(customer solar and storage, energy efficiency,demand response) could contribute to GWP’ssystem.+Timing: 100% clean energy by 2035.+Assumptions:+High estimates for customer solar and storageadoption.+High estimates for customer energy efficiency anddemand response participation.+Availability of new customer programs to provideoptions for renters and multi-family units.+High estimates for utility-owned solar and batterypotential in Glendale. +Resource details:+Glendale achieves goal of 10% of customers havingsolar power.+Glendale strongly incentivizes coupling rooftop solarwith storage.+Glendale launches community solar options forrenters and multi-family units.+Glendale invests heavily in energy efficiency anddemand response programs, resulting in lower peakdemand.+Gaps in energy supply are filled in first with maxed-out local utility-owned solar and batteries, thensupplemented with external resources.+Excluded resources:+Additional natural gas in Glendale+Hydrogen in Glendale 22 Customer-sited solar in Glendale – what’s the current state of play?+2,639 installations as of July 2023+2,520 of these are residential.+119 are commercial.+26.3 MW capacity total+15.3 MW comes from residential projects.+11 MW comes from commercial projects.+Average capacity of installations:+Average residential project capacity is 6 kW.+Average commercial project capacity is 92 kW.+3% of Glendale customers have rooftop solar,accounting for 7% of GWP’s peak demand. 95%
5%By # of customers
ResidentialCommercial
58%
42%
By capacity
315 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-61
Figure 81. STAG Meeting 3 Presentation Slides
23 Example scenario 2: Early fossil retirement+Overall goal of scenario: To test theimpacts of early retirement of Glendale-sited fossil resources and replacementoptions for their reliability contributions.+Timing: 100% clean energy by 2042.+Assumptions:+Grayson and Magnolia power plants retire in2036, instead of continuing to run at lowcapacity to provide emergency reliabilityservices.+High estimates for utility-owned solar andbattery potential in Glendale. +Resource details:+Glendale prioritizes local renewable andstorage resources to replace fossil units.+Replacing plants with hydrogen combustioncould be an option to provide flexibility.+Excluded resources:+Natural gas power plants (Grayson,Magnolia) retire in 2036. 24 Example scenario 3: Betting on emerging technologies +Overall goal of scenario: To test howemerging technologies could contribute toGlendale’s portfolio if they were commerciallyavailable sooner, and at lower cost, than inother scenarios.+Timing: 100% clean energy by 2035.+Assumptions:+Long-duration energy storage (12+ hours) isavailable 5 years sooner than in other scenarios(currently 2030) and is 5% cheaper thananticipated.+Small modular nuclear reactors are available(outside Glendale) 3 years sooner than in otherscenarios (currently 2035) and are 5% cheaperthan anticipated. +Resource details:+No innate resource preferences are built in. Allowsmodel to choose emerging technologies wherecost effective.+Excluded resources:+No exclusions. 25 Example scenario 4: Accelerated electrification+Overall goal of scenario: To test howGlendale’s energy demand (and accordingresource portfolio) might change if customerselectrify at higher rates, and sooner, than otherscenarios suggest.+Timing: 90% clean energy by 2035, 100% by2040.+Assumptions:+Glendale meets the reach code of all newconstruction being electric only and havinginstalled solar.+Half of all light-duty vehicles in Glendale are EVsby 2035.+Glendale provides incentives to electrify existinghomes and multi-family units. +Resource details:+EV batteries are modeled as added energy storagecapacity on the grid.+Accelerated implementation of heat pumps andelectric appliances.+Shift of industrial energy use to electricity.+GWP invests heavily in demand response programsto better manage peak demand from EVs andother electrified loads.+Excluded resources:+No exclusions. 26 Summary of scenarios (including examples)Scenario100% clean energy dateMeets CA mandateMeets Glendale goalBaseline assumption changesExcluded resourcesCA mandate2045X None.No difference from baseline.CA mandate – lowest cost2045X Not all power supplied to Glendale has to be 100% clean. No difference from baseline. Glendale goal2035XXNone. No difference from baseline.Customer contributions2035XXHigher customer solar, customer storage, energy efficiency, and demand response adoption. Higher utility solar and storage.
New NG in Glendale. H2 combustion in Glendale.
Fossil retirement2042X Higher utility solar and storage. No natural gas in Glendale after 2036. Emerging tech2035XXAccelerated tech availability and cost reductions.No difference from baseline.Accelerated electrification 2040X Higher electricity demand. No difference from baseline.
Q&A (15 min)
28 Discussion questions+Do these scenarios explore a wide enough array of potential futures for Glendale?+If not, what do you think is missing?+Do the scenarios explore potential futures in a way that aligns with preferences fromtownhalls and STAG?+What preferences do you think are missing, or are being contradicted?+Are there elements of the scenarios you think are superfluous or not a high priority totest? 316 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-62
STAG Meeting 4: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 STAG Meeting 4 Minutes Overall takeaways 1. Ascend Analytics presented an example of what scenario results look like coming out of the model. These results were illustrative only. 2. Ascend Analytics and Strategen Consulting presented the suggested inputs and assumptions feeding into the model, namely related to GWP’s load forecast, future energy prices, and local resource potential. 3. Strategen Consulting presented the results of a STAG scenario preference survey conducted between last meeting and this meeting, which intended to finalize details about STAG’s Scenario 1 and create a high-level vision for STAG Scenario 2. From this presentation, STAG discussed potential directions to take for STAG Scenario 2 and ultimately coalesced around one idea. 4. STAG’s two proposed scenarios are: a. A 100 percent clean energy by 2035 scenario that integrates City Council’s various clean energy goals, with a focus on local resources. The scenario will model accelerated electrification compared to GWP’s scenarios. b. A 90 percent by 2035, 100 percent by 2042 scenario that models a long-duration energy storage project built in Glendale during the IRP period. The scenario will take a “middle path” on local resource assumptions, falling between STAG’s first scenario and GWP’s baseline. Presentation from Ascend Analytics on example modeling results 1. Ascend Analytics presented slides 5–9 of the STAG Meeting 4 Presentation (page C-86). 2. Ascend presented an example of what results of the modeling process look like, using an illustrative run they completed over the past week. They described that: a. The model displays the resources that will be built in every year. b. At minimum, It will take 5–7 years of building new resources to get to a zero-carbon portfolio, given that there’s a limit to how quickly you can build new resources. In reality, it is likely to take longer than that because of the administrative components of building new projects. c. The model comes up with two different views on capacity for the entire portfolio: i. Accredited capacity: Accredited capacity gets at the idea that resources only contribute a portion of their full potential to meeting demand. It captures a resource’s potential to meet demand and maintain reliability during times of peak demand. As you add more solar, you can meet 100 percent of demand from solar during the day. But at night, new solar projects aren’t doing anything for you. That means you can’t just build all solar or all wind; you have to have some diversity in resources. It also means you can’t just build all 4-hour batteries, because at some point you’d experience a point of flat peak load that would extend for a longer duration, in which another 4-hour battery wouldn’t do a lot to help you. 317 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-63
The accredited capacity slide shows the coal-fired Intermountain Power Project (black) retiring. It also shows that new resources begin being built fairly early. New storage and new hydrogen show up. When looking at accredited capacity, it should always be above the black line displayed in the chart. ii. Nameplate capacity: Nameplate capacity doesn’t consider the way that a resource contributes to meeting reliability requirements. It reflects the maximum potential output of a resource under ideal conditions. d. These results only show the outputs of the capacity expansion model, which tells us how we build resources. The next steps would be to: i. Test the reliability of the portfolio. This allows Ascend to see whether the assumptions they made about resources’ accrediting capacity are correct. If they run the reliability model and find it doesn’t meet reliability requirements in the future, it tells them they’ve overestimated the accredited capacity of the resources. They would then go into the capacity expansion model and adjust the accredited capacity down and examine results. This is a continual loop that they iterate on until the portfolio meets reliability requirements. ii. See how the portfolio will be run on an hourly basis through 2035 or 2045. This will determine the hours in which GWP will use resources like gas, H2, etc. and identify if there are hours in which GWP is running gas where they could reduce emissions by doing something else. It will also allow them to see where transmission gaps are showing up in the system. Costs are also an output here; it allows GWP to see how much it’s spending on fuel and purchasing on energy when they’re short. 3. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. Contracted vs. GWP-developed resources: i. When the model shows resources being built, does that mean GWP is building that resource or is it just purchasing the energy? Ascend responded that GWP has two options: 1) build the resource itself, or 2) someone else builds it and GWP buys energy from them. In general, the assumption is that someone else will build the project and GWP will buy power from them. ii. Does contracting for projects take less work than GWP developing projects itself? GWP responded that there have been at least two contracts recently that were in negotiations for two years, but in which the contracts ultimately fell out, meaning contracting is not always easy. GWP shared that it typically seeks a power purchase agreement (PPA, a contract to purchase energy from a project) through a joint project with other utilities, which allows it to build a bigger project. In most cases, it partners with LADWP because the two utilities’ needs are similar. While this partnership can help GWP develop bigger projects and lower its costs, it also means that GWP may be beholden to these partners. 318 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-64
GWP shared that the initial part of contracting (which includes requests for proposals, analysis of potential project locations and transmission capacity, etc.) is relatively easy. The challenging part is in the contract agreement phase when commercial operation dates are decided and partners set specific terms. There are milestones and updates built into contracted projects so the developers are held accountable and GWP gets regular updates on progress. iii. Does GWP put performance guarantees in its contracts? GWP used the example of geothermal contracts and explained that some of their providers’ projects aren’t performing as expected. In this case, GWP is discussing these shortfalls with developers and initiating a renegotiation process. b. Resource capacity i. What is capacity factor? Ascend responded that capacity factor is how much energy a resource produces compared to the maximum theoretical potential it has. For solar, the sun is up for about 1/3 of the hours in a day, meaning solar might get roughly a 30 percent capacity factor. For the other sixteen hours of the day, you might get zero energy produced from solar. ii. Can you clarify accredited capacity compared to nameplate capacity? Ascend responded that nameplate capacity reflects a resource’s maximum generation potential. Accredited capacity considers when the resource generates energy compared to Glendale’s energy demand. In the long run, delivering energy in the middle of the day isn’t very useful (because GWP experiences peak demand in the evening). When you transition to a zero-carbon system, delivering energy when the sun is down (like 5–9 p.m.) becomes very valuable. So accredited capacity is determined by a resource’s ability to contribute energy during a stressful time in the system. c. Resource selection i. Is hydrogen considered clean? Ascend responded that hydrogen is generally considered to be clean energy because it releases no carbon emissions. Since City Council’s clean energy goal is about reducing carbon emissions (rather than all criteria air pollutants), hydrogen would meet that definition. Presentation from Ascend Analytics on modeling inputs and assumptions forecasted by their team 1. Ascend Analytics presented slides 10–17 of the STAG Meeting 4 Presentation (page C-86). 2. Ascend presented three central inputs going into its model: a. Glendale’s load forecast (how much energy demand will be in the future) b. Market prices for energy 319 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-65
c. Costs for various energy resources 3. Load forecast: a. There are two components of the forecast that work in tandem but affect different parts of modeling outcomes: i. Energy (measured in gigawatt-hours, GWh) This measures total energy demand in Glendale over an entire year. Right now Glendale is at 1,000 GWh (one million MWh). Ascend’s forecast is based on the California Energy Commission. On average, CEC forecasts Glendale’s load will grow at about 2.4 percent/year. That’s higher than a typical load forecast sees (usually would be in 1.0–1.5 percent range and 2.0 percent is high). Starting in 2035, it’s anticipated that EV purchases will be a big factor in load growth. (No new gas gars are being sold in California after that point.) For the base load forecast used in all scenarios, Ascend will use what the CEC is forecasting. But in addition to that, they’ll run sensitivity analyses on all scenarios to see what would happen if electrification is higher than what the CEC forecasts. ii. 1-in-10 peak This 1-in-10 peak measures the energy demand Glendale is statistically expected to experience once every ten years. This is what GWP really needs to make sure it covers. It measures what the greatest demand is that GWP would ever have to serve for a minute or an hour of the day. Right now Glendale is in the mid-300s MW range. Over the next 20ish years, expect that to get to 450 MW. That fact means GWP will have to build new resources to cover that peak demand, because what it has to meet the 380 MW average isn’t enough to cover 450 MW. b. Using the CEC base load forecast as a baseline, Ascend then integrated GWP’s energy efficiency performance to arrive at a near-final load forecast. i. Usually, standard energy efficiency performance is about 1 percent of retail sales saved per year. GWP averages approximately1.8 percent a year. ii. Over time, that 1.8 percent adds up to more and more MWh saved. That may have a small impact on peak demand (the 1-in-10), but more likely it will just save overall energy use throughout the day. iii. GWP’s energy efficiency goals are developed by a third party every four years. GWP’s current target of 1.86 percent in savings came from an analysis that third party did, which determined that percentage was the maximum achievable savings GWP could get. The utility may not fully achieve anything above that number. iv. While there isn’t a hard limit on how much energy efficiency GWP could achieve, it gets harder and harder to save energy after implementing the low-hanging fruit. There are only so many times you can switch from incandescent to LED lightbulbs or install heat pumps. 320 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-66
4. Market prices for energy a. Ascend’s Market Intelligence team has put together estimates for how much it will cost GWP to buy power on the open market, in nominal dollars, going into the future. i. These prices only reflect the cost to purchase energy, not the price to develop projects. ii. These prices do reflect incentives/tax credits, including those provided through the Inflation Reduction Act. iii. The prices are averaged across hours, but there is wide variation in hourly prices. At some hours, prices may go to $0/MWh, and sometimes up to $200/MWh. b. Ascend’s forecasting framework considers a handful of categories of information: i. Policy assumptions: These assumptions consider how policy requirements (like California’s renewable portfolio standard, 100 percent clean energy mandate, and requirement of no new gas-powered vehicles by 2035) impact demand for energy in California and the supply of energy being provided. ii. Resource buildout: These assumptions reflect expectations around the buildout or retirement of energy resources, for instance whether certain nuclear plants are being retired, or the state’s plans for building new transmission. iii. Price formation: These assumptions reflect the supply and demand dynamics in energy markets. They consider the resources available to meet demand and how much it costs to do so with different resources (for example, renewables have a very low cost to supply energy from the system’s perspective, compared to a gas plant where you have to pay for fuel prices for all energy generated). Weather predictions also have a significant impact here, as that impacts both load and supply. iv. Fundamental anchors: The fundamental anchors keep us from straying too far away from a future we think is realistic. We analyze market forwards. We attempt to characterize uncertainty by displaying a range of prices throughout the future that encompass unexpected outcomes (what would it mean for prices to be very low or very high?). v. All this information ultimately results in the forecasting outputs. We get outputs of how market prices will move day-to-day, hour-to-hour, and minute-to-minute. We’re able to see where prices are high throughout the day or low throughout the day. c. Overview of market price trends: i. In the early years of the forecast, a rapid buildout of renewables depresses prices. That energy has essentially no cost to the system, which pushes average prices down through 2030. ii. In the early 2030s, California utilities have to increasingly think about 2035 and 2045 clean energy goals. The need to change system operations to meet those goals results in price increases. Utilities won’t be able to run natural gas all the time and will have to transition to renewable fuels (which are more expensive than natural gas). The California Air Resource Board (CARB) carbon price placed on carbon-emitting resources also begins to go up exponentially, impacting prices. 321 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-67
iii. In mid–late 2030s, prices again decline and level out (lower than present-day levels) through 2045. 5. Cost for energy resources a. Overview of Ascend’s resource cost forecasting i. Ascend bases its forecasting for the cost of new resources based in part on public forecasts, like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). But this isn’t necessarily a perfect estimate of what it would cost for GWP to procure resources—it only considers the cost to build, not the offtake structure to procure. ii. Another reason Ascend doesn’t only rely on NREL is because Ascend works with utilities in CA and across the country on procuring new resources, meaning they have a good idea of what the going rate is for solar projects in Southern California, for instance. iii. They anchor their forecast in cost expectations (from NREL, other companies’ forecasts), then update them based on what they see from actual utility offers. Sometimes that means adjusting NREL’s forecasts up because they’re overly optimistic. Sometimes it means adjusting them down because what is available today is lower than what their forecast put out. iv. These costs do consider incentives like the Inflation Reduction Act. b. Energy storage costs: i. Right now, Ascend is seeing 4-hour standalone lithium-ion batteries going for $15/kW-month, which is about double what they saw four years ago. In 2019, projects were going for $8/kw. This dynamic reflects impacts from supply chain issues, Covid, project delays, etc. ii. In the near term, Ascend thinks there will be technology improvements in the ability to build new Li-ion batteries, which will result in prices coming down. iii. But in the longer term, they don’t anticipate technology innovation will keep pace with inflation. Only moderate improvements will be able to be made in how much more efficiently projects can be run and technology can be improved. That results in prices for both 4-hour and 8-hour Li-ion batteries increasing slightly from present day by 2050. c. Solar, wind, and geothermal costs: i. A similar story holds for solar and wind. In early years, prices come down with technology improvements. For solar, that has to do with tariff policy and improvements in building more efficient solar panels. ii. In the long run, only so many improvements can be made to solar and wind projects before arriving at the maximum for how well new facilities can be built. Inflation kicks in and nominal prices can’t keep up, which results in prices increasing slightly from present through 2050. iii. Geothermal is a different story, because we’re not necessarily getting better at building it in the way we are with storage, solar, and wind. It’s already almost twice as expensive as solar/wind and is anticipated to get more and more expensive over time. d. These cost curves show the price of signing a power purchase agreement (PPA) in any given year. So in 2023, let’s say you’d pay $40/MWh for solar—you’ll pay that price over the entire lifetime of the 322 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-68
contract because it doesn’t adjust over time. If you sign a deal in the 2030s, we would say you’d get a slightly lower cost per MWh. i. This might suggest that it could be economically advantageous to buy more solar in the early 2030s when prices are expected to be cheapest, but this might not be possible for GWP because they have reliability and clean energy requirements to meet that could require them to procure solar earlier than that. 6. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. Load forecast: i. Some STAG members noted that the amount of EVs in Glendale seems to be growing exponentially. They asked whether the IRP team knows this adoption as a percentage of customers or knows Glendale’s EV adoption compares to the state or country overall. The IRP team responded that it didn’t have these numbers. ii. One member asked how a higher load affects electricity rates and whether it might increase it. The IRP team responded that the relationship between load and rates is complex, but usually more load can lead to lower rates because the utility can split the cost of its system over more units of energy. iii. One member asked how customer education can help reduce GWP’s 1-in-10 peak load (for instance, incentivizing customers to adjust their usage to do laundry or charge vehicles during the day). Another member raised a concern that customer programs to shift demand might disadvantage low-income customers who may not be able to take advantage of incentives and could be penalized for using energy at peak times of day. iv. Some members asked how GWP’s peak periods impact the price for electricity, and whether lower electricity costs in the middle of the night stem from lower demand. Ascend responded that in the future that dynamic won’t be the case. In another 5–7 years, it’s expected that power will be cheaper in the middle of the day compared to overnight because of solar generation. b. Market price forecast: i. One member asked how uncertainty around market prices is considered in the model, given that, in 10 years, price forecasts might be very different. Ascend responded that its software simulates 50–100 distinct futures, compared to other software that does less. The result is a range of uncertainty in prices and other model variables. The model then simulates a range about those variables which represents the most likely outcome. The member suggested it would be helpful if uncertainty or the range could be shown graphically. c. Energy resources: i. One member asked if GWP has any plans for distributed storage resources, such as through virtual power plants (VPPs) or other means. 323 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-69
GWP explained that the term VPP is used as a catch-all when talking about aggregating different types of resources that aren’t commonly used (like load control mechanisms, storage, smaller generation sources, etc.). GWP noted there’s a wide range in how VPP programs function and said it sees potential in VPPs. Presentation by Strategen Consulting on other modeling inputs, assumptions, and analyses 1. Strategen Consulting presented slides 18–21 of the STAG Meeting 4 Presentation (page C-86). 2. Strategen presented about the modeling inputs and assumptions that have been determined by both GWP and Ascend (not based on Ascend’s forecasting). These assumptions relate to anticipated customer adoption of distributed energy resources (DERs) and the potential for developing utility-owned solar and storage in Glendale, based on local land availability. Strategen also presented on how the social cost of carbon will be considered in the modeling process. 3. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. Distributed energy resources (DERs) i. Why have only 3 percent of GWP’s customers adopted solar, which is low compared to the state average? GWP responded that the state average is skewed by customer adoption in investor-owned utility (IOU) territory. As of 2021, roughly 2.6 percent of GWP’s customers had solar. The average for POUs in California is roughly 4.7 percent. But for IOUs it’s 18 percent adoption. These utilities typically see the highest customer solar adoption because their rates are much higher than GWP (meaning customers have a greater financial incentive to adopt). Glendale’s distribution of single family and multifamily homes may also not be the same as other areas, which GWP said can limit solar adoption. Glendale has 24,000 single family homes, but 54,000 multifamily units or condos who might not be able to adopt solar unless their landowner or Homeowners Association allows them to. ii. One member noted that GWP’s pathway to 10 percent solar adoption would be different than IOUs, which can allocate the cost of achieving that goal back into customers’ rates. In contrast, GWP has little money available today to achieve the 10 percent goal and would have to come up with it to get that shift. iii. One member shared that they see huge upward potential for demand response programs in Glendale, given that the Franklin demand response program didn’t put much attention on renters. If incentives for renters are a focus, there could be much greater demand response gains. iv. One member wanted to better understand the assumption behind remaining potential residential solar adoption. After 20 years, how saturated is Glendale with solar and how many more homes do we honestly think will buy in? The member noted that for their home, solar is not a good choice. GWP replied that a lot of the decision on whether to have solar installed on your house comes down to how expensive your energy is. 324 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-70
GWP shared that as it’s been hearing more at Townhalls about multi-family residents’ interest in solar, it’s started to look into a few options. There is a program LA uses that might be able to help Glendale. The state also has a program, but only for investor-owned utilities. Some existing programs for multi-family units are very complex in that they require property owners to show they actually experienced a certain percentage decrease in energy use/demand for them to get an incentive. b. Utility-owned resource potential i. Why isn’t geothermal feasible to develop in Glendale? Strategen shared that there are no geothermal resources in the LA basin, which (along with land availability) makes geothermal not possible. The member suggested looking at deep geothermal to see if that was an option. Strategen noted that cost for deep geothermal may be prohibitively expensive. ii. Why isn’t the covering of certain structures with solar panels (like Verdugo Wash or others) is being looked at in this IRP? GWP responded that it doesn’t have sole purview over the Wash, the freeway, and some other resources, which would require LA to be involved. There are no talks being held on this option, to their knowledge. The member suggested that space could be better used. iii. One member commented that, even though the Scholl Canyon landfill is not being considered for immediate development because of land settling, there are sections of the landfill that have been close for a while, as well as parts of the hillside, that could be developed. This member noted they wanted GWP to look at these options deeper. GWP responded that it is considering lots of options and some projects have to take time to be rated. It also said installations of solar in that area might require upgrades to the distribution system. The member clarified why solar would require distribution upgrades when there will be a biogas plant already in that area. GWP responded that the size of the power plant doesn’t require a significant upgrade, but that power plant plus additional solar might push the distribution system beyond its limit. Presentation by Strategen Consulting recapping STAG Scenario 1 and presenting potential ideas for STAG Scenario 2 1. Strategen Consulting presented slides 22–27 of the STAG Meeting 4 Presentation (page C-86). 2. Strategen presented a recap of where STAG is with its two scenarios. The presentation included some results from a scenario preference survey sent to members prior to this meeting in which they agreed upon specifics of their Scenario 1 and high-level elements of Scenario 2. 3. See STAG Scenario Preference Survey Results (page C-73) for the results of the scenario preference survey. 4. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included:
325 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-71
a. Long-duration energy storage: i. What could it mean if STAG chose to assume LDES is available a few years sooner than anticipated? Ascend responded that could mean LDES is available for development in 2030, compared to 2035 or 2040 (for example). ii. Why is LDES tied to the natural gas power plant in the example scenario Strategen gave? Strategen responded that this example was just illustrative to show how various scenario elements could be married together. That example could get an answer to whether LDES would be sufficient to cover for a fossil fuel unit if it were retired. Replacing the power plant with an LDES project might also be advantageous for space availability. b. Affordability: i. Are any scenarios being run prioritizing keeping rates down? Strategen and GWP responded that yes, GWP’s third scenario will look at achieving California clean energy policy (100 percent by 2045) at the lowest possible cost, which may include greater use of renewable energy credits (RECs) than other scenarios. This is the affordability/lowest cost scenario. ii. One member noted that in Townhalls, not many members of the public are likely familiar with the topics STAG has been talking about. They noted that the first question the public might ask on scenarios is how will this affect my rates? Other members responded that most feedback received at Townhalls has tended to be focused on environmental impacts. GWP responded that it doesn’t yet know what the rate impacts of the scenarios will be because we haven’t run the model. Ascend responded that part of the IRP outcome is a simplistic rate impact analysis, but this doesn’t include entire projections on what ratepayers will pay. c. Hydrogen: i. How efficient is hydrogen actually, and how efficient would it be to deliver it to Glendale? GWP responded that the only discussion of bringing hydrogen to the LA basin is the one SoCalGas is having. It is seeking guidance on the rate impact of projects to build hydrogen infrastructure. 5. Ideas exchanged related to STAG’s second scenario included: a. One member shared they’d like STAG 2 to be as different as practical from any other scenarios so we can see a wide range of difference. b. One member shared they don’t see much value in integrating the early retirement of fossil resources in STAG 2 because those resources are unlikely to run frequently and forcing their retirement may tie GWP’s hands behind its back. 326 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-72
c. Several members shared that they felt strongly that Scenario 2 not have the same high assumptions around customer resource adoption as STAG Scenario 1, expressing skepticism that GWP could reach the high assumptions in STAG Scenario 1. They suggested a more moderate approach. d. Although multiple members preferred a quicker clean energy timeline and more ambitious assumptions around customer resource adoption, they ultimately accepted a more moderate scenario (between STAG 1 and GWP’s scenarios) as a compromise so that everyone in STAG could have at least one STAG scenario they supported. Outcomes of the meeting 1. STAG ultimately decided on a second scenario that will achieve 90 percent clean energy by 2035 and 100 percent clean energy by 2042. The scenario will take more moderate assumptions on local resource potential (both customer-sited and utility-owned) than STAG 1, meaning finding assumptions between GWP’s baseline and STAG 1. The scenario will also model the development of a long-duration energy storage project in Glendale. 2. Strategen will present STAG’s two proposed scenarios at the upcoming Townhall to gather community feedback. From there, STAG will consider this feedback and finalize its two scenarios at the next meeting. 327 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-73
STAG Scenario Preference Survey Results Strategen sent a 19-question survey to STAG members after the third meeting to determine the STAG’s preferences for the resource portfolio scenarios to be modeled as part of developing the IRP. Presented here are the results of that survey, absent the first three questions that gathered demographic data of each STAG member. Introductory Question Question 4: Do you have any questions on the GWP scenarios? § Why is biogas excluded from all three scenarios? There has been lots of talk of transmission constraints, and N-1-1. It seems to me that these 2 items should lead to some minimum amount of local generation / demand response. I think it would be useful to project minimum local sources by year and season. It looks to me that we are not allowing for sufficient dispatchable local resources. § Will the model give the best and worst case scenarios? The slow adoption of Solar by residents over the years which is currently, expecting a growth to 10 percent a large task. We have to think about old infrastructure and not every home is viable for solar installations. § Under CA Mandate—lowest cost scenario… Please clarify if 100 percent zero-carbon excludes the use of partial-carbon renewables (particularly biomass). If CA will allow renewable biogas/biomass after 2045, then I would like to see a scenario model that includes that resource. § What are the Ascend assumptions based on? Is the NREL Annual Technology Baseline part of the assumptions? Why are the 3 GWP scenarios presented when we were told that these are not set in stone and that community input could change them? (Scott Mellon said) § Shouldn’t we have as many scenarios for 2035 as for 2045? § In the “Clean energy delivered to Glendale” row, am I correct in assuming that “zero-carbon” and “clean” mean the same thing? A question I’ve been meaning to ask regarding all scenarios: I’m aware that a lower cost is generally more desirable, but does GWP have a cost beyond which it feels that it cannot go? In other words, does GWP have market data that suggests customers would not accept a rate increase beyond a certain amount? § I had hoped to hear from Brendon following our discussion at the last meeting. I have significant questions on the parameters that can be modeled. My interest is to see how two high level scenarios could be modeled. The first being a Practical Scenario which would contrast the two Clean Scenarios by testing when a practical approach selecting confirmed or contracted clean options could reliably achieve the Clean Energy Mandate. The second being an Idealized Scenario which would contrast the Affordable Scenario by testing the cost and timing of an ideal approach selecting the most progressive options to achieve the Clean Energy Mandate. § I think we should recommend an interim 2030 target for the Glendale Clean Energy Goal of 85 percent. I think that we should consider setting maximum allowable RECs in the CA Mandate lowest cost scenario. I don’t know how we could set this, but it will sure up this scenario from abuse. § I need to see percentages, cost, and kind of renewables proposed by STAG like Ascend did in 2019 for the 100 percent clean by 2030 report. 328 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-74
STAG Portfolio Scenario 1 Questions Question 5: How should portfolio Scenario 1 consider the City Council goal to have 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027? (Note: 3% of customers currently have rooftop solar.) Question 5 Results Figure 82. STAG Survey Q5 Results: DERs plus Storage “Other” responses § Fraction of customers should not be the goal, but MWh & emissions reductions should be the goal. § What policies do other municipalities use to achieve 10 percent? Would implementing those policies achieve the same level of adoption? Question 6: How should Scenario 1 consider the City Council goal to develop 100 MW of distributed energy resources (customer solar and storage, energy efficiency, demand response) in Glendale? (Note: This would amount to roughly 30% of Glendale’s total peak demand. GWP currently has roughly 30 MW of DERs in its system.) Results Figure 83. STAG Survey Q6 Results: DER Target in STAG Scenario 1 “Other” responses § 100 MW goal with details on policies that would facilitate achievement. 7 5
0 2
Scenario should achieve 10% goal (rapid adoption)
Scenario should assume moderately rapid adoption (for example, 7% of customers) I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
Scenario should achieve 100 MW goal
Scenario should achieve 75 MW
Scenario should achieve 50 MW
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
9 1
2 1
1 Scenario should achieve code
Scenario should not integrate code
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Scenario should achieve part of code (specify which part in question 10) 13 1
0 0
Neither of these should be excluded
Other (please specify)
Green hydrogen combustion in Glendale (assuming truly green), for instance in Wartsila units Green hydrogen fuel cells in Glendale (assuming truly green) 3 2
10 0
7 5
0 2
Scenario should achieve 10% goal (rapid adoption)
Scenario should assume moderately rapid adoption (e.g., 7% of customers) I’m unsure of I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
Scenario should achieve 100 MW goal
Scenario should achieve 75 MW
Scenario should achieve 50 MW
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
9 1
2 1
1 Scenario should achieve code
Scenario should not integrate code
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Scenario should achieve part of code (specify which part in question 10) 13 1
0 0
Neither of these should be excluded
Other (please specify)
Green hydrogen combustion in Glendale (assuming truly green), for instance in Wartsila units Green hyudrogen fuel cells in Glendale (assuming truly green) 3 2
10 0
329 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-75
Question 7: How should Scenario 1 consider the reach code adopted by City Council that requires new buildings be completely electrified, with accompanying solar installations and EV charging capacity? Results Figure 84. STAG Survey Q7 Results: Reach Code Target in STAG Scenario 1 Question 8: Should any of the following resources be excluded from being used in Glendale in Scenario 1 to provide dispatchable energy with high renewable usage? Note that: 1) coal is not listed as it is being phased out of GWP’s portfolio; 2) new biogas is not listed as it is already excluded; 3) nuclear and geothermal are not listed as they are infeasible for local development; and 4) new and existing natural gas is not listed as it will need to be phased out in this scenario to meet the established 2035 goal. Results Figure 85. STAG Survey Q8 Results: Resources to Exclude in STAG Scenario 1 7 5
0 2
Scenario should achieve 10% goal (rapid adoption)
Scenario should assume moderately rapid adoption (for example, 7% of customers) I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
Scenario should achieve 100 MW goal
Scenario should achieve 75 MW
Scenario should achieve 50 MW
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
9 1
2 1
1 Scenario should achieve code
Scenario should not integrate code
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Scenario should achieve part of code (specify which part in question 10) 13 1
0 0
Neither of these should be excluded
Other (please specify)
Green hydrogen combustion in Glendale (assuming truly green), for instance in Wartsila units Green hydrogen fuel cells in Glendale (assuming truly green) 3 2
10 0
7 5
0 2
Scenario should achieve 10% goal (rapid adoption)
Scenario should assume moderately rapid adoption (for example, 7% of customers) I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
Scenario should achieve 100 MW goal
Scenario should achieve 75 MW
Scenario should achieve 50 MW
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Other (please specify)
9 1
2 1
1 Scenario should achieve code
Scenario should not integrate code
I’m unsure or I don’t feel strongly
Scenario should achieve part of code (specify which part in question 10) 13 1
0 0
Neither of these should be excluded
Other (please specify)
Green hydrogen combustion in Glendale (assuming truly green), for instance in Wartsila units Green hydrogen fuel cells in Glendale (assuming truly green) 3 2
10 0
330 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-76
Question 9: It seemed at Wednesday’s meeting that the group was interested in a ‘high electrification’ assumption that would result in Glendale having increased electricity demand in the short term, relative to Ascend’s/GWP’s baseline assumptions. How should that assumption be considered in this, or the other, STAG scenario? Results Figure 86. STAG Survey Q9 Results: High Electrification Adoption in STAG Scenarios Question 10: In addition to the elements described here, is there anything else you’re interested in seeing tested in STAG Scenario 1? § I am concerned that all sources or local generation have already been eliminated except green H2. I don’t understand why geothermal & nuclear have been excluded or how we can meet demand without them. § I really don’t think my points are being covered. It’s ok to assume high electrification/adoption in any scenario—but you must also run scenarios that model moderate and severe underperformance. This is critical to quantifying the estimates. So, my answers above support only the high adoption scenario, but I would rather retract my answers than not include a scenario about what happens to reliability and cost if we underperform on internal generation. § Increased demand reduction. Community solar initiatives. Plans for multi-unit PV incentives. § 30 percent EV adoption by 2028 and then leveling off. § In the process of filling out this survey, I’ve come to think of STAG Scenario 1 as “the City Council Scenario.” What would it look like if all of City Council’s goals were met? So I would add anything that Council has made a goal that isn’t already included in this scenario. § I am more interested in understanding the capabilities of the models to contrast the existing three scenarios. § What is the impact of progressively more expensive fossil fuel prices to customer behaviors as well as how that impacts GWP. § The willingness to use GWP reserve funds to finance the cost of the Clean Energy goal ahead of the CA mandate. § Can we talk about emerging technologies that could be feasible in the STAG #4 please? It should be part of STAG scenario 1 (blue)
It should be part of STAG scenario 2 (orange)
It should apply to both STAG scenarios
It should apply to one scenario, but I don’t care which 3 1
8 0
2I don’t think we should use a high electrification assumption 7 3
2 4
1 New natural gas in Glendale (beyond what’s already present and contracted) Green hydrogen combustion in Glendale (assuming truly green), for instance in Wartsila units Green hydrogen fuel cells in Glendale (assuming truly green) None of these should be excluded
Other (please specify)
High electrification assumptions
Early retirement of fossil resources in Glendale
Ambitious assumptions on long-duration energy storage (12+ hour) cost reductions and commercial availability Ambitious assumptions on green hydrogen cost reductions and commercial availability (assuming the hydrogen is actually green) Ambitious assumptions on small modular nuclear reactor cost reductions and commercial availability (for procurement outside Glendale, not inside) 331 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-77
STAG Scenario 2 Questions Question 11: STAG Scenario 1 has a high-level vision of large customer contributions to clean energy goals and maximized local resource potential in Glendale. What high-level vision might you like to see tested in STAG Scenario 2? (Note that taking some time to think through this vision can help otherwise disjointed preferences come together in a coherent ‘version of the future’ that we can test.) § Clean, local generation. Allow all sources and allow the model to select lowest cost. § Not sure yet. § Utility-owned solar and energy efficiency. § How about 85 percent by 2035, 93 percent by 2040, 100 percent by 2045? I think we should seriously consider including biogas/biomass renewables in our scenario—at least until 2045 (which is the end-frame of this IRP, anyway). The point is to compare rosy outlooks with another scenario that takes advantage of time and available resources. From those comparisons, we can all make better decisions about cost, adoption rates, timing of resource availability, etc. § Assume customers are not going to be willing to contribute much to clean energy goals. § Large utility based contribution to solar energy (if possible via the ongoing phased projects and consultation. § We need to shoot for the cleanest options and research the best resources. Cost considerations for climate catastrophes, Health, agricultural production, and property values. § Maximize distributed solar. § I would like to see the following tested: 1. 20 MW of wind, onshore locally 2. 30 percent penetration of Solar PV Rooftop C&I with the use of IBIS powerNEST (https://ibispower.eu/powernest/). 3. Total solar PV residential use of 50 MW. 4. 10 percent reduction in energy use from energy efficiency, pricing that encourages efficiency, and demand response. § If Scenario 1 leans into Council’s goals, perhaps Scenario 2 could be something in between Council’s goals and GWP’s baseline. § Thinking of STAG Scenario 1 as my Idealized Scenario, STAG Scenario 2 would empathize reliability and minimal assumptions to create a practical model to reach the Clean Energy Mandate. § What are thresholds needed for incentives to trigger faster and wider adoption of clean energy alternatives? § I prefer to test both scenarios with the same assumptions and run the model again and test both scenarios with opposite assumptions-low customer adoption, and contribution and even higher levels of electrification from EVs. § A less ambitious time frame like we selected: 95 percent in 2035 and 100 percent in 2040. 332 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-78
Question 12: The clean energy timeline used in Scenario 2 should be… (please rank these options) Results Overall group ranking:
Figure 87. STAG Survey Q12 Results: Clean Energy Timeline Ranking Results Portion of STAG who selected each option as first, second, or last choice:
Figure 88. STAG Survey Q12 Results: Clean Energy Adoption Priority Details: § 64% of STAG put “90% clean by 2035, 100% by 2042” as their first choice (9 people) § 86% of STAG put “95% clean by 2035, 100% by 2040” as their second choice (12 people) § 71% of STAG put “100% clean by 2035” as their third choice (10 people) Note: The order of these three options was shuffled in the survey for each respondent so as not to bias the responses. 333 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-79
Question 13: If you feel very strongly that Scenario 2 should use a timeline different than the options above, please list your recommendation here. Please recall that 2 GWP scenarios will be run with a 2045 timeline and 2 will be run with a 2035 timeline (one STAG, one GWP). Please only list a recommendation here if you absolutely cannot live with one of the options in the previous question. § 85% by 2035, 93% by 2040, 100% by 2045. § One should be 2037/2038. § Scenario 2 should be a hybrid timeline. Together GWP and the STAG are running two 2045 and two 2035 timelines. The hybrid timeline should be a combination of the two. I would like to propose the following: an aggressive 60 percent by 2028 and then the California 2045 timeline after. § I would like the scenario to test the timeline not assume a timeline. 334 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-80
Question 14: How would you like to consider the high-level assumptions we agreed on for STAG’s Scenario 1 in Scenario 2? There are several options: § We can apply the same assumptions we will use in the STAG 1 scenario (informed by your selections above). § We can apply the same baseline assumptions being developed by Ascend that will be used in GWP’s scenarios. § Or we can apply middle-ground assumptions, which would fall between GWP’s estimates and the STAG 1 scenario. Results STAG was asked to select either ‘baseline,’ ‘middle-ground,’ or ‘same as STAG 1’ assumptions for these three scenario elements.
Figure 89. STAG Survey Q14 Results: Input Assumptions Considered in STAG Scenarios 1 and 2 Details Note these may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. § Customer solar + storage adoption ¨ Baseline assumptions: 36% (5 people) ¨ Middle ground assumptions: 29% (4 people) ¨ Same as STAG 1 assumptions: 36% (5 people) § Customer energy efficiency and demand response participation ¨ Baseline assumptions: 36% (5 people) ¨ Middle ground assumptions: 21% (3 people) ¨ Same as STAG 1 assumptions: 43% (6 people) § Utility-owned solar + storage potential in Glendale ¨ Baseline assumptions: 36% (5 people) ¨ Middle ground assumptions: 14% (2 people) ¨ Same as STAG 1 assumptions: 50% (7 people) 335 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-81
Question 15: How interested are you in seeing the following elements in STAG Scenario 2? Results STAG was asked to select either ‘actively opposed,’ ‘moderately opposed,’ ‘neutral,’ ‘interested,’ or ‘very interested’ for these five scenario elements:
Figure 90. STAG Survey Q15 Results: STAG Scenario 2 Elements Details Note these may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. § High electrification assumptions ¨ Actively opposed: 14% (2 people) ¨ Moderately opposed: 0% (0 people) ¨ Neutral: 14% (2 people) ¨ Interested: 43% (6 people) ¨ Very interested: 29% (4 people) § Early retirement of fossil resources in Glendale ¨ Actively opposed: 21% (3 people) ¨ Moderately opposed: 14% (2 people) ¨ Neutral: 7% (1 person) ¨ Interested: 29% (4 people) ¨ Very interested: 29% (4 people) § Ambitious assumptions on long-duration energy storage ¨ Actively opposed: 7% (1 person) ¨ Moderately opposed: 14% (2 people) ¨ Neutral: 0% (0 people) ¨ Interested: 29% (4 people) ¨ Very interested: 50% (7 people) § Ambitious assumptions on green hydrogen ¨ Actively opposed: 14% (2 people) ¨ Moderately opposed: 14% (2 people) ¨ Neutral: 43% (6 people) ¨ Interested: 14% (2 people) ¨ Very interested: 14% (2 people) § Ambitious assumptions on small modular nuclear reactors ¨ Actively opposed: 29% (4 people) ¨ Moderately opposed: 14% (2 people) ¨ Neutral: 14% (2 people) ¨ Interested: 29% (4 people) ¨ Very interested: 14% (2 people) It should be part of STAG scenario 1 (blue)
It should be part of STAG scenario 2 (orange)
It should apply to both STAG scenarios
It should apply to one scenario, but I don’t care which 3 1
8 0
2I don’t think we should use a high electrification
assumption
7 3
2 4
1 New natural gas in Glendale (beyond what’s
already present and contracted)
Green hydrogen combustion in Glendale
(assuming truly green), for instance in Wartsila units
Green hydrogen fuel cells in Glendale
(assuming truly green)
None of these should be excluded
Other (please specify)
High electrification assumptions
Early retirement of fossil resources in Glendale
Ambitious assumptions on long-duration energy storage (12+ hour) cost reductions and commercial availability
Ambitious assumptions on green hydrogen cost reductions and commercial availability (assuming the hydrogen is actually green) Ambitious assumptions on small modular nuclear reactor cost reductions and commercial availability (for procurement outside Glendale, not inside) 336 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-82
Question 16: Should any of the following resources be excluded from being used in Glendale in Scenario 2 to provide dispatchable energy with high renewable usage? Note that: 1) coal is not listed as it is being phased out of GWP’s portfolio; 2) new biogas is not listed as it is already excluded; 3) nuclear and geothermal are not listed as they are infeasible for local development; and 4) existing natural gas is not listed as it is covered in the ‘early fossil retirement’ option in the previous question. Results Figure 91. STAG Survey Q16 Results: Excluded Resources from STAG Scenario 2 “Other” response § BESS greater than 50 MW It should be part of STAG scenario 1 (blue)
It should be part of STAG scenario 2 (orange)
It should apply to both STAG scenarios
It should apply to one scenario, but I don’t care which 3 1
8 0
2I don’t think we should use a high electrification assumption 7 3
2 4
1 New natural gas in Glendale (beyond what’s already present and contracted) Green hydrogen combustion in Glendale (assuming truly green), for instance in Wartsila units Green hydrogen fuel cells in Glendale (assuming truly green) None of these should be excluded
Other (please specify)
High electrification assumptions
Early retirement of fossil resources in Glendale
Ambitious assumptions on long-duration energy storage (12+ hour) cost reductions and commercial availability Ambitious assumptions on green hydrogen cost reductions and commercial availability (assuming the hydrogen is actually green) Ambitious assumptions on small modular nuclear reactor cost reductions and commercial availability (for procurement outside Glendale, not inside) 337 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-83
Question 17: Is there anything you’re interested in seeing in Scenario 2 that we didn’t mention here? § I want to see nuclear (anywhere) & local geothermal. § I think that we should run a scenario of the RATEPAYER LOWEST COST THROUGH 2045 as the driver of resource adoption and timing. Let the model tell us whether it will keep costs lowest if we pay for nnMW of commercial/residential rooftop PV right now—or whether we can save costs by implementation over a longer period. Some transmission sources won’t be immediately available, so the model can tell us when we can fold those into our mix (and at what cost). I know the planet is in bad shape, but I don’t believe that Glendale should be zero-tolerant of carbon by 2035. We alone cannot make much difference. I know that other systems around the country/world are also trying to do their share. I just don’t believe that we will keep costs down by demanding that we buy into local PV and distributed batteries immediately. Or that importing zero-carbon energy will be the least cost scenario. I’m not advocating that we buy power from 100 percent NG generators, but we could until 2045. I think that massive carbon reduction is the right way to go, but I think that slower adoption will result in lower costs (rather than fast adoption). I’m very interested in seeing the cost/timeline data from comparative scenarios! That’s the only way we can all have a good discussion and make value choices. I think that it would have been very helpful to the STAG if we’d been presented with the head-to-tail carbon impact and technical/cost outlines for various resources. All scenarios have been presented as equal cost, equally available—and ANY carbon is demonized (as is nuclear). I think that’s a mistake. It’s leading to a wide range of expectations, rather than allowing us to have value discussions of these options. Even the state wants us to collect biomaterials so they can compost on industrial scales—and there will be plenty of beneficial outcomes to that—including electric generation that uses 87 percent less carbon than NG ICE. Zero-tolerance is getting in our way of making rational cost-effective choices. § Increased community outreach for demand response. A clear plan for rooftop solar expansion to 10 percent and beyond. Incentive programs to reach rooftop solar goals. New green staff leadership within GWP. § 30 percent EV adoption by 2028 and then leveling off coupled with lower general energy prices and lower inflation. § Based upon the questions of the survey, I would like to develop scenarios that test new ideas not simply variations on the existing three scenarios. I see a greater benefit to testing and modeling new approaches rather than providing more detail on the established approaches. 338 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-84
Question 18: Is there anything we didn’t ask about in this survey that you’d like the group to consider in their scenarios? § Consider revisiting a Virtual Power Plant in the future § We must have clear numbers for the cost of gas energy production at Grayson and Scholl. The so-called social cost of carbon needs to be considered for every source of energy. We should have 3 STAG scenarios, not 2. GWP mentioned this several times as a possibility. § Run more scenarios. § The 2024 and 2028 elections. Both those dates fall between the five-year IRP timeframe. Both major parties have vastly different policies on energy. It would be prudent to walk the middle path or risk being on the wrong side of federal policy if we are too aggressive one way or the other. Energy resource projects from planning to completion take time. Much can change during those dates. § Looking at the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting, I would like to have a high-level discussion of the capabilities of the models and an open discussion to coalesce ideas around new concepts. There is strong interest in developing an Idealized (or perfect world) Scenario which would have the greatest possible impact on the efficient adoption of the Clean Energy Mandates. How can a model be created that tests that feasibility? As a counterpoint to that, a reliable practical approach would be beneficial. § Emerging technologies—which ones are nearest to implementing? 339 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-85
Question 19: Any other feedback for us or GWP? (It can be related to scenarios or not!) § So long as both scenarios have weighted values for the following in the order of importance: 1. Reliability 2. Affordability 3. Sustainability. § High expectations of uncontrollable customer behavior can lead to future issues if these expectations are not met. § Why are we not making city-sited solar a priority over the Grayson rebuild? What is the plan for building out DERs on rooftops around the city? Why has it taken so long to write an RFP, evaluate proposals and hire the best consultant for this process? How can we improve communication between GWP and the public going forward? § There are a number of STAG members who are more skilled at running fair and efficient meetings than the consultants you hired. § GWP may want to further explore the cost benefits of expanding its use of deliverable electricity futures and similar products instead of increasing BESS. GWP, like other companies benefit from the use futures as insurance and not for speculation. A BESS requires a significant amount of capital, is highly depreciable (including RTE and degradation), bad for the environment (both to produce and retire), and difficult to extinguish in case of a fire. Less megawatts of storage would be needed if more geothermal were acquired. Either way, solar, wind and geothermal would all require transmission. The difference is geothermal transmission would come from the south bypassing the issues from the traditional AC/DC interties. Geothermal might appear more expensive using LCOE but it delivers power thought the day. Solar and wind only can compete with the addition of a BESS. I’ve already mentioned why a BESS is a bad investment. The firm and reliable power of geothermal is worth the investment § I encourage a greater focus on the development of the scenarios by noting ideas and concepts outside of the project scope in the “parking lot” and presenting those out-of-scope ideas as additional projects to be considered by Council and directed to the appropriate department to develop initiatives further. § Given transmission issues, we must prioritize how and whether we can get to some of these goals without assuming the ability for more transmission, given amount of time and cost. 340 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-86
STAG Meeting 4 Presentation Ascend Analytics and Strategen Consulting gave the following presentation during the fourth STAG meeting. Ascend began by giving an example of an integrated resource planning modeling process (slides 5–9), then continued by discussing three central modeling inputs: lead forecast, energy market prices, and energy resource costs (slides 10–17). Strategen then presented the modeling inputs and assumptions, especially about DERs and utility-owned solar plus storage, and the modeling process considers the social cost of carbon (slides 18–21). Strategen then recapped the STAG’s two scenarios and the results from the STAG’s scenario preference survey (slides 22–27).
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + GWP 2024 Integrated Resource Planu
Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group Meeting 4August 9, 2023 2 Agenda+Understanding what initial results of scenario modeling look like (40 min)+Presentation from Ascend Analytics (15 min)+Q&A (20 min)+Understanding the inputs and assumptions informing scenario modeling (55 min)+Presentation from Ascend Analytics (20 min) and Strategen (5 min)+Q&A (30 min)+Break (5 min)+Full-group discussion on community-preferred scenarios (75 min)+Brainstorming for Saturday’s townhall (10 min) 3 Objectives for this meeting
+Help STAG members understand what results of the modeling process look like.+Discuss modeling inputs and assumptions.+Agree on further detail of STAG’s scenarios.+Coalesce around two visions for STAG scenarios, with as many details as possible.+Brainstorm an approach for Saturday’s townhall. 4 We have a lot to get through tonight! +It’s really important that we have enough time to discuss and align (at a high level) onSTAG scenario 2 tonight, so we can take what we come up with to Saturday’s townhall.+We ask that everyone stay focused on the topic at hand so we can get through theagenda on time.+If you have questions that we would be able to circle back to you on at a later date, please writethese down and we’ll address them with you offline.+We may need to move along from fruitful discussions for the sake of time but can circleback to these conversations at future meetings. 5 Example Model Outputs (Note for illustrative purposes only) 6 New Resource Builds
341 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-87
7 Accredited Capacity
8 Nameplate Capacity
New storagestorageNew hydrogenotherHydrogenbiomassgasNew solarsolarNew windHydroGeothermalNuclear Q&A (20 min)
10 Load Forecast
11 Load Forecast•The base load forecast uses the CEC planning forecastoBase load forecast is adjusted based on the GWP goal of 1.8% EE savings each year•Peak load uses the CEC 1 in 10 peak load forecast 12 Base Load Forecast
13 Base Load Forecast + EE and Electrification
14 Price Forecasts
342 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-88
Ascend Analytics Fundamental Forecasting Framework
Power FlowsRamps
Marginal UnitCurtailment
Price FormationLoad
Renewable Generation
WeatherFundamental AnchorsLong-run equilibriumAlignment with Markets Meaningful Uncertainty
Barriers to Entry
Climate & RPS Policy
Electrification
Load Growth
Technology Costs
Policy and Macro AssumptionsSupply Stack
Transmission
Buildout
Interconnection Queue
Stakeholder Demand
RT Price Spikes
VolatilityLong-run on/off-peak forwards
Price Shapes
Outputs
Capacity Prices
Ancillary Prices
Cost of Land
Market Forwards
16 Some forecasting questions to ponder (beyond the economics)…•The ESG Trajectory:oWhat percentage of major companies will be pursuing 100%clean energy by 2030 due to ESG goals, shareholder pressure,and/or efforts to attract young workers?▪What about 24x7 clean energy?oWhat percentage of utilities and municipal utilities will bepursuing 100% clean energy by 2030 due to ESG goals orstakeholder pressure?•The Policy Trajectory:oWill any states loosen or fail to meet their clean energy targets?oHow many states are likely to tighten their clean energymandates?oHow many states are likely to adopt 100% clean energymandates?oHow will financiers and state regulatory commissions viewstranded asset risks for thermal generation? A forecast should be based on the FUTURE of policy and demand, not the present 17 Resource Cost Forecasting•Forecasting the cost of new resources considers public forecasts such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory AnnualTechnology Baseline (ATB)oATB provides a common view of new costsoATB considers the cost to build new resources, not the offtake structure to procure the resource•Near term resource costs are anchored to current costs to procure new resourcesoAscend works with utilities across California on resource procurement which provides an understanding of where current costs are 18 Assumptions around distributed energy resources (DERs)+Energy efficiency:+GWP will be assuming historical performance on energy efficiency (roughly 1.8% of retail sales).+This figure was estimated by a prior analysis to be the near-maximum EE gains in GWP’s system and isroughly what the utility achieves on an annual basis.+Demand response:+GWP will be assuming roughly historical performance on demand response gains (~3.5 MWreduced over 4 years).+This figure comes from the success of the Franklin demand response program, which the city is runningthrough next year via a third party that runs DR programs across the country.+That program initially targeted 10 MW of demand response, but to date has only achieved 2.8 MW.+Customer solar:+GWP is refining its customer solar estimates but anticipates assuming growth in line with roughlydoubling total MW over the next 10 years. This would be ~52 MW total. 19 Assumptions on local land availability for utility-owned resources+Glendale has limited available land for resource development.+Local nuclear and geothermal are not options for this reason.+Grayson units 1-8 land availability:+This land is being converted to host the Wartsila natural gas-powered internal combustion engines andnew utility-scale batteries.+GWP has goals on utility-scale resources it plans to develop in the city (City Solar).+It is targeting 4 MW of utility-owned solar by the end of 2025 and 10 MW by 2030.+The sites that are solar-ready now under Phase 1 are: Brand Landfill, Sports Complex, GCC lot 34,Central Library, UOC Parking Lot, and the Perkins building.+Scholl Canyon landfill:+A decision is currently pending on the type of cover and any time necessary for the landfill to settleprior to new development.+For this reason, Scholl is not included as a site for the Phase 1 solar goal (above). But Scholl couldpotentially provide 5 MW by 2030. 20 Social cost of carbon analysis+All scenarios will be run with the California Air Resources Board price on carbon, giventhat GWP will have to pay that cost when dispatching any carbon-emitting resource.+A ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC) sensitivity analysis will also be run on all scenarios to seehow the portfolio would behave if a higher price of carbon were placed on the resourcesin that portfolio.+The SCC sensitivity wouldn’t necessarily impact the resources that are part of the portfolio, but itwould change how frequently carbon-emitting resources would be called upon.+Ex. In a given scenario that considers only the CARB carbon price, the Wartsila natural gasengines might run at 5% of their total capacity. After applying the SCC sensitivity to the portfolio,those units might only run at 2% because they’d be uneconomical to run more.+A source for the SCC hasn’t yet been decided.+EPA is currently updating its SCC but had suggested $190/ton. This value hasn’t been finalized bythe agency.
Q&A (30 min)
22 Scenario discussions+Scenario 1:+Have high-level vision and high-level assumptions agreed upon.+Will need to align on specific assumptions (e.g., specific MW deployment levels for certainresources).+We have some suggestions on this, but we won’t delve deeply into them today.+We can return to these assumptions at the meeting on 8/23.+Scenario 2:+There are multiple potential directions to take for scenario 2, which we need to align on today.+We need to leave today’s meeting with a high-level vision for scenario 2 to present at Saturday’stownhall. 343 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-89
Figure 92. STAG Meeting 4 Presentation Slides
23 STAG scenario 1: Local resources, achieving City goals+Overall goal of scenario: To examine themaximum impact of local resources inGlendale’s portfolio (including customer-sited resources) and model theachievement of all of Glendale’s cleanenergy goals.+Timing: 100% clean energy by 2035.+Assumptions:+Glendale achieves City Council goal of 10%of customers with solar and storage by 2027.+Glendale achieves 100 MW of DER goal. +Glendale achieves reach code of newelectrification, with accompanying solar andEV charging installations.+Glendale experiences higher-than-anticipatedelectrification.+Glendale maximizes local resourcedevelopment with high assumptions aroundutility-owned solar and storage potential.+Resource details:+No resources are excluded. 24 What would it look like to have 10% of GWP customers adopt solar? +10% of all customers adopting solar would mean solar on 8,900 rooftops.+2,700 rooftops currently have solar in Glendale.+10% of Glendale’s single-family homes already do have solar.+Glendale has 24,000 single family homes. Roughly 2,500 of these have solar.+The average installation size for single family homes is 6 kW.+There are 54,000 households in Glendale that aren’t fully capable of installing solar.+45,000 multifamily homes. 9,000 condos.+The amount of MW that achieving the 10% goal can generate will depend where those solarinstallations are placed.+Single family homes have lower solar capacity than commercial and industrial facilities.+Achieving the 10% goal will require launching new programs to expand access to solar forcustomers who haven’t traditionally been able to opt in. 25 Potential assumptions on STAG scenario 1+Energy efficiency:+GWP is assuming 1.8% of retail sales per year.+STAG could target 2% of retail sales per year.+Demand response:+GWP is anticipating achieving ~3.5 MW of demand response over a 4-year period.+STAG could target 10 MW by 2028 (assumes achieving the target of the Franklin DR project).+Customer solar + storage:+GWP is anticipating ~52 MW of customer solar.+STAG is targeting 100 MW of DERs total, including customer solar + storage. 26 STAG scenario 2 ideas – based on member survey+Overall goal of scenario: To bedetermined!+Timing: 90% clean energy by 2035, 100%by 2042 was most popular (9 people).+Assumptions of interest:+A majority of the group is interested intesting either middle-ground or similarassumptions to scenario 1 on customer andlocal resources.+Most interest in the same assumptions on utility-scale solar and storage potential (7 people).+Glendale experiences higher-than-anticipatedelectrification (10 people). +Long-duration energy storage drops in costand becomes commercially available quickerthan anticipated (10 people).+Resource exclusions of interest:+No new natural gas in Glendale (7 people).+Early retirement of fossil resources in Glendale (8 people).+Options to leave behind:+Ambitious assumptions on green H2 (4 opposed, 6 neutral).+Ambitious assumptions on small modular nuclear (6 opposed, 2 neutral). 27 Potential ‘visions’ for scenario 2+Vision 1: High customer participation andhigh utility-owned resource potential, witha middle-ground clean energy timeline.+Same assumptions as scenario 1, withtimeframe as central difference. +Vision 2: Moderately high customerparticipation and utility-owned resourcepotential, with a middle-ground cleanenergy timeline.+Middle-ground assumptions betweenAscend/GWP baseline and scenario 1.Essentially softening the goals and timeline. +Vision 3: Phase out fossil resource (e.g.,final Grayson unit) a few years sooner thananticipated and replace it with a long-duration energy storage project.+Assume ambitious LDES gains.+Any assumptions could apply here – same asscenario 1, middle-ground, or baseline.
Preparing for Saturday’s townhall
28 +Do STAG members have any suggestions for how to present what we’ve discussed at thetownhall this week?+Any other items that you think are important to get community feedback or input on? 344 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-90
STAG Meeting 5: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 STAG Meeting 5 Minutes Overall takeaways 1. Ascend Analytics presented initial results from modeling two of GWP’s scenarios. These results are not set in stone and the modeling is still in progress. 2. After the third Townhall meeting at which community members expressed a desire for another STAG scenario (in place of GWP’s third scenario), GWP and Ascend Analytics agreed to make a third scenario available to STAG. Rather than replace GWP’s third scenario, the IRP team opted to increase the number of scenarios being modeled, for a total of six (three GWP scenarios and three community scenarios). 3. STAG discussed options for the third scenario and ultimately decided on an approach that would be an intermediary to its two existing scenarios. 4. STAG’s three proposed scenarios are: a. A 100 percent clean energy by 2035 scenario that integrates City Council’s various clean energy goals, with a focus on local resources. The scenario will model accelerated electrification compared to GWP’s scenarios. b. A 90 percent by 2035, 100 percent by 2042 scenario that models a long-duration energy storage project built in Glendale during the IRP period. The scenario will take a “middle path” on local resource assumptions, falling between STAG’s first scenario and GWP’s baseline. c. A 90 percent by 2035, 100 percent by 2040 scenario that takes comparable assumptions to Scenario 2 on local resource potential. Presentation from Ascend Analytics about initial results from modeling two of GWP’s scenarios 1. Ascend Analytics presented slides 4–14 of the STAG Meeting 5 Presentation (starting on page C-100). 2. Ascend presented initial results from the modeling of two of GWP’s scenarios: the California policy scenario and the Glendale goal scenario. For both scenarios, Ascend had results on the resource buildout required to meet the scenarios’ clean energy goals (100 percent by 2045 for California policy, and 100 percent by 2035 for Glendale goal) and on the timeline at which each scenario would meet the requirements of California’s renewable portfolio standard and clean energy mandate. Additionally, for the California policy scenario, Ascend presented the scenario’s overall energy mix and its carbon emissions through 2045. 3. Disclaimer: The results presented during this meeting were preliminary only and will change before the IRP is finalized. 4. Ascend’s presentation included: a. California policy scenario resource buildout 345 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-91
i. This graphic (slide 5) shows new resources that will be built each year to meet California’s clean energy mandate (100 percent by 2045). New resources start being built in 2027, which reflects the time it will take GWP to plan for and build any new projects. (2027 is the start date only for completely new resources; any resources already contracted/planned for construction before 2027 will still be assumed to be built on-schedule.) ii. Note that this graphic only reflects utility-owned resources. No behind-the-meter, customer-owned resources are displayed here as those are “baked in” to the model and do not emerge as an output in the results. This graphic also does not display any existing resources on GWP’s system. iii. There are two main reliability constraints to consider when we decide what resources to build: Having sufficient capacity to meet demand, even at peak demand (like the N-1-1 conditions in which major resources go offline). Loss of load hours (LOLH)—measures how many hours in a year GWP is unable to meet customer demand, on average. (Ideally, a portfolio will have an LOLH of 2.4 hours, or less, lost in a year.) iv. The internal combustion engines (Wartsila units) that will be coming online in a couple of years are a main resource that can help GWP meet these capacity requirements. But to retain enough capacity over time, the model’s main reliability resource is 4-hour batteries. v. You can see that the only resource being built from 2035 onward is 4-hour batteries. From 2035–2044, the model adds 5 MW of batteries each year. In reality, that’s not how GWP would be likely to go about procuring those (it’d likely be larger MW of batteries procured every few years). All this storage is incremental to the 75 MW that’s already planned for development locally as part of the Grayson Repower. vi. The other three resources being chosen by the model to meet reliability constraints are new geothermal, new wind, and new solar. Before 2030 when the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement kicks in, the model chooses to add a lot of new renewable generation (in the form of geothermal and wind). From a $/MWh (megawatt-hour) perspective, the least-cost way to hit the Renewable Portfolio Standard targets in the model is to choose new geothermal and wind. The capacity of these resources is really important when the model chooses them, even more important than cost. Solar is the least expensive resource of these three, but as we get more and more renewables on the system, the resource’s capacity factor plays a bigger role in what resource is chosen in the model. (If you went back a few years, it would’ve been the opposite and the cheapest resource would’ve been selected first.) Wind can produce energy for a greater portion of the time than solar, meaning it’s worth more of its total nameplate capacity (that is, it has a higher capacity factor). That’s why the model is choosing new wind and geothermal over more solar because wind can help meet reliability requirements. b. Glendale goal scenario resource buildout 346 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-92
i. Again, this graphic (slide 6) doesn’t display any existing resources on GWP’s system. Like with the other scenario, behind-the-meter resources are “baked in” to the model and not displayed as an output in this graphic. ii. In this scenario, we replace local fossil resources like internal combustion engines, Grayson, and Magnolia with a fuel that doesn’t produce carbon emissions to meet the 100 percent clean energy by 2035 constraint. The model chose 90 MW of hydrogen combustion turbines and 25 MW of 8-hour storage as replacement resources. Because this scenario has more ambitious clean energy requirements, we’re going beyond the needs that 4-hour batteries can meet and into the area where we need longer storage. For the purposes of this model, we assume that hydrogen will be available in 2035. The model put all the hydrogen buildout in 2035 because it’s most cost effective to run natural gas all the way through that point, right up until the clean energy target date. In reality, GWP would likely operate differently and pursue blending of hydrogen before 2035. So the model showcases the hydrogen buildout simplistically. iii. Other than that difference, the results are relatively similar to the California policy scenario. We have an early buildout of geothermal, which the model likes as both a clean energy resource and capacity-providing resource. And then wind and 4-hour storage to have sufficient energy on top of what already exists. 5. Total new resource additions a. Slide 7 gives a view of the aggregate buildout of new utility-scale resources. In the Glendale goal scenario, the model builds 80 MW more resources, because this scenario is retiring gas units and replacing that capacity, meaning we have to build out significantly more. b. The California policy scenario makes more incremental investments compared to the Glendale goal scenario. 6. California policy energy mix a. Slide 8 shows the overall energy mix through the IRP period for the California policy scenario. Immediately, you see a big jump in geothermal. Coal retires as the Intermountain Power Project transitions from coal to a natural gas/hydrogen blend. And over time, reliance on natural gas decreases. 7. California policy clean energy a. Slide 9 shows when the California policy scenario will be meeting California’s clean energy requirements—a 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard In 2030, and 100 percent of retail sales from clean energy by 2045. GWP is hitting its RPS targets 1–2 years sooner than it needs to. b. You can see there’s a gap here between the blue line (which reflects all clean energy) and the green line (which reflects just renewable resources as defined by California). Things that would be “clean” energy, but not “renewable” energy, are nuclear and large-scale hydropower, so that’s why the blue line is higher than the green. 347 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-93
c. The modeled portfolio ultimately gets to 110 percent RPS/clean energy, which gets at 1) making up for when resources are generating compared to when you have demand you need to meet, and 2) having enough capacity in reserve. 8. Glendale goal clean energy (slide 10 was skipped for time) 9. Dispatchable resource capacity factors a. This graphic (slide 11) displays how much GWP would actually run dispatchable resources in the California policy scenario, as reflected by their capacity factors. (Dispatchable resources are those GWP can quickly turn on and off to meet system needs during stressful periods. Capacity factors are reflected as a percentage and indicate what percent of a resource’s maximum potential generation, that is, its nameplate capacity, it actually produces.) i. The lighter blue line at the top is the Magnolia unit—that stays relatively constant over time. ii. The yellow line is the Intermountain Power Project. Once that starts to move away from gas (in 2035) and convert to hydrogen, it will contribute more toward clean energy requirements while having less impact on the carbon constraints of the portfolio. That means you’re going to run it more, resulting in it having an increasing capacity factor. iii. In orange the 54 MW of internal combustion engines (Wartsila units) stay relatively low. Their usage starts to trend upward toward the end of the IPP period, but that has very little impact on emissions, because the fossil retirements taking place more than offset their usage. b. California policy carbon emissions i. Slide 12 displays the year-by-year carbon emissions for the California policy scenario. ii. There are very quick reductions in the early years of the IRP period as IPP is retired from coal. As renewables are added, those become much bigger portion of the resources meeting demand, and emissions continue to drop across entire study. iii. It’s important to note that there are still carbon emissions in 2045 in this California policy scenario—the operation of natural gas resources doesn’t go to zero. (This is because California’s clean energy mandate only applies to retail sales of energy, not total energy generated. That allows utilities to continue to run non-renewable, carbon-emitting resources like natural gas for a very small portion of the time, as long as the amount of electricity generated by those resources doesn’t exceed the amount of electricity lost in the transmission and distribution systems.) iv. The remaining emissions in 2045 are a tiny fraction of current emissions. It’d be huge step forward to go to even this California policy case, let alone the 2035 goal. The question then becomes how much you’re willing to pay to reduce the last chunk of emissions down to zero. 10. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. Hydrogen: i. Multiple members raised concern with the assumption around hydrogen availability underpinning the results of the Glendale goal scenario. They wondered if hydrogen is likely to exist at that scale in 12 years, given it is virtually nonexistent today. 348 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-94
Ascend acknowledged that this is a large assumption to make, but that projects are ongoing that are likely to ramp up hydrogen supply (Intermountain Power Project, federal hydrogen hubs, etc.). Strategen noted that there are also federal power plant regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency that may require use of hydrogen in the future, resulting in market development. Strategen acknowledged that it is challenging to create reliable assumptions this far out, and there is uncertainty with how the future will develop. Since the IRP is revised every 5 years, GWP will know more about the hydrogen situation the next time this plan is created and can revise its assumptions based on the latest knowledge. If the model suggested hydrogen be built imminently, that would be more of a cause for concern given the constraints in hydrogen supply today. Since the model isn’t forecasting a need for hydrogen until roughly a decade from now, GWP has more time to plan and let the market develop before placing too much reliance on hydrogen. ii. One member clarified whether the use of hydrogen in the Glendale goal scenario would be developed or imported. GWP responded that it would be imported, in the way that the Intermountain Power Project is doing (from Utah to the LA basin). SoCalGas is currently examining its ability to import hydrogen to the LA basin through a rate case. iii. Are we worried about nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions if so much hydrogen is being selected to meet the 2035 clean energy goal? GWP responded that NOx is created when hydrogen is burned in the presence of oxygen. Hydrogen combustion would create NOx, but can be managed in the way GWP does with natural gas pollutants. GWP also explained that solar + storage isn’t as dispatchable (meaning GWP can quickly turn the resource on and off to meet system needs) as hydrogen, so hydrogen might fulfill a different role in its portfolio. b. Transmission: i. One member asked whether these results consider what the transmission impacts of the portfolio are, given that the selected resources are predominantly remote, not local. Ascend responded that their analysis does consider limits on transmission lines, but these results come out of their Production Cost and Resource Adequacy models, which have not yet been run. The initial results presented today show which resources can be built, irrespective of where they are. The next layer of modeling will take a more granular view of the GWP system and pinpoint where energy will come from. The initial results shown here display what various resources could generate if they were producing at their peak. At peak production, the energy generated would be more than 349 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-95
transmission capacity. The maximum transmission capacity will be 247 MW after 2027 (when a new project is completed). But even with that additional capacity, there’ll still be a bottleneck. ii. One member noted that the model seems built for importing resources, but there’s an inherent tension with that assumption. Not all resources can be developed externally because of transmission constraints. But utility-scale development locally runs into space constraints. That could suggest a need for more emphasis on customer-sited resources. c. Geothermal: i. One member asked whether the model’s heavy reliance on geothermal reflects projects that are already planned and are likely to be available, or if it’s an aspirational assumption. Ascend responded that there is a large amount of geothermal potential that can be developed. Ascend’s model isn’t over-projecting what might be available. The question is whether the resources will be developed at the prices they expect. GWP added that there are numerous locations where geothermal can be accessed, but not all are cost effective. GWP was involved in geothermal projects a few years ago which underproduced and never met the capacity they expected. Geothermal can be risky, but GWP is still looking at procuring it. d. Solar: i. GWP and some STAG members raised points about the lifecycle emissions of certain renewable technologies, like solar, as something that should be considered when comparing technologies to each other. Ascend clarified that this IRP doesn’t look at lifecycle emissions, only those created to generate energy. ii. One member asked why existing solar projects aren’t reflected in the modeling results for either scenario. Ascend responded that the modeling outputs displayed in this meeting don’t display resources that are already existing or contracted in GWP’s system. Both existing utility-scale solar and customer solar and “baked in” to the model to account for their contribution, but not displayed in these graphs. iii. One member asked why there seems to be a mismatch between City Council’s emphasis on solar (like creating a pathway to 10 percent customer adoption) and Ascend’s scenario results, which don’t show rapid solar buildout. Ascend responded that Council’s efforts pertain to behind-the-meter customer solar, not utility-scale solar, which the model is concerned with. So they are two different issues. Ascend’s model includes ‘baked in’ assumptions about how much new rooftop and local solar will come online, although these are not displayed in modeling results. iv. One member raised that they have a hard time believing that Ascend’s model thinks hydrogen is more efficient and cost effective than solar. 350 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-96
Ascend responded that it’s not necessarily that hydrogen is more efficient or cheaper than solar, but that the resources fulfill different needs in GWP’s system. Hydrogen offers a value that solar might not provide, that is, providing dispatchable power at times of peak demand. v. One member asked whether the life expectancy of solar projects is taken into consideration in the model. Ascend responded that many energy contracts are priced on a $/MWh generated basis. That means that a longer solar contract could cost more total, but the price per unit of energy would be less compared to some other resources. e. Greenhouse gas emissions: i. Comparing slide 8 with slide 12, how is it possible that emissions are going so far down when natural gas in the portfolio remains basically the same? Ascend responded that this discrepancy stems from a flaw in the visualization in slide 8, in which hydrogen blended with natural gas (for instance, in the Intermountain Power Project, or IPP) are lumped together under the ‘natural gas’ label. In reality, natural gas would ramp down and hydrogen would ramp up as the IPP is transitioned fully to hydrogen. ii. In response to Ascend’s point about the added costs of getting carbon emissions down to zero, one STAG member commented that things could change that would make the cost more reasonable in the future. f. Other: i. Can you clarify what nameplate capacity is? Ascend responded that nameplate capacity refers to the most energy a resource will ever generate. If you hear someone talking about 100 MW of solar, that’s referring to nameplate capacity. There’s another type of capacity (called accredited capacity) that considers a resource’s reliability impact, so it’s adjusted to reflect when the resource produces energy compared to when demand is. A cloudy day won’t reduce solar’s nameplate capacity. It would reduce solar’s actual energy output. It would also impact the accredited capacity. Presentation from Strategen Consulting on third Townhall and scenario implications 1. Strategen presented slides 14–27 of the STAG Meeting 5 Presentation (starting on page C-100). 2. Strategen presented a readout of the third Townhall and introduced the addition of a third STAG scenario. 3. Questions and discussion points among the STAG related to this presentation included: a. One member asked how GWP’s first and third scenarios (the California mandate and the lowest cost scenarios) are different, noting that the California mandate scenario would likely already optimize for cost? 351 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-97
i. Strategen responded that the first scenario will not be as cost sensitive as the third scenario, meaning the results are likely to look different. The third scenario will take the lowest-cost option to comply with California’s clean energy mandate, including the use of renewable energy credits (RECs) when cheapest. The first scenario won’t include as much of a reliance on RECs. The first scenario could also go ‘above and beyond’ California’s mandate by achieving 100 percent clean energy slightly faster, potentially at an incrementally higher cost. The third scenario would likely not do that, because it would always opt for the lowest-cost resource selection. ii. Strategen also clarified a question raised at the third Townhall about the use of RECs in GWP’s third scenario. The question had asked whether that strategy might ultimately be more expensive than GWP developing clean energy itself, given the increasing social cost of carbon and price of RECs. Strategen explained that GWP’s third scenario doesn’t prioritize the use of RECs above all other strategies; it prioritizes the lowest-cost option. The hypothesis going into this scenario is that there are likely to be cases where purchasing RECs is cheaper than GWP developing clean energy itself. But if it turns out that isn’t the case, then the model will select the new clean energy development instead. While the social cost of carbon is increasing over time, the most salient carbon price for this scenario is actually the CARB carbon price (the price at which RECs are sold), given this is the price GWP will have to pay for using resources that emit greenhouse gases. b. One member asked where the CARB prices being used in the model came from. In Ascend’s ‘key assumptions’ spreadsheet (which was shared with members before the meeting), the carbon price listed seems lower than the allowance price reached at a recent sale. They said they weren’t familiar with the details of that auction, but saw that allowances sold for more than the stated CARB carbon price for this year. i. Ascend responded that it wasn’t familiar with this particular sale, but that their assumptions on CARB’s carbon price are aligned with the floor price, because historically the market has cleared at that price. That floor price grows exponentially year over year. Polling exercise and discussion on STAG Scenario 3 1. Strategen conducted a poll of the STAG to gauge their interest in potential directions to take for STAG Scenario 3. These were used as a starting point for discussion among the group. 2. The poll asked members to reflect on elements that are missing from existing scenarios that they might want to test in STAG 3; elements from existing scenarios that they’d like to include in STAG 3; the year at which STAG 3 should achieve 100 percent clean energy; and whether there should be an interim clean energy target before reaching 100 percent. 3. See STAG Meeting 5 Presentation slides 14–16 (starting on page C-100). 4. After STAG took the poll, discussion included the following: a. Some members wanted to see a scenario that reflects the life cycle environmental impacts of resources being evaluated, like electric vehicles, and how that might impact customer adoption. i. Strategen responded that a life cycle analysis is not possible in the IRP, but that STAG could opt to assume that fewer customers adopt EVs than GWP anticipates. 352 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-98
ii. Strategen also noted it can add this idea to the ‘parking lot’ of topics that have been raised by STAG, but that aren’t possible to integrate in the IRP, for report out at a later date. b. One member suggested adopting 2040 as a compromise 100 percent clean energy year, given that the group was fairly split in its preference. (A majority of members favored a 100 percent clean energy date between 2040 and 2045, with no year having a majority.) Other members seemed to agree with this suggestion. c. One member suggested the group take an approach suggested by some attendees at the third Townhall, which would result in a more moderate version of STAG’s Scenario 1 (relaxing some of the emphasis on customer-sited resources and doing so with a 100 percent clean energy date between 2035–2040). i. This member emphasized the importance of taking direction from Townhall attendees given that people go out of their way to come to Townhalls, especially the last one which was held on a Saturday. They noted that, while GWP might say STAG was chosen to be representative of Glendale, it is not actually representative. There are only three women and one person under the age of 40 in STAG. They stated Townhalls often have different demographics, with younger attendees and more renters than STAG. d. One member suggested adopting more conservative estimates on distributed energy resources (DERs) than are being assumed in GWP’s scenarios to model what the impact would be if customer DER adoption was lower than anticipated. i. Several members pushed back on this idea, saying that GWP’s scenarios already take a ‘conservative’ view on DER adoption and STAG’s scenarios should explore higher assumptions. 5. After the group discussed these points and a handful of ideas emerged, Strategen launched an addition to its original poll and asked the group to vote on the ideas raised for STAG 3. a. See the results of these two questions (questions 5 and 6) on STAG Meeting 5 Presentation slides 23–24 (starting on page C-100) Outcomes of the meeting 1. STAG agreed on a third scenario with the following characteristics: a. Achieving 90 percent clean energy by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040. b. Developing 75 MW of distributed energy resources by 2040. (This is a lowering of the DER requirements in STAG’s Scenario 1. STAG 1 will model 100 MW of DERs, per Council goal.) 353 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-99
Next steps 1. Strategen will send a survey to STAG to decide on the detailed assumptions going into all three STAG scenarios. Once results are received (and shared with STAG), Strategen will send these assumptions to Ascend to begin modeling. 2. Strategen, Ascend, and GWP are compiling a public ‘key assumptions’ spreadsheet, following a request at the last Townhall, which will outline major data points driving Ascend’s model. This document has already been shared with STAG, but additional time will be provided for STAG review and questions before it is finalized. Strategen will be organizing optional STAG office hours for members to ask questions on both this document and the assumptions survey. 354 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-100
STAG Meeting 5 Presentation Ascend presented initial results from the modeling of two of GWP’s scenarios: the California policy scenario and the Glendale goal scenario (slides 3–13). Strategen then presented a summary the third Townhall (slide 14), introduced the addition of a third STAG scenario (slides 15–16), and presented the results of the STAG poll about elements to include in the third STAG scenario (slides 17–26).
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + September 6, 2023
GWP 2024 Integrated Resource Planu
Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group meeting 5
2 Agenda+Initial results of GWP scenario modeling (55 min)+Presentation from Ascend Analytics (20 min)+Q&A (35 min)+Readout from community townhall and poll on STAG scenario 3 (10 min)+Break (10 min) +Full-group discussion on STAG scenario 3 (60 min)+Finalization of STAG 1 and 2 scenario details (30 min) +High-level overview and discussion of Ascend’s key assumptions spreadsheet (10 min) 3 Objectives for this meeting
+Present initial results of the modelingof GWP’s scenarios for discussionand feedback+Finalize details of all STAG scenarios,including the new STAG scenario 3 4 Initial modeling results
+DISCLAIMER: All results presented in the following slides are preliminary. The data included here will change before results are finalized for inclusion in the IRP.+The slides present initial results from two of GWP’s scenarios:+California policy: 100% zero-carbon energy by 2045+Glendale goal: 100% clean energy by 2035 5 CA Policy Resource Buildout
0102030405060708090100
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Nameplate Capacity (MW)
4 Hour StorageGeothermalWindSolar
GWP relies on solar and wind generation to meet RPS and clean energy goals while 4hour storage provides capacity
6 0
50 100
150
200
250
202720282029203020312032203320342035
Nameplate Capacity (MW)
4 Hour StorageGeothermalWind8 Hour StorageHydrogen CT
Glendale Goal Resource BuildoutA combination of hydrogen generation and 8-hour storage to replace the carbon emitting resources - -
355 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-101
7 Total New Resource AdditionsCA PolicyGlendale GoalWind240 MW250 MWSolar5 MWGeothermal50 MW50 MW4-hour storage205 MW165 MW8-hour storage25 MWHydrogen CT90 MWTotal500 MW580 MW 8 CA Policy Energy Mix
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Energy Generation Axis TitleNuclearGeothermalWindSolarHydroCoalOtherNatural GasStarting in 2027, renewable generation becomes a substantial portion of GWP energy generation 9 CA Policy Clean Energy
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%RPS/Clean Energy percent of Retail Sales RPSClean Energy
100% Clean Energy
60% RPS
10 Glendale Goal Clean Energy
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%RPS/Clean Energy percent of Retail Sales RPSClean Energy
100% Clean Energy
60% RPS
11 Dispatchable Resource Capacity Factors
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Capacity Factor
Grayson Unit 9 ICE - 54 MW IPP Repower with Hydrogen Magnolia IPP Converts to 100% Hydrogen
Reliance on natural gas generation declines through the 2020s 12 CA Policy Carbon Emissions
01234567
2024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039204020412042204320442045 Carbon Emissions (Million Tons)
Carbon emissions from GWP supply resources decline rapidly over the IRP period Q&A (35 min)
14 Readout from third community townhall+Several community members called for more transparency in the inputs and assumptionsdriving Ascend’s model.+One person asked for a public document to be released.+This is why Ascend has created its key assumptions spreadsheet to share publicly.+Multiple community members raised concern with GWP’s scenario 3 (CA mandate – leastcost) and called for replacing it with a third community scenario.+After discussion, GWP has decided not to eliminate its scenario 3 because some STAG memberswere interested in seeing an affordability-centered scenario.+Instead, GWP and Ascend are making a third scenario available to STAG, for a total of 6scenarios. 356 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-102
15 Things to consider in developing STAG scenario 3+What gaps are left in current scenarios that STAG scenario 3 could fill in?+Is there any community input from townhalls that hasn’t been adequately integrated into current scenarios?+Can any of the current scenarios act as a basis for STAG scenario 3, with modifications?+For example, take the same assumptions on high local resource potential as STAG 1, but push the clean energy timeline back. 16 Reminder summary of scenariosScenario100% clean energy dateMeets CA mandateMeets Glendale goalBaseline assumption changesCA mandate2045X --Glendale 2035 goal2035XX--CA mandate – least cost2045X •Requires use of lowest-cost resources, which couldinclude RECs up to maximum limit.Local resources + accelerated electrification2035XX•Integrates all City Council clean energy goals.•Assumes maximum customer DER participation.•Assumes maximum utility-owned solar + storage inGlendale.•Assumes accelerated electrification.Middle path + long duration energy storage2042X •Assumes higher customer DER participation thanbaseline (lower than above).•Assumes higher utility-owned solar + storage inGlendale than baseline (lower than above).•Assumes LDES project developed in Glendale.
Poll on STAG scenario 3
18 Poll results – 1/6
19 Poll results – 2/6
20 Poll results – 2/6 (continued)
21 Poll results – 3/6
22 Poll results – 4/6
357 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-103
Figure 93. STAG Meeting 5 Presentation Slides
23 Poll results – 5/6
Note: This question was asked after analyzing the results of question 3, in which most STAG responses favored a 100% clean energy date of 2040 or later. One member proposed a 2040 date as a compromise, which this poll was meant to gauge group opinion on. 24 Poll results – 6/6
Note: In this question “conservative DERs” meant conservative assumptions about customer adoption of distributed energy resources, below the assumptions GWP is making in its scenarios. “Elongated/slightly lower version of STAG 1” was shorthand for taking ambitious assumptions on customer DER adoption by 2035 and either elongating them (a similar MW target over more years) or lowering the customer adoption slightly. 25 Finalizing STAG scenarios 1 and 2 – detailed assumptions+Strategen will share the STAG scenario summary document, talk through suggestions, andtake STAG questions and comments.+STAG needs to decide on two assumptions:+Accelerated electrification assumption for STAG scenario 1+Clean energy definition for STAG scenario 2 26 Discussion on Ascend key assumptions spreadsheet+Strategen will share the spreadsheet and walk through it at a high level.+The spreadsheet will also be discussed at STAG office hours next week before beingreleased publicly.
Next steps in IRP process: STAGs, townhalls, etc.
27 +9/27: STAG meeting 6+Discuss draft IRP and the representation of the stakeholder engagement process in the report+Wrap-up STAG by soliciting feedback on IRP process and suggested improvements for next IRP+10/4: Townhall 4 (tentative)+Present modeling results to community for questions, discussion, feedback+Present GWP’s thinking on its preferred scenario +Discuss the representation of community input in the IRP draft+This townhall date may be pushed to the following week depending on modeling progress.+GWP Commission meeting+GWP will provide IRP updates at Commissionmeetings in October and November.+Glendale City Council updates+GWP is scheduled for an update to Council inlate September. 358 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-104
STAG Meeting 6: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 STAG Meeting 6 Minutes Overall Takeaways 1. Ascend presented the modeling results from 5 of the 6 scenarios, with the exception of GWP’s third scenario, which will look largely the same as GWP’s first scenario, but with a portion of the renewable energy projects replaced with offsets. 2. The scenarios’ cost differ widely, with the price highly dependent on whether natural gas resources are being completely retired, or if they’re still able to run at very low capacity for reliability. The cost of transitioning natural gas units over to hydrogen is a significant portion of the costs for GWP 2 and all of STAG’s scenarios. 3. STAG, GWP, and its consultants continued to discuss the likelihood of some of the model’s technology assumptions becoming true, namely its assumptions around the availability of hydrogen and long-duration storage. Ascend described that the modeling results all point for a need for technological innovation to meet clean energy goals. 4. All scenarios result in nearly identical actions over the first 5 years of the IRP period, although there are differences in rooftop solar buildout. From there, they diverge depending on their clean energy timeline, whether certain resources are being retired, etc. Ascend described that the near-term similarity of all these scenarios means there are several “no-regrets” planning investments GWP can make now to create progress for the next 20 years. Ascend Analytics Introduction to Modeling Results 1. Ascend’s modeling included several phases: a. The scenarios were first run through a “capacity expansion” model. The results of this modeling select resources that are available to meet GWP’s energy needs. b. The “production cost” model then shows how GWP’s system would operate with the resources selected in the capacity expansion model. It simulates transmission constraints and has to match the selected resources with Glendale’s anticipated load. c. Ascend also does some “hand adjustments” based on the results of these models. For instance, the models like batteries, especially 8-hour batteries, and choose to build a lot of them. But then these batteries only get cycled 50 times a year, which isn’t really a good investment. Ascend sees this dynamic happening and manually tries to replace those batteries with other things to correct it. 2. Capacity expansion inputs and assumptions (slide 4): a. The capacity expansion model considered a variety of resources. i. Geothermal:
359 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-105
All California utilities would like to get more geothermal, but it’s scarce and they can’t find it. Geothermal is a great resource because it’s clean and firm (that is, around the clock) energy. There are a couple companies looking at enhanced geothermal to get past its scarcity. Ascend limited the geothermal buildout to 50 MW. In inland California, that would come in through the SWAC transmission line. ii. Wind: Wind could be located in the Washington state area and come to Glendale via the Pacific DC Intertie transmission path. We’re in a weird world right now with wind. Wind is very constrained. Idaho and other areas are facing those constraints: there are developers who want to build, but interconnection and permitting are all backlogged. There will be wind soon, though. iii. In addition to utility-scale solar, each scenario had a different amount of behind-the-meter solar. iv. Basically every model says build geothermal, then wind in the Pacific Northwest. Then bring in solar through the SWAC line. v. Long-duration storage was also considered to be available in the future. 3. Production cost models (slide 5): a. The outputs from the production cost model are where you can see how much carbon emissions are generated, how much energy is generated by each resource in a realistic setup, and what the market interactions are. b. Ascend ran the production cost models, made adjustments, and ran them again in an iterative process. 4. Clean vs. zero carbon emissions (slide 6): a. California’s 2045 clean energy mandate applies to retail sales. Of every 100 MW you generate, at least 90 of it needs to be clean, because roughly 10 of it is lost in transmission. i. The upshot is that, according to SB1020, you can have some natural gas in your system post-2045, but you can’t use it very much. ii. Right now, this is calibrated annually, rather than hourly (that is, on a 24/7 basis). b. Zero carbon emissions is more strict. This definition says no greenhouse gas emissions, pure and simple. That means no natural gas in the system at all. c. GWP 1 and 3 adhere to California’s definition of clean energy, while GWP 2 and all of STAG’s scenarios achieve zero carbon emissions. 5. Scenarios (slide 7): a. GWP 3 results are not presented today because the production cost model is wrapping up. But it’s basically a spinoff of GWP 1 and will look similar, but with substituting some amount of renewable generation with renewable energy credits. 6. Key findings (slides 8–10): a. A transition to a clean energy system relies on technical progress. i. Models that rely on wind, solar, and four-hour batteries aren’t sufficient. 360 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-106
ii. We need at least medium duration batteries (8–10 hour), and ideally long duration batteries (multi-day). There’s a company called Form Energy that makes batteries that can store 100 hours’ worth of energy, called iron air batteries. Ascend assumed that the most LDES that could be built was 50 MW. The good thing about these batteries is they’re very environmentally inert. But they require a large amount of land (3 MW per acre). The drawbacks are they don’t make these batteries yet. But the company exists and they’re doing pilots. Long-duration batteries have only 60 percent efficiency (so you lose 40 percent of the energy). Medium-duration batteries have 90 percent efficiency. iii. Also need clean and firm generation that’s dispatchable (that is, can be ramped up and down quickly to meet needs). Clean hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, renewable natural gas, and nuclear small modular reactors are all options. We picked hydrogen to fill this role because we think it’s most likely. b. A full transition requires replacement of in-basin natural gas resources (Grayson 9, internal combustion engines, and Magnolia) with firm, clean options. i. With no new resource additions, you’d have 372 MW of resources in GWP’s baseline portfolio. But you need 416 MW of capacity to meet load growth. So you need to add 44 MW of new local capacity to meet that load growth. ii. In several scenarios, we’re taking out local fossil resources, so we need to build replacements for those. iii. The reason we have to build them in Glendale is because we’re worried about the weak point of having only two central transmission lines. c. Geothermal, storage, hydrogen generation, and wind are selected most by the model. i. Solar isn’t selected even though it’s cheap and abundant. The model didn’t automatically pick solar because it doesn’t provide that high of a value for the time of day at which it generates energy. Ascend manually added solar by replacing a portion of the model’s suggested wind generation with solar. 7. Summary of results (slide 12): a. The cost numbers are net present value for the next 23 years. They reflect total costs. i. These numbers show what happens when you go fully clean. The large price difference between the scenarios is mostly a function of hydrogen cost, which comes into play when you retire gas plants and transition them to hydrogen. ii. Note: The cost numbers presented at this meeting have since been updated. The figures presented in this slide do not reflect the most recent results. b. STAG member question: Why does STAG 1 achieve so much more than 100 percent clean energy in 2035? 361 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-107
i. Ascend: STAG 1 is generating a lot more than you need at times. That’s because there’s a lot of rooftop solar in that scenario, as well as more utility-scale solar. The result is that the clean energy generated in a given year would be well over Glendale’s actual energy use. The excess is either sold into a market, curtailed, or not used. This doesn’t mean the clean energy generation is high all the time – it just means that, on average over that year, that scenario did over-generate energy. ii. This is also the case for other scenarios that go over 100 percent clean energy. c. STAG member question: Can’t GWP make money from selling excess generation? i. GWP: You’re not necessarily making money from over-generating. Oftentimes you’re losing money. The overgeneration from the middle of the day (like when solar produces) goes into negative pricing. In some cases, you’d have to actually pay someone to take that energy. ii. A STAG member commented that the energy could also be stored in a battery. Modeling Results: California Policy Scenario (GWP Scenario 1) 1. GWP California Policy buildout (slide 13): a. Anything above the “0” line in this graph is added. Anything below is taken out. b. Before 2027, all scenarios look essentially the same. In 2025, we add in the Intermountain Power Plant’s (IPP) natural gas and hydrogen resources. Then retire its coal resources the following year. c. In 2028, the model starts building storage. A little bit of solar is added, too. d. By 2035, IPP is fully hydrogen and is therefore carbon free. That transition to hydrogen is reflected by the natural gas resources that appear to be retiring in 2032 and 2035. e. The model doesn’t remove any natural gas in 2045 because remaining natural gas resources don’t run above the 10 percent capacity allowed under California law. 2. GWP California Policy capacity (slide 14): a. Note this is capacity, not energy. Capacity reflects the total technical potential of resources to generate energy, not the energy they actually generate. i. That’s why the natural gas bars (light grey) are so large here, even through 2045. In this scenario, we aren’t retiring natural gas units and they remain available to meet GWP’s reserve requirements. They might run sometimes, or they might not ever run. This graph shows the total potential that each resource could provide, not the energy it will provide. b. Early on you see coal (black bar) goes away as IPP is transitioned. 3. GWP California Policy energy mix (slide 15): a. In this slide, you can see that natural gas usage is actually much less than its total capacity. This is really Magnolia, which has a minimum generation requirement. It’s considered a resource that always has to be online and operating. i. The Magnolia contract is complex because there are six cities associated with the project. If any one of them needs energy, all the partners have to take it. ii. So for system stability, Magnolia stays on. 362 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-108
b. STAG member question: Is that contract online after 2045? And do we get dinged every time someone needs to turn it on? i. GWP: Magnolia has a much longer life than we would anticipate. There is a study right now in which all owners are trying to make sure Magnolia is kept in our portfolio, but is clean (that is, transition it to hydrogen or another clean fuel). Believe they’re targeting around 2040. c. STAG member question: What’s causing the big jump in load between 2028 and 2029? i. Ascend and GWP: In that year, there are a few large new customers coming online which we considered in our demand projections. We got the base load forecast from the California Energy Commission, then we adapted it to account for new customers like those. 4. GWP California Policy RPS and clean generation (slide 16): a. California’s mandate requires that by 2030, renewable resources have to cover 60 percent of load. That’s represented by the green line, which goes along with the righthand Y axis. b. The green and blue bars together make up all the clean MWh that GWP is generating. They correspond to the lefthand Y axis. c. By California policy, “renewable” and “clean” resources mean different things. Clean resources (the blue bars) include things that are carbon free but don’t meet the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requirement (for example, nuclear, large hydropower, hydrogen). Renewable resources (the green bars) include wind, solar, geothermal, small hydropower, and landfill gas (like Scholl). d. You can see from the green line that this scenario will be well in excess of the 60 percent RPS requirement by 2030. Close to 78 percent by 2030. e. As we move through time, the percent of renewable and clean energy in this portfolio goes slightly down, because there’s load growth happening. 5. GWP California Policy costs (slide 17): a. Note: The cost numbers presented at this meeting have since been updated. The figures presented in this slide do not reflect the most recent results. b. The cost of new resource additions across the IRP is reflected in net present costs. c. To arrive at net present costs, we consider the capital cost of all the resources in the model, levelized over a period of time (like the life of the project). d. So, for instance, the cost of adding geothermal (red bar) is spread out across the graph. As we move through time, we’re accumulating annual expenses to pay for the resources. e. We then add all those bars back into the present value and integrate a 5 percent discount between each year (meaning the expenses later on are less than the near-term expenses). That then gives us the net present cost of the resource portfolio. 6. GWP California Policy carbon emissions (slide 18): a. We remove carbon emissions from IPP early on. Emissions continue to decrease after IPP converts to hydrogen, meaning natural gas carbon emissions become a lot more stable. 363 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-109
Modeling Results: Clean by 2035 Scenario (GWP Scenario 2) 1. GWP Clean by 2035 build out (slide 19): a. This scenario differs from the last in that it has a lot more storage. b. Natural gas all goes offline here to be completely zero emissions by 2035. That looks like a retiring of natural gas (the large grey bar) and a simultaneous coming online of a hydrogen resource (green bar). 2. GWP Clean by 2035 capacity (slide 20): a. You can see a lot more storage at the top of these bars. b. By 2035, the capacity has grown a lot. As we get more lower-capacity-value resources (resources that don’t run all the time), we end up overshooting the peak load, meaning over-generating energy. c. You can see in 2035 all natural gas goes away and we’re carbon free from that point on. d. The 2035 bar is lower than the rest of them because it reflects the retirement of natural gas in that year. We’re still able to cover the load with the 600 MW of capacity that’s in the portfolio, then, though. 3. GWP Clean by 2035 energy mix (slide 21): a. So you can see some differences here from the past slide. In the past slide, geothermal wasn’t that big from a capacity perspective, but since it generates around the clock, it has high energy content. The geothermal here equates to 50 MW. b. This particular scenario doesn’t have as much new solar as the others. 4. GWP Clean by 2035 RPS and clean generation (slide 22): a. We’re actually at over 100 percent clean energy by 2035. 5. GWP Clean by 2035 costs (slide 23); a. Note: The cost numbers presented at this meeting have since been updated. The figures presented in this slide do not reflect the most recent results. b. The big jump in costs in 2035 is what happens when you add hydrogen in the model. c. The challenge here is that I don’t know how much hydrogen will cost in 2035, so there’s uncertainty. But we made assumptions based on our best knowledge today, which were developed by Ascend’s market research team. They anticipate that later on, hydrogen will be a bit more expensive than natural gas. 6. GWP Clean by 2035 carbon emissions (slide 24): a. When you retire natural gas and transition it to hydrogen, all carbon emissions go away. Modeling Results: STAG Scenario 1 1. STAG 1 buildout (slide 25):
364 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-110
a. The results here are similar to the last scenario, but the differences are in the ordering of when these resources come online. 2. STAG 1 capacity (slide 26): a. You can see behind-the-meter (BTM) solar is a much larger part of this scenario’s capacity than in other scenarios, due to high assumptions on customer solar adoption. 3. STAG 1 energy mix (slide 27): a. You can see that the load here (black line) is affected by the larger contribution of BTM solar. In this slide, that solar is built into the load projection (because it impacts people’s energy demand) rather than being displayed as a separate resource. When 90 MW of BTM solar comes online in 2028, the load line is lowered. b. This scenario also included more aggressive energy efficiency. So that flattens out the load where it would grow otherwise. c. STAG member question: Why is there a dip in load only in 2028 and then it goes right back up in 2029? i. Ascend: That’s because we have all the BTM solar coming online in 2028 and then largely leveling off after that point, with slight increases in adoption after that. Also, the load goes up in 2029 because of the new project coming online, which offsets some of the contributions of solar and efficiency. d. STAG member question: What about customer storage? We have wasted power during the day. i. Ascend: We didn’t give a capacity accreditation to customer storage, although we did assume some growth in customer storage in this scenario. 4. STAG 1 RPS and clean generation (slide 28): a. The RPS in this scenario is well over the California requirement, exceeding even 100 percent in some years. 5. STAG 1 carbon emissions (slide 29): a. As with the last scenario, carbon emissions completely go away with the retiring and transition of all natural gas resources. 6. STAG 1 costs (slide 30): a. Note: The cost numbers presented at this meeting have since been updated. The figures presented in this slide do not reflect the most recent results. b. In terms of costs of customer resources like rooftop solar, we modeled this scenario with net energy metering. If you install solar panels on your roof, the extra solar that’s generated gets sold back into the grid. You’re avoiding paying to buy that energy, but GWP is instead buying it from you. So there is a cost to GWP of expanding rooftop solar and other distributed resources displayed here. c. As with the last scenario, hydrogen is the largest contributor to costs. 365 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-111
Modeling Results: STAG Scenario 2 (slides 31–36) 1. Note: At the time of the STAG meeting, the results from this scenario needed to be validated and some inaccuracies corrected. The accompanying PowerPoint reflects this updated information, but STAG did not talk extensively about this scenario due to the changes required. 2. When looking at the resource buildout for this scenario (slide 31), you can see that the model retires natural gas units at the last minute to be able to meet this scenario’s 2042 zero emissions requirement. Modeling Results: STAG Scenario 3 (slides 37–42) 1. The main difference between this scenario and the last one is that hydrogen comes online sooner in this case. 2. These results were only quickly highlighted to allow time for questions and discussion. Open Discussion and Questions: 1. Scenario costs a. Multiple STAG members commented that it’s difficult to know what the scenario costs actually mean without knowing how they would impact rates. They requested more information on this point. b. GWP shared that the current proposed rate increase amounts to roughly $500 million in total, which is similar to the capital cost of the GWP California Policy scenario. The IRP’s cost is different than the current rate increase, though, because it’s spread out over 20 years. In certain years, there’d likely be big jumps in cost as resources shift (like 2035). c. One STAG member noted that energy efficiency technologies and BTM resources may be counter to GWP’s desire to increase revenue. i. GWP responded that revenue growth doesn’t matter to them. They have fixed costs that go into rates. ii. STAG members and GWP discussed where GWP’s revenue goes, noting that not all revenue goes into energy production. Some of it goes back to the city for use on other public goods and services. It isn’t up to GWP to decide what to do with its revenue – that’s largely up to City Council. d. One STAG member noted that it’s hard to take any cost projections past 2028 seriously due to future unknowns. They said they’d be very surprised if this year’s projections remained true in five years. i. Ascend underscored this point, noting that projecting across 20 years is a difficult exercise and there are large uncertainties. 2. Social cost of carbon (SCC) a. One STAG member wanted to know more about the social cost of carbon analysis and if data could be presented on total scenario costs with the SCC added. b. GWP responded that one challenge with looking at the SCC is that there is no mechanism to collect money or pay any party that value. c. STAG members responded that the SCC is meant to reflect costs that individuals and society would pay due to carbon emissions, although not necessarily through utility bills. 366 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-112
d. GWP also added that the difference between scenarios with regards to their SCC is not as large as you might expect, given that coal is being phased out and GWP already plans to run its natural gas units less frequently in the future. 3. Near-term outlook a. Ascend emphasized that, although the IRP looks out to 2045, we’re only in 2023. This process will be repeated in 2028, meaning that what GWP does from 2023–2028 matters most. In the near-term, all scenarios show GWP needs to look for more geothermal, storage, solar, and wind, while continuing to plan for the period after that. When the IRP is done again in 2028, new developments are expected (like IPP running on hydrogen), meaning we’ll know more about the likelihood of hydrogen technology then. b. A STAG member asked how the scenarios differ in the first five years. i. Ascend responded that the only scenario that substantively differs in the near-term is STAG 1, which requires a large buildout of customer solar. The other scenarios all indicate you need more geothermal, wind, and a little bit of solar, then to invest in energy storage in the late-2020s. After the first five years, the differences really come down to timing – do you replace natural gas in 2035, 2040, 2042? Or not at all. 4. New models for clean energy a. One STAG member raised that there’s a local community choice aggregator (CCA), which Glendale seems to be exempt from, and asked why. i. Strategen responded that CCAs don’t apply to municipal utilities, so using a CCA is not possible in Glendale. b. One STAG member asked about community solar and why it hasn’t been integrated in the models. They noted that community solar is ideal for tenants and multifamily housing. i. GWP agreed community solar is uniquely suited for renters and multifamily housing. GWP explained that the primary community solar model includes a developer creating a solar project shared among community “owners,” with the energy generated at that project offsetting part of the participants’ electric bills. But they typically require an upfront investment to buy part of that project, which not everyone can afford. As people buy into community solar, they contribute less to utility costs via their electric bills. Those who are left without community solar may then pay a greater share of the fixed cost of electric rates, which can create an equity issue. ii. The STAG member noted that subsidies can help offset some of the community solar costs and help more people afford it. They were also curious whether there are other community solar models besides that which GWP described. c. One STAG member shared an article stating that technologies are available today to reach 100 percent clean energy, predominantly with solar, wind, etc., but that we need to talk more about efficiency solutions like heat pumps. d. One STAG member asked if stacking battery storage units is possible to save acreage. i. GWP explained there’s only one vendor considering stackable batteries at the size they’d need. This vendor is the same one they’re considering for the Grayson Repower sites. The company 367 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-113
hasn’t perfected the technology with regards to withstanding things like earthquakes and fires. But part of the reason GWP selected that company’s technology was for the potential that the batteries could stack in the future. 5. Hydrogen a. GWP and STAG members discussed the Intermountain Power Project in depth. GWP described that, despite the inefficiencies of converting renewable energy to hydrogen, the project is still critical for reliability and helps GWP meet clean energy requirements. Having hydrogen in its portfolio can also help GWP overcome transmission constraints. 6. Transmission a. One STAG member asked whether developing new transmission might be the cheapest way to access clean energy. i. GWP responded that people have been wanting to develop transmission for the past 35 years, but none has been built in that time. It’s a question of will, rather than cost. Land challenges also come into play, with communities saying, “not in my backyard.” Next Steps 1. Ascend will send out a finalized version of its modeling results to STAG for their review. 2. Strategen will send out a survey to STAG soliciting input on modeling results and members’ preferred scenarios after members have a chance to review the final results. 3. GWP will look at STAG’s survey results and discuss its options for a preferred scenario. This scenario selection will be presented to GWP Commission on November 6, 2023. 368 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-114
STAG Meeting 6 Presentation
1 November 1, 2023
STAG meeting 6: Modeling results
2 Disclaimer•This presentation has been updated from the version presented to STAG at its 6th meeting to correct for inaccuracies and fill in some missing information. The updated version was shared with STAG after the meeting. •Even after this updated version, some data related to hydrogen costs changed. As a result, certain slides that reflect scenario costs are no longer accurate. A note has been included on these slides to reinforce this point. 2 Modeling Process•Modeling for the 2023 IRP was conducted in the phases shown belowoBaseline model with GWP’s current and planned resources§Provides insight for GWP’s portfolio for near term decisionsoCapacity Expansion Models§Outcome of Capacity Expansion models provide the timing and quantity of new resource additions to meet the GWP requirements for capacity and renewables§Resource selection is based on economics and the ability of resources to satisfy GWP needsoResource Adequacy Models§Provide metrics on the ability of GWP’s system to serve load all hours of the year over a wide range of system conditionsoProduction Cost Models§Outcome of production cost models show how GWP’s system would operate with the resource selection from the Capacity Expansion model§Important outputs include renewable generation serving load, carbon emissions, and portfolio costs 3 Capacity Expansion Inputs/Assumptions•The following resources were considered in the GWP modelsoGeothermal –Provides firm power around the clock via the SWAC transmission pathoWind –Could be located in the Pacific Northwest via the PDCI path or the Southwest via the SWAC pathoSolar –Available in Southern California via the SWAC pathoHydrogen –Assumes CT or ICE generators can run on 100% hydrogen by 2035oLong Duration Storage –Assumes a 100-hour battery available by 2035oLi-Ion Storage –Model included 4-hour and 8-hour storage options. •Resource selection met the capacity and the RPS/Clean energy requirementso60% RPS by 2030o100% Clean by 2035 or 2045•Transmission was not directly modeled in the Capacity Expansion phase, instead limits were placed on resource construction 4 Production Cost ModelsOutputs from Capacity Expansion models are fed into Production Cost models•Resources are added to one of three locations: Glendale, Southwest (SWAC line), Pacific Northwest (PDCI line)•The model simulates GWP’s system on an hourly basis, stepping through time to dispatch resources and serve load•Outputs includeoCarbon emissionsoEnergy generation by resource oLoadoTransmission flowsoMarket interactions•Ascend ran the Production Cost models multiple times to adjust resources around the transmission limits and hit the RPS/Clean energy requirements Define Clean vs Zero Caron EmissionClean Generation per California policy mandates•Utility serves retail load with carbon-free energy•Retail load is approximately 90% of “gross” load which includes power losses in the transmission and distribution lines. •SB 1020 requires utilities to provide enough carbon-free energy to cover roughly 90% of load (depending on the actual power losses in the utility) Zero Carbon Emissions is more strict•A portfolio with zero-carbon emissions with have no fossil fuel generation 6 ScenariosGWP•Clean by 2045 per current California policyoMeets RPS and Clean energy requirements with long-term contracts•Zero Carbon Emissions by 2035oMeets the City Council target of fully clean by 2035•Clean by 2045 with REC purchases for offsetsoMeets RPS and Clean energy requirements partially with purchased RECs STAG•Zero Carbon Emissions by 2035oHigh DR, High BTM Solar, DER batteries•Clean by 2042oMid DR, Mid BTM Solar, DER batteries•Zero Carbon Emissions by 2040oMid DR, Mid BTM Solar, DER batteries 7 Key Finding 1A transition to a clean energy system relies on technical progress•Long Duration Storage (multi-day) –Show example productsoAble to shift variable generation over several daysoNot yet commercially availableoSome pilot projects are being planned with small capacitiesoInstallation require large amount of land –(from energy states 3 MW per acre)•Medium Duration Storage (eight to ten-hours)oCommercially available but not yet widely installedoShifts variable generation from low demand to high demand hours within a day•Clean Firm Generation (dispatchable)oMost promising technologies are Green Hydrogen, CCUS, Renewable Natural Gas, and Small Modular ReactorsoNot yet commercially availableoOf the possible options, Green Hydrogen is considered the most likely and most cost-effective, but requires infrastructure and technical advancement 369 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-115
8 Key Finding 2 A full transition requires replacement of Grayson 9, ICEs, and Magnolia with firm, clean options•Retirements of in-basin natural gas resources create reliability challenges for GWP•GWP is required to maintain operational reserves based on the N-1-1 contingency planning oIn 2035, peak load is projected to be 416 MWoFor N-1-1, GWP can rely on 100 MW from the SWAC line, remaining capacity must be localoRemaining resources add up to 372•GWP must add 416 –372 = 44 MWof local capacity to meet load growth N-1-1 Resource ContributionSWAC line (without STS)100DR 8City Solar10Magnolia44ICE 54Grayson 948Eland Solar and Storage25Energy Storage75Scholl’s Canyon8Total Resources372 9 Key Finding 3Based on the projected resource costs and market outlook, the Capacity Expansion model selects geothermal, storage, hydrogen generation, and wind•Solar is not selected by the Capacity Expansion models due to the heavy build out of solar in California which has pushed market prices lower during solar hours. Ascend added solar per the scenario requirements by replacing a portion of wind with solar•Geothermal was selected as soon as possible in all scenarios due to its capacity and high RPS contribution•Hydrogen was selected for capacity purposes•Storage, especially long-duration, was selected to boost capacity and manage renewables 10 High level summary of scenarios•GWP 1 –Clean by 2045. In this path, GWP will procure resources to meet the CA mandates for renewable energy and clean energy. The mandates state that GWP must serve 60% of the energy needs with renewable energy by 2030 and serve 100% of the retail energy with clean energy by 2045. In this path, GWP continues to develop wind and solar remotely while adding storage in Glendale.•GWP 2 –Carbon Free by 2035. In this path, GWP will aggressively procure carbon-free resources including geothermal, wind, and solar while also building storage early in the process. Natural gas generation will be replaced or converted to a clean fuel source such as hydrogen by 2035. The costs of the transition are uncertain as they depend heavily on the cost of replacing natural gas with hydrogen. This scenario aligns with the IRP of LADWP .•GWP 3 –Clean by 2045 with offsets. Same as GWP 1, but with less renewable generation. The lower renewable generation is offset with purchases of renewable energy credits to meet the California mandates.•STAG 1 –Carbon Free by 2035 with a focus on local resources. GWP would aggressively procure geothermal, wind, and solar at the utility scale while also pursuing customer-sited resources. Rooftop solar increases significantly along with distributed batteries at residences. GWP would also work to increase energy efficiency. •STAG 2 –Carbon Free by 2042. In the path, GWP will work to convert natural gas resources to run on a clean fuel by 2042. GWP will push for increased renewable procurement in the near-and mid-term while working towards the transition out of natural gas. One thing that stands out in STAG 2 is that Magnolia retires in 2038 instead of 2042 causing less emissions here compared to STAG 3. This scenariolines up with other smaller municipal utilities in the region. •STAG 3 –Carbon Free by 2040. This is very similar to STAG 2 with a slightly more aggressive timeline. 11 Summary of Results
Total New Resource Cost (Millions)PercentClean Energyin 2035Total CO2Emissions(Million Tons)Total Cost of Carbon with SCC applied ($Million)GWP CA Policy$53591%2,597$385GWP Zero Emissions by 2035$1,887109%1,642$267 GWP CA Policy with Offsets$49782%2,597$385
STAG 1$1,815132%1,434$209STAG 2$1,344103%1,828$290STAG 3$1,36395%2,032$316 12 GWP California Policy Build Out
13 GWP California Policy Capacity
14 GWP California Policy Energy Mix
15 GWP California Policy RPS/Clean Generation
*RPS and Clean Energy percentage is measured compared to wholesale load in this slide. The California policy is measured against retail sales. Clean energy equal to 90% of gross load is approximately 100% of retail sales. 370 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-116
16 GWP California Policy CostsNet Present Cost of Resource Additions from 2023 to 2045 = $535 Million 17 GWP California Policy Carbon Emissions
18 GWP Clean by 2035 Build Out
19 GWP Clean by 2035 Capacity
20 GWP Clean by 2035 Energy Mix
21 GWP Clean by 2035 RPS/Clean Generation
*RPS and Clean Energy percentage is measured compared to wholesale load in this slide. The California policy is measured against retail sales. Clean energy equal to 90% of gross load is approximately 100% of retail sales. 23 GWP Clean by 2035 CostsNet Present Cost of Resource Additions from 2023 to 2045 = $1,888 Million Note: Cost data has changed since the time of this meeting. The costs reflected here are not the most recent or accurate. 23 GWP Clean by 2035 Carbon Emissions
371 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-117
24 STAG 1 Build Out
25 STAG 1 Capacity
26 STAG 1 Energy Mix
27 STAG 1 RPS/Clean Generation
*RPS and Clean Energy percentage is measured compared to wholesale load in this slide. The California policy is measured against retail sales. Clean energy equal to 90% of gross load is approximately 100% of retail sales. 28 STAG 1 Carbon Emissions
30 STAG 1 CostsNet Present Cost of Resource Additions from 2023 to 2045 = $1,816 Million Note: Cost data has changed since the time of this meeting. The costs reflected here are not the most recent or accurate. 30 STAG 2 Build Out
31 STAG 2Capacity
372 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-118
32 STAG 2Energy Mix
33 STAG 2RPS/Clean Generation
*RPS and Clean Energy percentage is measured compared to gross load in this slide. The California policy is measured against retail sales. Clean energy equal to 90% of gross load is approximately 100% of retail sales. 35 STAG 2Policy CostsNet Present Cost of Resource Additions from 2023 to 2045 = $1,344 Million $0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
$400,000,000
20232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039204020412042204320442045 Annual Cost of New Resources
Long-duration storageFour-hour storageEight-hour storageGeothermalSolarSWAC WindPDCI WindHydrogenDRBTM SolarDER BESS Note: Cost data has changed since the time of this meeting. The costs reflected here are not the most recent or accurate. 35 STAG 2Carbon Emissions
36 STAG 3 Build Out
37 STAG 3Capacity
38 STAG 3Energy Mix
39 STAG 3RPS/Clean Generation
*RPS and Clean Energy percentage is measured compared to gross load in this slide. The California policy is measured against retail sales. Clean energy equal to 90% of gross load is approximately 100% of retail sales. 373 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-119
Figure 94. STAG Meeting 6 Presentation Slides
41 STAG 3Policy CostsNet Present Cost of Resource Additions from 2023 to 2045 = $1,363 Million $0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
20232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039204020412042204320442045 Annual Cost of New Resources
Long-duration storageFour-hour storageEight-hour storageGeothermalSolarSWAC WindPDCI WindHydrogenDRBTM SolarDER BESS Note: Cost data has changed since the time of this meeting. The costs reflected here are not the most recent or accurate. 41 STAG 3Carbon Emissions
374 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-120
STAG Scenario Preference Surveys After the sixth and final STAG meeting, Strategen sent out two surveys that asked for STAG members to indicate their preferred scenario. All STAG members responded to these surveys. The surveys had two parts. First, STAG members chose their top 3 scenarios (in no particular order). STAG was then asked to allocate 100 points across their 3 selections to indicate which scenario they preferred, and how strongly. Members could allocate points any way they chose, including giving no points to one or more of their scenarios. The only requirement was that the total points allocated had to equal 100. This survey was conducted twice to capture STAG’s perspective at different points as results were validated and updated. The first survey took place shortly following the final STAG meeting, before GWP had decided on its recommended scenario and presented that recommendation to the GWP Commission. After the Commission meeting, a review of the model’s cost inputs revealed that there was an inaccuracy in the cost assumptions for hydrogen. The costs were updated, which changed the overall cost of each scenario that STAG had used to make its decision. Ascend Analytics also completed its analysis of operating costs for all scenarios, further altering the original costs presented to STAG. Since STAG voted on its preferred scenario using the prior data, it was later decided (following the final townhall) that STAG should revote on their preferred scenario with the complete and accurate picture of costs. Table 24 presents the costs that were originally presented to the STAG (at time of first vote) and the updated costs that were considered in STAG’s second vote. Cost Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Original New Resource Costs (first STAG survey) $535 $1,887 $497 $1,815 $1,344 $1,363 Updated New Resource Costs (second STAG survey) $535 $1,296 $491 $1,145 $897 $867 Operating Costs (only available for second STAG survey) $1,073 $970 $1,098 $1,086 $1,131 $1,142 Total Costs $1,608 $2,267 $1,589 $2,231 $2,027 $2,009 Original and updated costs in $M net present value (2024–2045) Table 24. Original and Updated New Resource Costs: All Scenarios STAG Survey Results: First Survey The STAG’s top three scenarios: In the first survey, every scenario was selected by at least one person for their top three. The scenarios that most members chose for their top three were: § GWP 1 (nine people) § STAG 2 (nine people) § STAG 1 (six people) § STAG 3 (six people) 375 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-121
Figure 95. STAG Top Three Scenario Selections (Survey 1) STAG’s scenario weighting: When asked to weigh their top three scenarios by allocating 100 points across them, a different picture emerged. While STAG 2 and STAG 3 were among the STAG’s most selected scenarios for the first question, they did not receive many points in the weighting exercise. In total, GWP 1 received the most points, with 530. § This scenario was the top choice for six members. That represents 55 percent of the STAG, and 67 percent of the nine people who put this scenario in their top three. § Three members allocated all 100 of their points to GWP 1 (27 percent of the STAG). STAG 1 received the second most points, with 375. § A difference of 155 points separated STAG 1 and GWP 1. § One member allocated all 100 of their points to STAG 1 (9 percent of the STAG). § Although STAG 1 wasn’t chosen in as many members’ top three scenarios compared to GWP 1 (six compared to nine), the people who chose it strongly preferred it. This scenario was the top choice for five members (46 percent of the STAG). Five out of six people who put it in their top three ultimately chose it as their top choice (83 percent). While STAG 2 was tied with GWP 1 for the greatest number of people who put it in their top three, only two members selected it as their top scenario, suggesting STAG 2 was a backup option for many. § Three of the people who selected STAG 2 as one of their top scenarios ultimately allocated no points to it because they put all 100 toward GWP 1. Similar to STAG 2, STAG 3 was also a backup option for many members, although no one selected it as their top choice. 376 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-122
GWP 2 and GWP 3 were the least popular among the group. § While five people selected GWP 2 as one of their top scenarios, all of those people ultimately selected STAG 1 as their preferred scenario. GWP 2 was not any member’s top choice. Member comments suggest that STAG 1’s greater emphasis on rooftop solar and other customer programs may have made that scenario more attractive to them. § While four people selected GWP 3 as one of their top scenarios, three of those four people ultimately allocated all 100 of their points to GWP 1. Only one person allocated points to GWP 3. This scenario was not any member’s top choice.
Scenario Allocated Points Members Who Put Scenario in Their Top Three Members Who Allocated Points to Scenario GWP 1 530 9 9 STAG 1 375 6 6 STAG 2 180 9 6 STAG 3 135 6 5 GWP 2 70 5 4 GWP 3 10 4 1 Table 25. STAG Scenario Weighting: Survey 1 Figure 96. STAG Scenario Preference by Total Points Allocated per Scenario (Survey 1) Respondent comments: Many of the members who chose GWP 1 as their top choice expressed that part of their reasoning for doing so was because of the technological uncertainty and cost of getting to true zero emissions sooner than 2045: § “We must remain grounded with technologies that are available today to achieve our goals… We have to face affordability and reliability realities in front of us at this moment.” § “Most of the expensive scenarios rely on high-risk new technologies that might not be built, or will underperform.” 377 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-123
§ “I believe rushing to zero emissions can be at high costs and choosing resources too soon as new technology continues to emerge.” Concern about the use of RECs in GWP 3 made that option unattractive for several members: § “I’m not confident in the use of offsets.” § “I don’t consider [RECs] to be effective in actually reducing carbon emissions.” § “I think offsets are a scam, so I don’t support that option.” Many of the members who chose STAG 1 or other STAG scenarios as their top option referenced the need to advance progress toward clean energy goals and increase the role for renewables: § “A net zero target of 2045 is no longer acceptable…” § “Future costs are largely fictional at this time, so we need to go for the greatest reduction of carbon by 2030.” § “We need forward-thinking, local dependence, harnessing freely available resources like sun, wind, water, wave energy, etc.” § “Considering the city’s transmission constraints, the immediate solution should be to emphasize local rooftop solar through the 10 percent resolution plan.” STAG Survey Results: Second Survey STAG’s top three scenarios: Again in the second survey, every scenario was selected by at least one person as among their top three. The STAG’s selection of its top three scenarios differed only slightly from the first survey. In this second survey, the group’s top scenarios were: § STAG 2 (nine people) § GWP 1 (eight people) § STAG 1 (seven people) 378 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-124
STAG 2 was the group’s top choice this time around, with nine members selecting it (the same number as the last time). One fewer person selected GWP 1 as among their top three (for a total of eight members), instead opting to replace that slot with STAG 1 (selected by seven members, up one from the first survey). Selections of the last three scenarios remained unchanged.
Figure 97. STAG Top Three Scenario Selections (Survey 2) Scenario Survey 1 Survey 2 Difference GWP 1 9 8 –1 GWP 2 5 5 Same GWP 3 4 4 Same STAG 1 6 7 +1 STAG 2 9 9 Same STAG 3 6 6 Same Table 26. Top Three Scenario Selection Comparison between Survey 1 and Survey 2 STAG’s scenario weighting: As with the first survey, a different picture emerged when looking at STAG’s weighting of its top three scenarios. The results of this second survey remain overall the same as the first iteration (GWP 1, the California Policy scenario, still received the most points), although the distance between STAG’s first and second choices shrunk sizably. In total, GWP 1 received the most points, with 525. § This scenario was the top choice for six members, the same number as the first survey. That represents 55 percent of the STAG and 75 percent of the eight people who put this scenario in their top three. § Again, three members allocated all 100 of their points to GWP 1 (27 percent of the STAG). Again, STAG 1 received the second most points, with 480. § The gap between GWP 1 and STAG 1 shrunk considerably in this survey. In the first survey, the scenarios were separated by 155 points. In this survey, they were separated by 45. 379 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-125
§ Two members allocated all 100 of their points to STAG 1 (15 percent of the STAG). This is one more member than the last time. § This scenario was the top choice for six members (55 percent of the STAG). Six out of seven people who put it in their top three ultimately chose it as their top choice (86 percent). While STAG 2 had the greatest number of people who put it in their top three, only two members selected it as their top scenario (one of these members had STAG 2 tied with GWP 1 for their top choice). As with the first survey, this suggests STAG 2 was a backup option for many. § Also seen in the first survey, three of the people who selected STAG 2 as one of their top scenarios ultimately allocated no points to it because they put all 100 toward GWP 1. In the first survey, STAG 3 received the fourth-most points, with 135. In this survey, members’ interest in STAG 3 dropped significantly (by 95 points), making this scenario the group’s second-to-last choice. GWP 2 was instead favored as the group’s fourth-ranked scenario. § Overall, though, both these scenarios received lackluster support from the group. While six and five members selected them as among their top three (for STAG 3 and GWP 2, respectively), only three members ultimately allocated points to each of them. § These scenarios were no members’ top choices. Again, GWP 3 was the least popular among the group. § As with the last survey, while four people selected GWP 3 as one of their top scenarios, three of those four people ultimately allocated all 100 of their points to GWP 1. Only one person allocated points to GWP 3. This scenario was not any member’s top choice.
Figure 98. STAG Scenario Preference by Total Points Allocated per Scenario (Survey 2) 380 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-126
Scenario Survey 1 Survey 2 Difference GWP 1 530 525 –5 GWP 2 70 55 –15 GWP 3 10 30 +20 STAG 1 375 480 +105 STAG 2 180 170 –10 STAG 3 135 40 –95 Table 27. Scenario Point Allocation Comparison between Survey 1 and Survey 2 As depicted in Table 27, in the second survey, members concentrated their points more heavily around the two scenarios that received the most points in the first iteration (GWP 1 and STAG 1) and decreased their support for GWP 2, STAG 2, and STAG 3. Table 28 shows that fewer members allocated points to all scenarios in their top three selections than had in the initial survey. While five members allocated points to STAG 3 in the first survey, only three did in the second. While four members allocated points to GWP 2 in the first survey, only three did in the second.
Members Who Selected the Scenario in Their Top 3 Members Who Allocated Points to the Scenario Members Who Chose Scenario in Top 3 and Allocated Point to It Scenario Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 1 Survey 2 GWP 1 9 8 9 8 100% 100% GWP 2 5 5 4 3 80% 60% GWP 3 4 4 1 1 25% 25% STAG 1 6 7 6 7 100% 100% STAG 2 9 9 6 6 67% 67% STAG 3 6 6 5 3 83% 50% Table 28. Scenario Summary for Top Three Selection and Allocated Points Instead of spreading points out among multiple scenarios as was more common in the first survey, members placed more of their points in a single top selection in the second. In the first survey, members allocated an average of 71 points to their top scenario and an average of 17 points to their second choice. In the second survey, the points members allocated to their top choice increased, while the points allocated to their second choice decreased: In survey 2, members allocated an average of 78.5 points to their top selection and 12 points to their second choice. Between surveys, the points gap between members’ top and second choices therefore widened by nearly 13 points (53.9 versus 66.6). Survey Top Choice Second Choice Difference Survey 1 71.2 17.3 53.9 Survey 2 78.5 11.9 66.6 Table 29. Average Point Allocation Comparison between Survey 1 and Survey 2 381 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-127
These differences in voting behavior may stem from several sources. One potential reason is that the updated scenario costs changed the way STAG members weighed their preferences, making them more strongly support their top choice. This reasoning seems unlikely, though, given that cost differences between the scenarios became less pronounced between the first and second surveys, which one would expect might cause more dispersed support across all scenarios. Another possibility is that seeing the results of the first survey before responding to the second may have influenced the way members voted, encouraging them to concentrate their attention on the scenarios that got the most support in the first survey while reducing the emphasis placed on those scenarios that did not rise to the top initially. While all scenario options were still on the table in this survey, the second iteration may have therefore acted somewhat like a runoff election, with members narrowing down their choices between the first round’s top two options. While the change in voting behavior is worth noting, ultimately the reasons for these differences are not as important as the results themselves. Respondent comments: Many of STAG’s comments in the second survey reflected perspectives that were raised in the first iteration. Respondents who chose GWP 1 continued to raise points around affordability and the uncertainty of new technologies: § “I am representing a group who provided feedback to me that affordability and reliability are of key importance. [This scenario] provides for a path to a sustainable future with the most affordable option…” § “GWP 1 (following CA policy) is most cost effective for ratepayers.” Other scenarios “rely on underdeveloped infrastructure… We should decarbonize, but being the first to do so is just too costly and risky.” § “We have real challenges on affordability and it will get worse over [the] next few years. We have to balance cost while trying to make progress toward the transition to clean energy. The state’s goals of transition by 2045 are already ambitious.” Respondents who chose scenarios that aimed for a clean energy transition before 2045 again emphasized a desire to reach clean energy goals as quickly as possible. They also expressed that some of these scenarios’ costs may come down with technology developments. Some respondents who selected the 2040 or 2042 scenarios stated that they offered a balance between emissions reductions and cost. § “My goal is to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible.” § “I generally chose the STAG scenarios over the GWP scenarios because they get us to true carbon-free. They’re not that much more expensive and they result in significantly lower CO2 emissions, particularly STAG 1.” § “Technology improvements will reduce the costs [of the 2035 scenarios]… We need to act now to start moving our city to clean energy!” § “If we are seeking to reach carbon free, then 2042 achieves this at substantial cleaner air and not an aggressive cost impact.” 382 of 839
C. Stakeholder Outreach About the STAG Meetings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP C-128
Respondents who chose STAG 1 as their top scenario indicated that this scenario’s high solar and DER assumptions were a central driver in their decision. § STAG 1 has “the greatest outcomes with DER and SOLAR.” § “I chose STAG 1 because it puts the most resources into solar.” 383 of 839
D. Standardized Tables Capacity Resource Accounting Table (CRAT) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP D-1
D. Standardized Tables
CAPACITY RESOURCE ACCOUNTING TABLE (CRAT) Figure 99: California Policy Scenario Capacity Build Out (CRAT) depicts the annual peak capacity demand in each year and the contribution of each energy resource (capacity) in GWP’s portfolio to meet that demand.
Figure 99. California Policy Scenario Capacity Build Out (CRAT) 384 of 839
D. Standardized Tables Energy Balance Table (EBT)
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP D-2
ENERGY BALANCE TABLE (EBT) Figure 100: California Policy Scenario Annual Energy Produced and Consumed (EBT) depicts the annual total energy demand and annual estimates for energy supply from various resources.
Figure 100. California Policy Scenario Annual Energy Produced and Consumed (EBT) 385 of 839
D. Standardized Tables Resource Procurement Table (RPT) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP D-3
RESOURCE PROCUREMENT TABLE (RPT) Figure 101: RPS and Clean Energy Totals by Year (RPT) contains a detailed summary of the GWP resource plan to meet the RPS requirements.
Figure 101. RPS and Clean Energy Totals by Year (RPT)
386 of 839
D. Standardized Tables GHG Emissions Accounting Table (GEAT) Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP D-4
GHG EMISSIONS ACCOUNTING TABLE (GEAT) Figure 102: Annual CO2 Emissions (GEAT) depicts the annual GHG emissions associated with each resource in GWP’s portfolio.
Figure 102. Annual CO2 Emissions (GEAT)
387 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-1
E. Key Modeling Assumptions
Key modeling assumptions include forecasted costs and prices for: § Renewable generation solar, wind from New Mexico, and new geothermal from California through PPAs costs in dollars per MWh forecasted annually from 2027 to 2045. § 4-hour Li-ion, 8-hour Li-ion, and 100-hour iron air BESS costs in dollars per kW forecasted annually from 2027 to 2045 (the 100-hour BESS from 2030 to 2050). § Hydrogen fuel costs for new power plant CTs, CCS cost for new power plants—both forecasted annually from 2027 to 2045—and SMR costs in dollars per kW forecasted annually from 2032 to 2045. § Hydrogen fuel costs that includes the IRA PTC in dollars per MMBtu, California carbon prices in dollars per ton, and the social cost of carbon (from the EPA) forecasted annually from 2024 to 2045. § Off-peak and on-peak electricity power prices from the southern California SP-15 market in dollars per MWh, and natural gas prices from the southern California CityGate market in dollars per MMBtu forecasted monthly from 2024 to 2045. Except for the California carbon prices which were projected by CARB, Ascend Market Intelligence forecast all costs and prices. 388 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Generation Resource Cost Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-2
GENERATION RESOURCE COST FORECASTS Renewable Generation Cost Forecasts Year Solar New Mexico Wind New California Geothermal 2027 $29.92 $39.36 $102.36 2028 $29.35 $38.90 $103.76 2029 $28.72 $38.42 $105.17 2030 $28.03 $37.93 $106.57 2031 $27.28 $38.28 $109.38 2032 $26.46 $38.63 $112.27 2033 $25.57 $38.98 $115.24 2034 $24.61 $39.33 $118.29 2035 $23.58 $39.67 $121.42 2036 $23.91 $40.01 $124.63 2037 $27.33 $43.42 $135.35 2038 $30.86 $46.95 $146.55 2039 $34.51 $50.60 $158.25 2040 $38.29 $54.38 $170.47 2041 $42.19 $58.29 $183.23 2042 $46.23 $62.33 $196.54 2043 $46.93 $63.04 $201.74 2044 $47.64 $63.75 $207.09 2045 $48.34 $64.47 $212.58 Table 30. Renewable Costs through PPAs Forecasts ($/MWh) BESS Cost Forecasts Year 4-Hour Li-ion BESS 8-Hour Li-ion BESS 100-Hour Iron Air BESS 2027 $1,404.11 $2,504.86 – 2028 $1,367.46 $2,427.72 – 2029 $1,344.82 $2,375.00 – 2030 $1,320.73 $2,319.06 $2,278.25 2031 $1,326.37 $2,326.12 $2,232.68 2032 $1,331.71 $2,332.55 $2,237.15 2033 $1,336.72 $2,338.33 $2,241.62 2034 $1,341.41 $2,343.43 $2,246.11 2035 $1,345.75 $2,347.81 $2,250.60 2036 $1,349.73 $2,351.46 $2,255.10 2037 $1,353.33 $2,354.35 $2,259.61 2038 $1,356.54 $2,356.43 $2,282.21 2039 $1,359.33 $2,357.68 $2,305.03 2040 $1,361.70 $2,358.07 $2,328.08 2041 $1,363.61 $2,357.56 $2,351.36 2042 $1,365.06 $2,356.12 $2,386.63 2043 $1,366.03 $2,353.72 $2,422.43 2044 $1,366.48 $2,350.31 $2,458.77 2045 $1,366.41 $2,345.87 $2,495.65 Table 31. Battery Energy Storage Systems Cost Forecasts ($/kW) 389 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Generation Resource Cost Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-3
Year Hydrogen CT CCS SMR 2030 $1,860.76 $2,881.03 – 2031 $1,877.85 $2,872.54 – 2032 $1,896.89 $2,862.40 $5,000.00 2033 $1,916.21 $2,850.87 $5,000.00 2034 $1,935.59 $2,837.57 $5,000.00 2035 $1,955.05 $2,822.76 $5,000.00 2036 $1,974.35 $2,846.26 $5,000.00 2037 $1,993.92 $2,869.73 $5,000.00 2038 $2,015.62 $2,892.83 $5,000.00 2039 $2,037.38 $2,915.88 $5,000.00 2040 $2,058.97 $2,938.52 $5,000.00 2041 $2,080.86 $2,961.08 $5,000.00 2042 $2,102.80 $2,983.19 $5,000.00 2043 $2,124.78 $3,005.17 $5,000.00 2044 $2,146.80 $3,026.66 $5,000.00 2045 $2,168.59 $3,048.00 $5,000.00 Table 32. Hydrogen CT, CCS, and SMR Cost Forecasts ($/kW) Year Hydrogen Fuel Price ($/MMBtu) California Carbon Price ($/Ton) Social Cost of Carbon ($/Ton) 2024 $14.64 $27.77 $208.00 2025 $13.59 $28.45 $212.00 2026 $12.57 $29.72 $215.00 2027 $11.58 $31.63 $219.00 2028 $10.63 $34.26 $223.00 2029 $9.71 $37.66 $226.00 2030 $8.81 $41.93 $230.00 2031 $8.46 $47.15 $234.00 2032 $8.11 $53.41 $237.00 2033 $7.76 $57.15 $241.00 2034 $7.41 $61.15 $245.00 2035 $7.51 $65.43 $248.00 2036 $7.63 $70.01 $252.00 2037 $7.77 $74.91 $256.00 2038 $7.92 $80.15 $259.00 2039 $8.09 $85.76 $263.00 2040 $8.28 $91.76 $267.00 2041 $8.49 $98.19 $271.00 2042 $8.72 $105.06 $275.00 2043 $8.97 $112.42 $279.00 2044 $9.24 $120.28 $283.00 2045 $9.53 $128.70 $287.00 Table 33. Hydrogen Fuel, California Carbon, and Social Cost of Carbon Price Forecasts 390 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Power and Natural Gas Fuel Price Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-4
POWER AND NATURAL GAS FUEL PRICE FORECASTS
Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2024 Jan $90.55 $95.61 $8.95 Feb $79.82 $79.12 $8.22 Mar $55.08 $46.07 $5.50 Apr $42.93 $33.11 $4.26 May $38.63 $29.45 $4.00 Jun $49.17 $54.45 $4.21 Jul $67.35 $102.20 $6.28 Aug $81.23 $116.63 $6.36 Sep $68.45 $102.05 $6.23 Oct $56.47 $58.86 $4.35 Nov $62.25 $63.56 $5.79 Dec $92.82 $96.85 $8.10 2025 Jan $100.58 $92.59 $7.65 Feb $72.79 $64.09 $7.29 Mar $57.22 $48.72 $5.36 Apr $41.01 $29.37 $4.98 May $36.91 $25.37 $4.93 Jun $56.44 $45.79 $5.04 Jul $80.22 $100.93 $6.05 Aug $80.10 $106.00 $6.09 Sep $81.07 $99.48 $5.94 Oct $60.73 $54.38 $4.88 Nov $60.53 $53.68 $6.42 Dec $100.26 $93.57 $7.93 Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2026 Jan $104.94 $88.80 $7.23 Feb $78.72 $63.00 $6.95 Mar $61.94 $47.30 $5.52 Apr $37.35 $26.79 $4.28 May $32.38 $23.37 $4.23 Jun $45.50 $37.55 $4.35 Jul $81.47 $98.16 $5.72 Aug $87.57 $104.36 $5.77 Sep $82.87 $97.56 $5.58 Oct $71.94 $55.31 $4.81 Nov $70.66 $54.63 $6.53 Dec $113.80 $92.42 $7.53 2027 Jan $104.86 $88.03 $7.37 Feb $78.20 $62.00 $7.09 Mar $60.93 $45.25 $5.63 Apr $36.91 $25.50 $4.36 May $31.80 $21.50 $4.32 Jun $43.48 $34.21 $4.43 Jul $78.53 $90.80 $5.83 Aug $84.25 $98.22 $5.88 Sep $79.05 $91.37 $5.69 Oct $68.42 $51.62 $4.91 Nov $66.42 $50.36 $6.66 Dec $106.83 $84.47 $7.68 391 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Power and Natural Gas Fuel Price Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-5
Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2028 Jan $98.22 $80.09 $7.52 Feb $72.17 $55.08 $7.23 Mar $56.79 $41.20 $5.75 Apr $33.89 $22.71 $4.45 May $29.77 $19.09 $4.40 Jun $40.63 $30.28 $4.52 Jul $71.42 $80.07 $5.95 Aug $78.19 $86.97 $6.00 Sep $74.32 $81.04 $5.81 Oct $63.60 $45.89 $5.01 Nov $62.01 $45.55 $6.79 Dec $98.71 $76.22 $7.83 2029 Jan $92.46 $75.87 $7.67 Feb $68.16 $50.96 $7.38 Mar $54.99 $38.29 $5.86 Apr $32.39 $21.23 $4.54 May $28.45 $17.82 $4.49 Jun $38.75 $28.20 $4.61 Jul $67.50 $73.96 $6.07 Aug $73.89 $80.35 $6.12 Sep $70.30 $74.93 $5.92 Oct $61.58 $42.58 $5.11 Nov $58.61 $42.89 $6.92 Dec $92.93 $69.87 $7.99 Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2030 Jan $88.09 $71.45 $7.82 Feb $65.44 $49.14 $7.53 Mar $52.09 $36.28 $5.98 Apr $31.57 $20.28 $4.63 May $27.14 $17.58 $4.58 Jun $36.89 $27.28 $4.71 Jul $64.96 $71.49 $6.19 Aug $71.19 $80.37 $6.24 Sep $68.33 $75.67 $6.04 Oct $59.45 $43.62 $5.21 Nov $57.14 $42.85 $7.06 Dec $90.94 $70.19 $8.15 2031 Jan $86.30 $69.55 $7.98 Feb $63.45 $48.32 $7.68 Mar $52.47 $37.24 $6.10 Apr $31.83 $20.73 $4.72 May $27.58 $18.05 $4.67 Jun $37.70 $27.90 $4.80 Jul $65.95 $72.15 $6.31 Aug $72.79 $81.38 $6.37 Sep $70.08 $76.89 $6.16 Oct $62.74 $44.70 $5.31 Nov $58.91 $44.33 $7.20 Dec $92.45 $72.15 $8.31 392 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Power and Natural Gas Fuel Price Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-6
Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2032 Jan $87.51 $71.44 $8.14 Feb $65.87 $49.67 $7.83 Mar $55.14 $38.62 $6.22 Apr $33.18 $21.73 $4.82 May $29.48 $18.91 $4.77 Jun $40.33 $29.16 $4.90 Jul $69.84 $76.65 $6.44 Aug $77.32 $84.19 $6.49 Sep $74.80 $79.73 $6.28 Oct $67.65 $46.69 $5.42 Nov $62.84 $45.73 $7.35 Dec $98.31 $74.03 $8.48 2033 Jan $90.72 $71.66 $8.30 Feb $66.93 $49.98 $7.99 Mar $57.60 $40.24 $6.34 Apr $34.92 $22.27 $4.91 May $31.03 $20.01 $4.86 Jun $42.39 $30.90 $4.99 Jul $72.74 $78.41 $6.57 Aug $80.56 $86.48 $6.62 Sep $78.07 $84.43 $6.41 Oct $69.54 $49.83 $5.53 Nov $65.31 $47.28 $7.50 Dec $101.74 $76.46 $8.65 Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2034 Jan $93.29 $75.35 $8.47 Feb $68.83 $51.28 $8.15 Mar $59.56 $41.48 $6.47 Apr $36.28 $23.04 $5.01 May $32.25 $20.71 $4.96 Jun $42.95 $31.91 $5.09 Jul $75.00 $80.52 $6.70 Aug $83.11 $91.35 $6.76 Sep $80.67 $86.99 $6.54 Oct $72.12 $51.54 $5.64 Nov $68.65 $49.79 $7.65 Dec $104.47 $78.34 $8.82 2035 Jan $95.20 $76.75 $8.64 Feb $70.27 $52.23 $8.31 Mar $61.31 $42.56 $6.60 Apr $37.65 $23.79 $5.11 May $33.47 $21.40 $5.06 Jun $44.48 $32.89 $5.20 Jul $76.96 $82.25 $6.83 Aug $85.32 $93.49 $6.89 Sep $82.97 $89.21 $6.67 Oct $74.61 $53.16 $5.75 Nov $70.30 $50.85 $7.80 Dec $106.42 $79.42 $9.00 393 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Power and Natural Gas Fuel Price Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-7
Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2036 Jan $96.20 $77.29 $8.81 Feb $69.60 $52.57 $8.48 Mar $62.82 $44.40 $6.73 Apr $39.13 $25.96 $5.21 May $35.65 $23.29 $5.16 Jun $46.19 $35.75 $5.30 Jul $78.68 $87.48 $6.97 Aug $86.98 $96.12 $7.03 Sep $84.53 $91.56 $6.80 Oct $76.45 $54.87 $5.87 Nov $70.69 $51.41 $7.95 Dec $103.82 $79.72 $9.18 2037 Jan $89.67 $72.78 $8.99 Feb $66.22 $49.61 $8.64 Mar $58.69 $42.18 $6.87 Apr $36.73 $25.61 $5.32 May $33.39 $22.98 $5.26 Jun $44.21 $34.31 $5.41 Jul $72.74 $85.52 $7.11 Aug $80.40 $91.24 $7.17 Sep $78.20 $86.91 $6.94 Oct $71.02 $52.30 $5.98 Nov $65.13 $48.52 $8.11 Dec $95.30 $73.19 $9.36 Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2038 Jan $85.15 $70.59 $9.17 Feb $62.74 $48.05 $8.82 Mar $55.14 $41.56 $7.00 Apr $34.93 $24.35 $5.42 May $31.74 $21.85 $5.37 Jun $42.06 $33.62 $5.51 Jul $69.95 $82.24 $7.25 Aug $77.34 $87.77 $7.31 Sep $73.51 $83.50 $7.08 Oct $67.84 $49.96 $6.10 Nov $61.66 $46.88 $8.28 Dec $92.56 $71.08 $9.55 2039 Jan $84.74 $70.25 $9.35 Feb $61.02 $47.79 $8.99 Mar $54.60 $41.15 $7.14 Apr $34.41 $24.65 $5.53 May $30.53 $22.12 $5.48 Jun $40.44 $34.09 $5.62 Jul $69.31 $83.72 $7.40 Aug $74.93 $89.29 $7.46 Sep $72.80 $82.70 $7.22 Oct $65.54 $49.33 $6.23 Nov $59.99 $46.57 $8.44 Dec $90.25 $70.79 $9.74 394 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Power and Natural Gas Fuel Price Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-8
Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2040 Jan $82.47 $68.18 $9.54 Feb $59.28 $46.28 $9.17 Mar $52.82 $39.68 $7.29 Apr $32.24 $22.94 $5.64 May $29.31 $21.16 $5.59 Jun $38.81 $32.60 $5.74 Jul $67.01 $80.66 $7.54 Aug $72.48 $86.12 $7.61 Sep $70.44 $79.75 $7.36 Oct $63.22 $48.66 $6.35 Nov $59.54 $45.13 $8.61 Dec $87.91 $68.75 $9.93 2041 Jan $80.97 $68.42 $9.73 Feb $59.46 $46.43 $9.36 Mar $52.82 $39.68 $7.43 Apr $32.12 $23.51 $5.76 May $29.20 $21.08 $5.70 Jun $38.68 $32.49 $5.85 Jul $67.05 $80.71 $7.70 Aug $72.53 $86.18 $7.76 Sep $70.45 $79.77 $7.51 Oct $63.10 $48.57 $6.48 Nov $59.68 $45.23 $8.78 Dec $88.27 $69.03 $10.13 Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2042 Jan $82.88 $68.31 $9.92 Feb $59.47 $46.30 $9.54 Mar $52.89 $39.59 $7.58 Apr $32.11 $23.43 $5.87 May $29.20 $21.61 $5.81 Jun $38.65 $32.34 $5.97 Jul $67.04 $80.41 $7.85 Aug $72.55 $85.94 $7.92 Sep $70.54 $81.70 $7.66 Oct $63.21 $48.50 $6.61 Nov $59.82 $46.30 $8.96 Dec $88.37 $70.65 $10.33 2043 Jan $83.29 $70.20 $10.12 Feb $59.70 $47.59 $9.74 Mar $53.19 $41.83 $7.73 Apr $33.11 $24.16 $5.99 May $30.11 $22.28 $5.93 Jun $39.84 $33.34 $6.09 Jul $68.99 $82.75 $8.01 Aug $74.66 $88.44 $8.07 Sep $70.94 $84.09 $7.81 Oct $65.12 $49.97 $6.74 Nov $60.20 $47.61 $9.14 Dec $90.80 $70.81 $10.54 395 of 839
E. Key Modeling Assumptions Power and Natural Gas Fuel Price Forecasts Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP E-9
Year Mth Power SP-15 Off-Peak Power SP-15 On-Peak Natural Gas SoCal CityGate 2044 Jan $83.69 $70.36 $10.32 Feb $59.92 $47.64 $9.93 Mar $53.48 $41.96 $7.89 Apr $33.28 $24.21 $6.11 May $30.29 $22.34 $6.05 Jun $40.02 $34.38 $6.21 Jul $69.28 $85.17 $8.17 Aug $75.01 $88.59 $8.23 Sep $71.33 $84.33 $7.97 Oct $65.56 $50.16 $6.87 Nov $61.91 $47.79 $9.32 Dec $91.24 $72.76 $10.75 2045 Jan $84.11 $70.54 $10.53 Feb $60.15 $47.71 $10.13 Mar $53.80 $42.10 $8.04 Apr $33.47 $24.27 $6.23 May $30.48 $22.42 $6.17 Jun $39.14 $34.44 $6.33 Jul $69.61 $85.31 $8.33 Aug $75.40 $88.78 $8.40 Sep $71.75 $84.62 $8.13 Oct $66.05 $50.38 $7.01 Nov $62.35 $49.19 $9.51 Dec $91.73 $72.96 $10.97 Table 34. Power (Off-Peak & On-Peak) and Natural Gas Price Forecasts 396 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-1
F. Po w e r S I M M P l a n n e r
POWERSIMM OVERVIEW PowerSIMM is a software program used for simulating the performance of an electric power system with high spatial and temporal granularity. This section provides an overview of the key features and capabilities of this simulation software. In the IRP analysis, PowerSIMM was used for the following applications: § Production Cost Modeling: Simulates power system operations, inclusive of transmission constraints, on an hourly or sub-hourly timestep for use in decision making for portfolio management or resource planning. § Capacity Expansion Optimization: Provides a roadmap of future resource procurements to meet policy or reliability needs at the lowest cost. § Resource Adequacy Analysis: Determines how well a portfolio of resources can serve customer load over a defined period of time on an hourly basis. All applications start with simulations of weather, load, renewables, forced outages, and market prices. The only exception is in resource adequacy models where prices are not used.
Simulations in PowerSIMM PowerSIMM simulations start with weather as the fundamental driver of load, renewable generation, and market prices. Weather simulations consist of daily maximum and minimum temperatures. PowerSIMM uses historical temperatures to construct future simulations of weather with a time-series model that includes seasonal inputs. Renewable items require hourly historical generation data coupled with weather data from a nearby station to determine the structural relationship between daily min and max temperatures and renewable generation. PowerSIMM constructs a model for each renewable item using inputs that include daily min and max temperatures, month, and hour. Future simulations are generated with the model using weather simulations as an input. Generation output is scaled to meet future expectations for monthly energy generation and capacity limits. 397 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner PowerSIMM Overview
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-2
For load, PowerSIMM creates a structural model using hourly load data, daily min and max temperatures, hour, day of the week, and month. Load simulations are based on weather simulations and scaled to match load forecasts for monthly energy and peak demand. The simulation of market prices follows a similar construct, but there are more structural variables observed in both historic and forecast values. There are also more parameters used as inputs. For market price simulations, PowerSIMM adheres to market expectations (that is, forward prices and option quotes for volatility in prices) by scaling simulations such that the average price exactly meets the forward curves for monthly average prices for natural gas, on-peak power, off-peak power, and carbon. The stochastic price ranges hold to future expectations of price volatility, correlations across time and commodities, and daily price shapes. Additional details on the model simulations can be found in “Simulation Details” (page B-7).
Dispatch in PowerSIMM Simulations of weather, load, renewables, and spot prices roll into the dispatch module. PowerSIMM models dispatch by optimizing supply resource options in a “dispatch to load” or “dispatch to price” model. In a dispatch to load model, PowerSIMM calculates dispatch decisions to serve load at the least cost, while accounting for transmission system congestion. Market purchases are generally, but not always, included as an option for serving load. The dispatch to price model calculates dispatch decisions to maximize market revenue from generation. Dispatch calculations rely on inputs to define the physical and economic characteristics of supply resources, including thermal resources, energy storage, hydro resources, or demand-side options. Users can also define transmission lines to represent constraints, such as import or export limits, or line losses. Ancillary services can be included in dispatch models where PowerSIMM will co-optimize supply resources to serve load and fulfill ancillary requirements. PowerSIMM ancillary product dispatch can include regulation up, regulation down, spinning reserves, and non-spinning reserves. PowerSIMM can also perform multiphase dispatch. PowerSIMM uses a mix-integer linear programming algorithm in the dispatch calculations. The objective function in the algorithm is the minimization of cost to supply energy and ancillary requirements. Included in the total cost are startup costs, variable operations and maintenance (VOM) costs, fixed O&M costs, fuel costs and fuel delivery costs, electric power purchases and power sales. Power sales are treated as negative costs. 398 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Resource Planning Modeling
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-3
The decision variables for the dispatch algorithm include the online state of dispatchable generators, the generation setting for all dispatchable generators, the assignment of ancillary services for units capable of providing ancillary services, the charge or discharge state of energy storage resources, and the amount of market purchases. PowerSIMM iterates over a range of possible values to settle on the decision variables that provide the lowest possible cost within the model constraints. Dispatch constraints are set for all units in the model such as economic max generation, economic min generation, ramp rates, must run requirements, minimum generation, etc. There are also constraints attributable to transmission limits and the requirement to meet load. Variable generation from wind, solar and geothermal items are not considered dispatchable, but PowerSIMM may elect to curtail variable resources if system conditions require it. For example, wind generation may be curtailed due to transmission limits.
RESOURCE PLANNING MODELING PowerSIMM was used to run a variety of models for this resource plan. This section describes the types of models used for the plan.
Production Cost Modeling The most common application of PowerSIMM in resource planning is as a production cost model, which shows many detailed aspects of system operations over a future time period. Production cost models can run with dispatch modeled across a range of simulated future conditions. Outputs from production cost models include generation costs, fuel consumption, renewable generation, carbon emissions, and a long list of additional variables used to make investment and operational decisions. Example uses for PowerSIMM include analyzing options to hedge fuel price risk, evaluating new generation resource options, or conducting a study to determine renewable additions for RPS mandates. Production cost model outputs allow users to understand how the system will operate with the assumed inputs. Figure 103 shows hourly dispatch outputs over a three-day period from a production cost model plotted against load. Comparing outputs from two or more production cost models allows a user to 399 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Resource Planning Modeling
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-4
understand how changes in resource mix, price forecast, operational constraints, or other aspects of the system will affect future outcomes.
Figure 103. Three-Day Dispatch Outputs Plotted against Load Key inputs for production cost models include the simulated system conditions17 and supply resource operating parameters. The operating parameters of dispatchable generation assets in the portfolio—such as ramp rates or start-up times for thermal assets, leakage rates and round-trip efficiencies for battery storage, or spill requirements for hydro—guide dispatch optimization to ensure the model adheres to the actual physical capabilities and attributes of the resources in the portfolio.
Capacity Expansion Optimization A second common application of PowerSIMM in resource planning is for capacity expansion optimization, which provides the least-cost selection of future resources over time, subject to user-specified constraints. Such constraints may include resource adequacy requirements, annual energy positions, renewable portfolio standards, or carbon emission limits. The Automatic Resource Selection (ARS) module contains the PowerSIMM capacity expansion model. ARS evaluates the performance of a portfolio of existing resources and candidate resources across a range of future operating conditions to assess their likely revenues, costs, and other characteristics (for example, carbon emissions). Based on the user inputs and constraints, the model determines the optimal resource additions (or retirements) for minimizing total costs while ensuring the generation portfolio can serve load without violating loss-of-load standards or emissions constraints. 17 Weather, load, renewables, and market prices for fuel and power, when not a dispatch to load without intertie purchases. 400 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Resource Planning Modeling
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-5
Figure 104 illustrates an ARS model that adds candidate resources to a portfolio to serve load at the lowest cost. The portfolio of existing resources and customer load are evaluated with candidate resources across a range of future conditions to select the optimal portfolio composition under input constraints.
Figure 104. ARS Schematic of Candidate Resource Expansion The input data requirements for ARS are generally the same as for production cost modeling except for additional project cost information (for example, new candidate resources), accredited capacity (for example, existing and new resources), and project specific constraints such as annual build limits for new resources. Users must also define model constraints to apply in the resource selection process, such as requirements for capacity, energy, or renewable generation.
Resource Adequacy Analysis The third main application of PowerSIMM in resource planning is for resource adequacy analysis, which is used to assess the probability that a system will have adequate generation resources to meet load over a wide range of conditions. Common metrics for this assessment include loss-of-load probabilities (LOLP), expected unserved energy, and capacity deficit (the amount of additional capacity needed to meet reliability targets), among others. PowerSIMM’s resource adequacy module can also be used to assess the capacity contribution from specific resources or technology types, which is typically measured with the effective load-carrying capability (ELCC) metric. 401 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Resource Planning Modeling
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-6
As shown in Figure 105, PowerSIMM’s simulation engine provides simulations of load, renewables, and forced outages used to analyze the ability of a portfolio of resources to serve load. Resource adequacy models may also include transmission constraints.
Figure 105. PowerSIMM Simulation Engine The PowerSIMM resource adequacy model considers weather variability as a key driver to renewable and load simulation. These simulations are coupled with stochastically imposed forced outage in the dispatch module to measure common metrics, including LOLP, loss-of-load expectations (LOLE), or loss-of-load hours (LOLH), expected unserved energy, and capacity deficit (MW short). The dispatch algorithm in a resource adequacy model differs from that used in production cost or capacity expansion models. Resource adequacy models evaluate systems based on how well they can meet system needs, so the ability to import power is typically eliminated (or significantly restricted). The model dispatches resources to minimize load shedding without regard to dispatch cost. Market prices also have no bearing on the dispatch decision in a resource adequacy model. Instead, the important inputs driving resource adequacy results include forced outage rates, correlation between load and renewables, and operational constraints. In each simulated hour of a resource adequacy study, the model calculates hourly load requirements and compares this to the sum of total renewable generation, available thermal capacity (that is, not on forced or scheduled outage), and available energy in storage (which is charged with excess energy when it is available). The model then dispatches thermal and energy storage resources chronologically (hour-by-hour) to determine how much (if any) load cannot be met in each hour. Resource adequacy models provide metrics to evaluate the reliability of a system. Additionally, resource adequacy models provide a useful means of determining the capacity contribution of a specific resource, known as the ELCC. The standard approach for an ELCC analysis involves three model runs. The reliability contribution of the ELCC resource is compared to the reliability contribution from a “perfect” generator to determine the capacity value of the ELCC resource. 402 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-7
SIMULATION DETAILS Weather Simulation PowerSIMM has the ability to simulate weather across dozens of weather variables. Weather simulations in PowerSIMM typically include daily maximum and minimum dry bulb temperatures. These temperatures are then used as fundamental drivers for the load and for alignment with renewable simulations. The weather simulation engine requires historical daily maximum and minimum temperatures from weather stations in proximity to the weather-related resources in the model. PowerSIMM stores historical data for hundreds of weather stations via automated data pulls from the National Climate Data Center. PowerSIMM users select weather stations to create weather zones for use in their specific studies. PowerSIMM creates weather simulations by decomposing historical daily maximum and minimum temperature data into seasonal and irregular components. The seasonal component represents a smooth function showing how temperature changes over the year. The irregular component captures fluctuations around the seasonal component and represents the day-to-day variability in weather, which is the stochastic part of the weather simulations. The model structure for the irregular component includes 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day moving averages combined in a linear fashion with autoregression and random error terms. Annual patterns drive most of the temperature simulations, but the irregular component of the model allows for deviations from annual and seasonal norms, enabling potential periods of cooler weather in the summer and warmer days in the winter. PowerSIMM’s default method for creating temperature simulations does not use a temperature forecast or include trends in temperature. The result is a set of simulations that resemble historical weather conditions. However, the models can be configured to account for changes in future temperatures to reflect predictions of a changing climate. 403 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-8
The resulting simulations should reasonably match historical data. Figure 106 shows an example of daily maximum dry bulb temperature simulations across a single year.
Figure 106. Multiple Simulations of Daily Maximum Dry Bulb Temperatures The stochastic framework captures variations in weather conditions and extreme events. PowerSIMM has the capability to modify the statistical parameters of the temperature distribution to capture extreme events. Ascend runs validations to ensure that simulated temperatures align with historical values at the mean level along with the fifth percentile and ninety-fifth percentile.
Load Simulation PowerSIMM creates realistic simulations of load that maintain a strong non-linear relationship between load and temperature. The load simulations capture the range of uncertainty exhibited in historical load data. After fitting historical load data to a time series model, PowerSIMM scales the load simulations to match future expectations for energy consumption, peak demand growth, and daily load shapes. 0 20
40 60
80 100
120Temperature (°F)
Month
Max Dry Bulb Simulations
404 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-9
Simulations of load rely on past data to create accurate representation of the utility load that matches historical statistics in the near term while matching the load forecast inputs through the simulation time frame. By scaling load simulations to forecast values, PowerSIMM produces accurate simulations of load that provide a realistic range of future load values around the expected mean. Figure 107 shows a time series of multiple load simulations.
Figure 107. Multiple Simulations of Load Over a Single Week Figure 108 shows the load versus temperature relationship maintained in the load simulations— when temperatures are at their highest load is at its highest, driven by the need to cool.
Figure 108. Load versus Temperature Relationships
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Load (MWh)
Day
Load Simulations for First Week in January
405 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-10
Wind and Solar Simulation PowerSIMM generates simulations of renewables with time series models fit to hourly historical data. Accurate wind and solar generation simulations are an essential part of power system modeling for determining cost of service (COS), loss of load risks, resource valuation, and many other modeling outputs used in utility decision making. Wind and solar simulation models use a structure that assumes generation is a function of maximum and minimum temperature inputs from the weather simulations. The model also allows structural variables, like time of day and month of year, to affect generation. For example, if generation is typically highest on afternoons in spring, even apart from the influence of temperature, then the model will be able to capture that. Finally, the model includes autoregressive terms to capture the influence of generation in the previous hour to the current hour’s generation. In addition to daily temperatures, hour, and month, solar simulations include the solar irradiance calculated at the location of the solar resource. Solar irradiance is a function of the time of day, day of the year, and the longitude and latitude of a project. PowerSIMM scales monthly wind and solar simulations to match monthly forecasts. Realistic simulations of variable renewable energy generation lead to accurate analysis of the value of renewable assets and the effect of renewables in production cost studies, resource adequacy, or capacity expansion. Figure 109 provides an example of solar simulations over a week.
Figure 109. Multiple Simulations of Solar Generation Over a Single Week 406 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-11
Figure 110 provides an example of wind simulations over a week.
Figure 110. Multiple Simulations of Wind Generation Over a Single Week 407 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-12
Small Hydro Simulation PowerSIMM models small hydro resources as run-of-the-river hydro. Dispatchable hydro resources are set up as a hydro project in PowerSIMM. Like other variable renewable resources in PowerSIMM, hydro simulations use a time series model fit to historical hourly generation data. The outcome is a set of simulations that capture the full range of potential hydro generation to provide accurate results for utility decision making. While the structural details of the hydro simulation model differ from the wind and solar simulation models, the general inputs are similar. Hydro simulation models also assume generation is a function of maximum and minimum temperature inputs from the weather simulations. Like wind and solar simulations, the model used for hydro simulations also allows structural variables, like time of day and month of year, to affect the generation. The hydro model also includes autocorrelation terms. Hydro simulations are scaled to match future expectations for monthly generation and capacity. PowerSIMM ensures that average monthly hydro simulations match the hydro forecast values. Figure 111 shows hydro simulations over a one-week period.
Figure 111. Multiple Simulations of Hydro Generation Over a Single Week 408 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-13
Forward Price Simulation PowerSIMM simulates forward curves using a stochastic model with parameters derived from recent historical transaction dates and defined user inputs (as applicable). PowerSIMM constructs a system of equations for forward contracts that includes the stochastic component of the forward price, as well as the correlation with neighboring contract months, and other commodities. This framework produces price simulations that are realistic, benchmark well to historical data, and produce a payoff of cash flows consistent with market option quotes at multiple strike prices. Forward contract prices are modeled with an autoregression, or AR, model with volatilities and correlations maintained in accordance with historical data or with inputs provided in the forward price constraints. PowerSIMM uses an AR lag of one while limiting the coefficient to a value of less than 1. An AR coefficient less than 1 is equivalent to a Geometric Brownian Motion model with mean reversion. Thus, the forward prices tend to do a random walk with a constant pull back to the monthly mean values. Figure 112 shows multiple simulations of forward prices. The mean across all simulations equals to the input forecast.
Figure 112. Multiple Simulations of Forward Prices
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Price ($/MWh)
Year
Forward Price Simulations
409 of 839
F. PowerSIMM Planner Simulation Details
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP F-14
Spot Price Simulation PowerSIMM simulates spot prices beginning with the market expectations of monthly blocks of energy represented as the average forward or forecast price over the monthly block. Following the forward price simulations, spot prices are simulated with a hybrid approach that captures the uncertainty in price risk in power markets and trading hubs, including variability in weather, load, renewable output, congestion risk, and locational marginal prices, while maintaining consistency with forward price simulations. A sample of hourly spot price simulations are shown in Figure 113 over the course of a week.
Figure 113. Simulations for Spot Prices Over a Single Week Basis Price Simulation Basis price items in PowerSIMM allow for models to contain multiple pricing nodes. The main market configuration in PowerSIMM must select a primary forward price and spot price for use in the price simulations. PowerSIMM derives basis prices as “structural” (regression-based model) or “basic” (random noise) items from the main spot price configured in the model. Basis prices are an important feature of PowerSIMM because they allow for market interactions and simulate locational marginal prices of different nodes. Scalars applied in the Basis model allow users to set up expected deviations in prices between the basis price (node) and the reference spot price (hub). Users may set up scalars as a constant value across all hours or as random variables where the parameters are a function of time. The Basis module can also be used to produce sub-hourly simulations and ancillary services prices. 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Price ($/MWh)
Day
Spot Price Simulations for First Week in June
410 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-1
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Risk is inherent in GWP’s ability to procure sustainable power at reasonable costs, to operate prudently in the wholesale energy markets, to ensure a robust distribution system, and to deliver reliable power to its customers. GWP’s Energy Risk Management Policy identifies those risks and establishes a plan to, as much as possible, mitigate them. The Policy outlines and formalizes guidelines for how to plan for and manage operational risks and identifies the people responsible for implementing these guidelines. The Policy establishes: § Business and risk management objectives § Governance structure and responsibilities § Scope of business activities associated with risk management § Associated guidelines, policy documents, and registry Implementing the Policy entails coordinating the actions of all GWP departments, which when successfully implemented, supports GWP’s strategic business plan, and safeguards its business and risks. The Policy describes the responsibilities of certain positions in each department, including the City Council, the City Manager, and GWP’s General Manager who, together with other City of Glendale staff, comprise the Energy Risk Management Committee (ERMC). This Policy details the steps necessary for the ERMC to ensure its successful implementation. Since the 2019 IRP, GWP has updated its Policy twice, first in July 2021 and then again in August 2022. GWP’s policy has worked well over the years; as a result, these updates were minor. 411 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-2
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
(1(5*<5,6.0$1$*(0(1732/,&<
$XJXVW
412 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-3
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
i
7$%/(2)&217(176
32/,&<385326(
5,6.0$1$*(0(172%-(&7,9(6
2.1GWP Business Objectives 2
2.2GWP Risk Management Objectives 2
25*$1,=$7,21 *29(51$1&(
3.1City Council 5
3.2 City Manager 5
3.3 GWP General Manager 6
3.4 GWP Energy Risk Management Committee (ERMC) 7
3.4.1 Energy Risk Management Committee Structure
3.4.2 Meeting Timing,Frequency, and Voting Procedures
3.4.3 Member Vacancies
3.4.4 Energy Risk Committee Responsibilities
3.5 GWP Chief or Assistant General Manager (Power Management) 10
3.6 GWP Assistant General Manager (Business Services) 10
3.7 GWP Integrated Resources Planning Administrator 11
3.8 GWP Energy Trading Manager 12
3.9 GWP Power Planning Manager 13
3.10 GWP Energy Risk Manager 14
3.11 GWP Power Contracts Manager 16
3.12 GWP Utility Finance Manager 17
3.13 GWP Utility Business System Support Administrator 18
3.14 City of Glendale Finance 18
3.15 City of Glendale Legal 19
3.16 City of Glendale Audit 19
3.17 Conflict of Interest and Compliance 20
6&23(2)%86,1(66$&7,9,7,(6*29(51('%<7+,6
32/,&<
5(/$7('32/,&,(6
5(3257,1*
6.1 Reporting Requirements 21
Table 6.1 Reporting Requirements 21
413 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-4
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
ii
32/,&<5(9,(:
352&('85(6
414 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-5
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
1 32/,&<385326(
Glendale Water & Power (GWP) is in the business of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for the benefit of the City of Glendale. One of GWP’s main objectives is to procure reliable and sustainable power for its customers at stable and predictable rates while optimizing existing and local resources.This Energy Risk Management Policy (the Policy) is designed to establish the framework for GWP to manage the risks that are inherent in the wholesale energy operations and markets it participates in.
The purpose of this Policy is to formally establish an energy risk management program and document the organizational structure (Figure 3.1) utilized by GWP to meet the electricity needs of its customers and provide approved guidelines for GWP to plan, execute, and control the management of a variety of risks associated with energy portfolio activities. The purpose of this Policy is also to formalize the policies of GWP regarding managing its energy risks. Accordingly, this Policy will set forth GWP’s:
risk management objectives;
risk governance structure and responsibilities;
scope of business activities governed by this Policy; and list of associated guidelines, policy documents, and registry.
GWP intends that energy risk management will support the advancement of its strategic business plan and will properly manage its business and financial risks through:
prudent oversight;
adequate mitigation of energy risks consistent with GWP’s defined risk registry and tolerance; and
sufficient internal controls and procedures.
Managing the energy risks of GWP entails the coordination of resources and activities among all departments within GWP and within the City of Glendale (CoG) governance structure.
415 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-6
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
2 5,6.0$1$*(0(172%-(&7,9(6
2.1 *:3%86,1(662%-(&7,9(6
An effective energy risk management policy better equips a utility to achieve its energy portfolio objectives. This Policy is focused on helping GWP achieve these business objectives:
Provide reliable, sustainable power to retail customers; Manage the energy portfolio to stabilize rates;
Comply with mandatory renewable and clean energy standards and other regulatory requirements;
Provide renewable and clean energy while reducing carbon and other emissions;
Allow for hedging to protect against adverse changes in energy market prices and mitigate the risk to customers of significant rate increases and budget shortfalls;
Allow for providing price and risk differentiated energy products to customers as appropriate;
Optimize GWP’s existing energy portfolio resources; and Protect GWP’s systems, communications, and data against risks associated with cybersecurity.
2.2 *:35,6.0$1$*(0(172%-(&7,9(6
The primary goal of this Policy and resulting risk management activities is to strengthen GWP’s ability to provide reliable, sustainable power to its retail customers at stable, predictable rates while managing risks and complying with mandatory regulatory requirements. This goal is best achieved by enabling GWP to transact in different energy commodity markets while monitoring, minimizing, and mitigating associated risks.
Other goals of risk management activities are to:
Maintain risks within desired tolerances for a defined period in the future; Enhance the value of GWP’s assets/resources;
Participate in commodity markets and derivative instruments for hedging and not speculative purposes;
Develop a risk management culture and support GWP’s ongoing strategic planning process;
Manage a portfolio of physical and financial positions to help stabilize the cost of energy with associated risks while maintaining reliable energy supplies for customers and meeting regulatory requirements; Identify, quantify, and monitor market and regulatory risks; 416 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-7
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
3 Monitor trading activity to identify and report if policy violations occur and if authority limits are exceeded without proper approval;
Work within the existing organizational structure to implement the Policy; Remain flexible to accommodate changing needs of GWP’s energy portfolio while maintaining control of the overall risk position; and Operate a disciplined program to manage budget, cash flows, margining, and transaction execution.
25*$1,=$ 7,21 *29(51$1&(
Risk governance will follow a top-down approach whereby the GWP Energy Risk Management Committee (ERMC) identifies GWP’s energy risk management objectives and provides energy risk management oversight, consistent with the rates, annual budget, policies, and transaction authorities that are all periodically adopted by the City Council. Supporting controls, policies, and procedures will be implemented and aligned throughout the risk governance structure, with distinct roles and responsibilities that result in an energy risk controlled environment. Governance and controls include the organizational structure, policies, reporting processes, and procedures that support GWP’s business models, risk tolerances, energy supply objectives, and appropriately segregate responsibilities.
The following sections identify and describe the levels within the organization with oversight and direct responsibility for the implementation of this Policy and the resulting program.
$66,*10(172)5(63216,%,/,7,(6
The following organizational chart illustrates the roles and functions responsible for the implementation of risk management activities within this Policy. Also, it identifies the appropriate segregation of duties within GWP for the primary functions that manage energy commodities:
417 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-8
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
4 418 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-9
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
5 3.1 &,7<&281&,/
The City of Glendale City Council shall:
Adopt an electric utility annual budget;
Review and approve retail electric customer rate changes; Review and approve changes to the GWP Electric System Cash Reserve Policy;
Approve transaction authorities for the City Manager and the GWP General Manager established according to the Trading Authority Policy; Approve recommended changes to the Energy Risk Management Policy that establishes an overall framework for evaluation, management, and control of energy risk for GWP.
3.2 &,7<0$1$*(5
The City Manager is responsible for providing the oversight of and support for GWP’s energy risk management philosophies and principles. The City Manager shall:
Establish scope and frequency of any GWP management reporting to the City Council;
Periodically review energy risk exposures and compliance with policies and procedures;
Discuss GWP’s energy risk exposures and the steps GWP management has taken or will take to mitigate, control, and monitor such exposures, as documented in GWP’s Risk Registry;
Require adequate management involvement, financial controls, and systems to monitor, report, and ensure the integrity of this Policy at all levels;
Periodically review this Policy and the related policies as defined in Section 5, and recommend changes proposed by the GWP ERMC to the City Council and/or such other changes as the City Manager deems advisable; and
Approve a Trading Authority Delegation reflecting delegation of trading authority and limits. Periodically review the Trading Authority Delegation and recommend proposed revisions, as needed; and
Serve on the ERMC.
419 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-10
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
6 3.3 *:3*(1(5$/0$1$*(5
The GWP General Manager is responsible for the overall direction, structure, conduct, control, mitigation, reporting, and enforcement of GWP’s risk management activities. The GWP General Manager shall:
Establish a risk management culture throughout the organization; Periodically assess the adequacy and functioning of the system of controls over market, credit, and operational risks;
Ensure that all energy risk control activities (e.g., position monitoring, portfolio assessment, credit) are independent of energy purchases and sales;
Approve a Trading Authority Delegation reflecting delegation of trading authority and limits. At a minimum, annually review the Trading Authority Delegation and revise, as needed;
Report to the City Manager on GWP’s energy risk management activities, achievements, and goals;
Annually review with the ERMC and assure compliance with the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5; Review with the GWP ERMC on GWP’s compliance with its energy risk policies and energy risk management in accordance with the policies; Periodically report, to the City Manager, the risk profile of GWP’s energy portfolio and on the results of energy risk management activities; Have authority to transact within the limits set by the City Council in the Trading Authority Policy;
Approve proper organization, separation, or consolidation of functional activities;
Ensure that the identification and quantification of energy risks and related energy risk mitigation strategies, as documented in GWP’s Risk Registry, are integrated into the GWP strategic planning process; and Establish and maintain an effective working relationship with associated energy service providers; and
Serve on the ERMC.
420 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-11 Glendale Water & Power August 2022 7 Energy Risk Management Policy
3.4 *:3(1(5*<5,6.0$1$*(0(17&200,77((
(50&
The GWP ERMC has the responsibility for managing the target energy risk profiles and leading GWP’s energy risk management efforts on a path of continuous improvement. The GWP ERMC will provide direction and oversight to GWP concerning power supply planning, transacting, hedging, reporting, and related internal controls; and the development and implementation of policies and procedures consistent with this Policy.
The GWP ERMC establishes a forum for discussion of GWP’s significant energy risks and must develop guidelines required to implement an appropriate energy risk management control infrastructure; this includes implementation and monitoring of compliance with GWP’s energy risk management-related policies, as defined in Section 5. The GWP ERMC executes its energy risk management responsibilities through direct oversight and prudent delegation of its responsibilities to the independent energy risk management function, as well as to other GWP and City of Glendale (CoG) personnel.
3.4.1 *:3(QHUJ\5LVN0DQDJHPHQW&RPPLWWHH6WUXFWXUH
Voting Membership:
The GWP ERMC shall be comprised of six voting members and seven non-voting members.
The six voting members are:
1.City Manager;
2.GWP General Manager (Chair);
3.GWP Chief or Assistant General Manager (Power Management), or as designated by the GWP General Manager;
4.GWP Assistant General Manager (Business Services) or as designated by the GWP General Manager;
5.GWP Energy Risk Manager; and
6.CoG Director of Finance/Information Technology.
Non-voting participants shall include, but not limited to:
1.GWP Integrated Resources Planning Administrator;
2.GWP Trading Manager;
3.GWP Utility Business System Support Administrator;
4.GWP Utility Finance Manager;
5.CoG Attorney;
6.Power Planning Manager; and
7.CoG Internal Audit Manager.
421 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-12
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
8 3.4.2 0HHWLQJ7LPLQJ)UHTXHQF\DQG9RWLQJ3URFHGXUHV The GWP ERMC shall meet no less than once per calendar quarter.
Member attendance shall be recorded in the GWP ERMC meeting minutes.
Any voting member of the GWP ERMC can request an emergency meeting of the GWP ERMC to address circumstances or issues that may require immediate attention. n the event any member or participant is unable to attend a GWP ERMC meeting, that member or participant may designate an alternate to attend and vote in his or her absence.
The six voting members shall each have a single vote on matters that come before the GWP ERMC and a voting member, or designee, must participate in the GWP ERMC meeting in order to vote and approve a proposed action. If any three of the voting members, or their designees, are not present at a GWP ERMC meeting, a vote on a proposed action cannot take place. The GWP ERMC will make decisions and take actions by a simple majority vote. If the GWP ERMC reaches an impasse that cannot be addressed through a vote or if a tie vote occurs, the GWP General Manager will make a final decision.
3.4.3 0HPEHU9DFDQFLHV
In cases where a committee member vacates the GWP ERMC, the GWP General Manager will resolve the GWP ERMC vacancy by making a discretionary interim appointment.
The GWP General Manager will designate a Secretary to the GWP ERMC to document all meetings and actions taken by the GWP ERMC in meeting minutes that will be distributed to GWP ERMC members for their review and approval. The Secretary need not be a member of the GWP ERMC.
Approved meeting minutes will be distributed by the Secretary to the GWP ERMC members.
3.4.4 *:3(QHUJ\5LVN0DQDJHPHQW&RPPLWWHH5HVSRQVLELOLWLHV The GWP ERMC is responsible for:
Aligning energy risk management with City Council approved budgets, rates, policies and transaction authorities;
Setting a clear strategy and goals for hedging market price risk via the Hedge Policy; reviewing and approving risk management strategies and hedging plans to be implemented by GWP;
Establishing the scope of energy portfolio and risk management activities, the purpose for engaging in transactions, and the appropriate risk tolerances consistent with strategic direction;
Establishing the strategic direction and risk threshold for retail load energy needs and wholesale transactions; reviewing and approving 422 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-13
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
9 proposed energy risk management strategies for strategic fit, evaluate risk exposure consistent with energy risk tolerances, and reporting and control requirements. The GWP ERMC shall ensure that approved strategies are consistent with GWP’s approved strategic business plan, energy risk management objectives, approved energy risk tolerance guidelines, and compliance with energy risk policies;
Reviewing reports by the independent energy risk management function concerning policy and procedural compliance and taking appropriate action to mitigate losses or increased risks, if any, as necessary; Providing oversight and direction for specific projects including new markets, RFP development and review of RFP responses for physical and financial energy, fuel, related transportation transactions, and tools and systems needed to manage the risks of participation in energy markets;
Discussing elements of energy risk management best practices and developing an GWP ERMC opinion of their specific practicality; Overseeing the implementation and review of related Standard Operating Procedures and changes to them;
Conducting other activities relevant to the implementation and oversight of this Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5, and procedures;
Recommending to the GWP General Manager the proper organizational structure, separation or consolidation of functional risk management activities;
At least, annually, review GWP’s energy risk management program and Risk Registry due to changes in business practices, improved procedures, GWP’s philosophy and strategy, or market changes; and ensuring continued compliance with its established guidelines; Reviewing this Policy and related policies as defined in Section 5, on an annual basis and recommending changes to this Policy to the City Manager for submittal to the City Council for approval; and Approving and periodically reviewing the related policies defined in Section 5.
423 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-14
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
10 3.5 *:3&+,()25$66,67$17*(1(5$/0$1$*(5
32:(50$1$*(0(17
The GWP Assistant General Manager or designee, as relates to Power Management Services, oversees the “front office,” reports directly to the GWP General Manager, and responsible for GWP’s overall energy supply. The GWP Assistant General Manager (Supply) shall:
Develop and maintain retail load forecasts and retail fuel and purchase power budgets;
Assure compliance with this Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5, by the Energy Trading Manager and Marketers, Analysts and Schedulers, Real-time Traders or Authorized Agents, and the GWP Power Contacts Manager involved in energy risk management activities; Establish a review and approval process to provide timely responses to issues arising from day-to-day operations;
Oversee the development of hedge strategies to manage GWP’s energy exposure;
Recommend hedge strategies to the GWP ERMC that address GWP’s plans to manage its energy exposure;
Oversee the development of procedures for Energy Marketers, Schedulers, and Real-time Traders as needed;
Support and assist in the preparation of reports listed in Section 6.1, Reporting Requirements; and
Serve on the GWP ERMC.
3.6 *:3$66,67$17*(1(5$/0$1$*(5
%86,1(666(59,&(6
The GWP Assistant General Manager or designee, as relates to Business Services, oversees the “back office,” reports directly to the GWP General Manager, and responsible for GWP’s marketing development and operations activities. The GWP Assistant General Manager (Business Services) shall:
Oversee the responsibilities of the GWP Utility Manager (Financial) and GWP Business Systems Support Manager;
Provide management oversight for the direction and coordination of customer service activities with other sections of the utility; Direct marketing and public information activities of the utility. Oversee the development, implementation, promotion, evaluation, and modification of GWP customer relations, marketing, demand-side management, utility conservation, renewable energy, and revenue enhancing programs across all customer segments;
Direct the activities of support service functions for the utility; Prepare written reports and correspondence, and recommend procedural changes to improve efficient operation of the section;
Prepare and monitor GWP budget and overall financial health of the utility; 424 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-15
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
11 Lead the utility wide change management effort with respect to smart grid and related innovation. Responsible for the development and implementation of strategic and technology work plans;
Direct personnel and activities in the development of distributed resources, dynamic rates, including time of use, critical peak, and real time pricing, demand response, smart appliance, consumer device, advanced storage, peak-shaving, new web based services, and other smart grid program options for empowering consumers;
Assure compliance with the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5; and
Serve on the GWP ERMC.
3.7 *:3,17(*5$7('5(6285&(63/$11,1*$'0,1,675$725
The GWP Integrated Resources Planning Administrator reports directly to the authority under section 3.5 and plans, directs, supervises, and reviews the development, identification, and administration of power resources; plans, directs, supervises and reviews the development, negotiation, monitoring, administration, and settlement of transactions related to power resource contracts; and plans, directs and supervises participation in regulatory, legal and project administration efforts. The GWP Integrated Resources Planning Administrator shall:
Direct activities related to the preparation of forecasts of energy requirements and peak demands;
Direct the development of analytical studies related to power supply economics, generation, forecasting, regulatory and legislative impacts; Direct the City's power supply projects including generation, transmission and marginal costing studies;
Direct the preparation of utility data to assist in negotiating power marketing agreements and power purchases;
Direct contract negotiations to fill power supply requirements and to resolve power supply issues;
Direct the preparation of reports for regulatory agencies; Direct the development and maintenance of forward wholesale market information systems;
Direct the development and implementation of forward strategies; Negotiate and administer joint power resource development projects, regional transmission and power generating projects;
Analyze proposed litigation settlements and negotiate the settlement of disputes;
Coordinate the legal review of proposed contractual arrangements; Evaluate and report performance and compliance of existing power contracts;
425 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-16
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
12 Responsible for the development of the annual budget and long-term power cost forecasts;
Assist in the development of overall policies, plans, and objectives; and Prepare comprehensive written and oral reports and presentation recommendations; and
Participate on the GWP ERMC.
3.8 *:3(1(5*<75$',1*0$1$*(5
The GWP Energy Trading Manager reports directly to the authority under section
3.5 and exercises technical, administrative, and management responsibility over staff performing energy trading. The GWP Energy Trading Manager shall:
Represent the “front office” in GWP’s energy risk management organization; The “front office” is responsible for energy trading, operations, portfolio optimization, load forecasting, transaction and scheduling, generating resource optimization, and hedging;
Assure daily compliance with the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5, and timely responses to issues arising from day-to-day operations;
Execute and manage energy transactions (purchases, sales, and hedges) in accordance with approved hedge strategies and within the requirements specified in the Trading Authority Delegation;
Understand the types of transactions individuals may engage in to manage the energy portfolio;
Adhere to the transaction approval process;
Actively acquire and analyze market intelligence and assist in developing hedge strategies;
Prepare transaction analyses and reports;
Communicate market intelligence within GWP’s risk management organization; and
Participate on the GWP ERMC.
426 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-17 Glendale Water & Power August 2022 13 Energy Risk Management Policy
3.9 *:332:(53/$11,1*0$1$*(5
The GWP Power Planning Manager reports directly to the authority under section
3.5 and supervises the analysis, forecasting and planning activities for the electric utility's integrated resources established by GWP management. The GWP Power Planning Manager represents the “front office” in GWP’s energy risk management organization. The GWP Power Planning Manager shall:
Evaluate resource needs to meet forecasted loads and load patterns and performs technical and economic analysis of resource options; Perform modeling, analysis, and forecasting of load patterns and resource utilization;
Interpret and evaluate economic analyses, planning data, and study results;
Assist in evaluating opportunities for power supply acquisition and power project participation;
Assist in negotiating contracts to fill power supply requirements and to resolve power supply issues;
Evaluate market data and opportunities for power supply acquisition and power project participation;
Prepare and supervise preparation of technical and administrative reports and recommendations including the annual long-range power supply plan (integrated resource plan) and reports to regulatory bodies; Develop and recommend policies and procedures to ensure that power planning/marketing activities comply with NERC/WECC requirements and contractual provisions;
Develop and recommend procedures to effectively carry out optimization of the City's resource, transmission, and load portfolio; Assist with development of the annual budget;
Prepare and supervise preparation of reports and graphic displays for use in presentation of study results and recommendations; and Participate on the GWP ERMC.
427 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-18 Glendale Water & Power August 2022 14 Energy Risk Management Policy
3.10 *:3(1(5*<5,6.0$1$*(5
GWP’s Independent Risk Management Function is led by the GWP Energy Risk Manager. The GWP Energy Risk Manager represents the “middle office” in GWP’s energy risk management organization. The responsibilities of the GWP Energy Risk Manager include ensuring reports covering GWP’s energy portfolio position and credit exposures are prepared and reporting compliance with energy risk management policies and procedures. The GWP Energy Risk Manager also leads the development and review of business processes and internal control improvements throughout the energy transaction lifecycle. The GWP Energy Risk Manager will provide risk assessment input to the hedge planning and transacting activity, but will maintain a strict separation of duties.
The GWP Energy Risk Manager will brief the GWP General Manager, as requested, regarding recent GWP energy risk management activities.
The GWP Energy Risk Manager will serve as facilitator of the GWP ERMC and reports directly to the GWP General Manager. In addition, the GWP Energy Risk Manager shall:
Perform responsibilities delegated by the GWP ERMC;
Serve, organize and conduct the GWP ERMC meetings;
Engage the EMRC in discussions regarding emerging risks, events and developments that could expose GWP to potential losses; Develop, recommend, and administer risk management processes and procedures, including best practice procedures;
Provide and administer energy risk management education/training to GWP management and staff;
Review energy risk management activities and risk controls, and recommend modifications of controls to meet changing business needs; Review adequacy and accuracy of reports, and report any deficiencies to the GWP ERMC. Recommend actions to address deficiencies; Assess energy risks to GWP in aggregate, by business unit, and by material business activity;
Ensure compliance, review, and recommend changes to the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5, and energy risk management procedures, as appropriate;
Monitor compliance of transactions with GWP’s Trading Authority Policy and Trading Authority Delegation and monitor GWP’s portfolio for compliance with GWP’s Hedge Policy;
Report to the GWP ERMC and GWP General Manager on GWP’s compliance with its energy risk policies and energy risk management in accordance with policies;
Manage credit exposure in compliance with the GWP Credit Policy; Report mark-to-market forward energy transactions for credit exposure purposes;
428 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-19
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
15 Review and evaluate proposed longer-term transactions to be executed by GWP and ensure adequate analysis has been performed with proper assessment and mitigation of any such risk consistent with energy risk management objectives, risk tolerance guidelines, and energy risk management policies, including the financial, legal, credit, regulatory, reliability, and operational impacts;
Ensure the responsibilities of the GWP ERMC, as outlined in the Policy, are fulfilled;
Provide advice regarding the effectiveness of tools used or evaluated to assist in energy risk management for measuring, monitoring, and reporting performance;
Validate the tools and data used throughout GWP to measure, monitor, and report risk;
Support periodic internal audits of GWP risk control policies, processes and procedures with CoG Internal Audit to ensure overall operational compliance;
Conduct periodic review and update of the GWP Risk Registry, including status of mitigation plans and risk prioritization, and ensure effective strategies are in place to mitigate the top energy risks; Review and advise the GWP ERMC and the GWP General Manager of risk exposures in the GWP Risk Registry;
Ensure Standard Operating Procedures and Allegro Business Process Documents for each of the functional areas that fall under the Policy umbrella are maintained and updated, as necessary;
Be responsible for the oversight and effectiveness of GWP’s energy risk management policies, procedures, and trading control environment; Review and recommend, to the GWP ERMC, changes to functional activities, as appropriate, to ensure proper segregation of duties; Provide a timely summary of GWP ERMC accomplishments for the past year and goals for the upcoming year to the GWP ERMC and GWP General Manager;
Lead and assist in the preparation of reports listed in Section 6.1, Reporting Requirements;
Participate, as required, on committees and working groups such as risk management, legislative, regulatory, and cybersecurity; and Report regularly to the GWP ERMC, the following information, at a minimum, but not limited to:
oPortfolio modeling risk measures (1-60 months);
oPower cost projections and confidence intervals;
oProduction output and operational concerns;
oCredit and contract risk exposures;
oHedging strategies;
oEnergy policy and procedural violations;
oRegulatory and reliability compliance;
oBusiness continuity;
429 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-20
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
16 oPhysical and cyber security in coordination with the City’s Information Systems Department;
oUpdates to the GWP Risk Registry; and
oOther Key Performance Indicators that support effective energy risk management
3.11 *:332:(5&2175$&760$1$*(5
The GWP Power Contracts Manager reports directly to the authority under section 3.5 and recommends, negotiates, and prepares the City's power resource contracts and agreements in accordance with the direction and goals established by GWP management. The GWP Power Contracts Manager represents the “middle office” in GWP’s energy risk management organization. The GWP Power Contracts Manager shall:
Actively participate in regulatory, legal, and project administration efforts. Identify and assist in the negotiation and evaluation of contracts, including resource purchases and sales, transmission, natural gas, transportation, renewables and emissions, settlement, interconnection, interchange, development, participation, operation, and agreements;
Monitor and support the GWP’s participation in utility industry’s federal, state, and local regulatory authority activities;
Review, evaluate, revise, and author contracts, regulatory filings, and legal filings related to the GWP's energy resource operations; Review and ensure the GWP is in compliance with contractual terms and is receiving similar compliance from contracting parties in accordance with prepared task lists, schedules and loss calculations, procedures, and guidelines for administering and evaluating all energy resource related agreements;
Evaluate existing and proposed contractual arrangements and recommend desirable modifications for the purpose of optimizing the GWP's benefits;
Analyze and recommend resource-operating strategies and assist in the creation of contractual guidelines for related resource functions; and Support strategies related to legal disputes.
Assign appropriate funding based on contract terms and budget; and Notify GWP Management if it is anticipated that there will be inadequate funds available in the budget to transact;
Adhere to confirmation process by confirming trades executed under enabling agreements;
Manage the counterparty approval, credit, and collateral management processes;
Develop and manage Power Management’s budget for bulk power, gas, transmission, transportation, environmental commodities, and related contractual services;
430 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-21
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
17 Oversee trade capture and validation activities including actualization of trades, etags, generation resource data, and review accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of data in the trading system; Monitor and manage Renewable Energy Credits as it relates to creation, transfer, and retirement for RPS Compliance;
Carbon Allowance allocations, offsets, and mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting and verification;
Assure compliance with the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5;
Serve as “Energy Risk Manager” back-up; and
Participate on the GWP ERMC.
3.12 *:387,/,7<),1$1&(0$1$*(5
The GWP Utility Manager reports directly to the authority under section 3.6 and manages the “back office” in GWP’s energy risk management organization.
The Back Office, as part as the GWP Finance, provides settlement services; documents the required accounting treatment of forward transactions; and provides the related valuation of these transactions to enable the preparation of invoices and reporting of forward transactions in GWP’s financial statements in accordance with prevailing accounting rules. The GWP Utility Manager shall:
Oversee and monitor the back office for transactional analysis and accuracy;
Develop and apply accounting policies to financial transactions; Oversee the settlement of transactions (verification, accounts payable/receivable process);
Manage the counterparty approval, credit, and collateral management processes;
Correctly classify and report transactions. (Certain transactions may differ in their reporting requirements, depending on whether they qualify as “existing assets, liabilities, and firm commitments” or “anticipated transactions” for hedge accounting. CoG Finance shall determine how transactions are classified for reporting purposes and ensure that hedges are accounted for in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.);
Be responsible for Dodd-Frank compliance;
Provide appropriate funding. (CoG Finance shall maintain control procedures over electronic funds transfer for payments and collections. This is intended to ensure that cash payments are properly disbursed and authorized trades are independently confirmed and processed.); and Notify GWP Management and the Power Contracts Manager if GWP Finance anticipates there will be inadequate funds available in the budget to transact.
431 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-22
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
18 Supports CoG Finance in preparing the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that complies with the accounting requirements promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB);
Participate, as required, on finance committees and working groups; Assure compliance with the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5; and
Participate on the GWP ERMC.
Under no circumstances will members of the GWP Finance be given the authority to enter into any energy transactions on behalf of the utility.
3.13 *:387,/,7<%86,1(666<67(06833257$'0,1,675$725
The GWP Business Systems Support Manager reports directly to the authority under section 3.6 and has the responsibility of managing, directing, and coordinating the planning and implementation of major utility technology projects.
GWP’s Business Systems Support Manager shall:
Manage, support, and maintain the Energy Trading and Risk Management (ETRM) applications, databases, backups, and redundancies; Conduct quarterly audits of ETRM users access and provide reporting to management as needed;
Maintain OATI security and certificate management;
Administer all aspects of IT security with firewall monitoring; Develops and maintains GWP cybersecurity training, procedures, and policies;
Participate, as required, on cybersecurity committees and working groups. Coordinate information technology activities with City’s Information Services;
Assure compliance with the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5; and
Participate on the GWP ERMC
3.14 &,7<2)*/(1'$/(),1$1&(
The Finance Department provides timely, accurate, clear and concise information to the City Council, City Manager, GWP General Manager, GWP ERMC, and various City Departments and is dedicated to managing the City’s resources in a fiscally conservative manner. City of Glendale’s Director of Finance/Information Technology shall:
Provide support and assistance on GWP financial and budgetary issues; Provide long range financial planning functions including revenue and operational expense projections;
432 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-23
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
19 Provide recommendations on operations effectiveness measures, and revenue strategies;
Review existing and proposed ordinances, statues, resolutions, and other documents;
Direct the City’s energy risk management functions including litigation, insurance, and external auditors;
Confer on financial policies and procedures;
Assure compliance with this Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5; and
Serve on the GWP ERMC.
3.15 &,7<2)*/(1'$/(/(*$/
The City Attorney's Office is committed to providing professional, quality legal services that ultimately protect the interests of the City of Glendale, its departments, and the City Council. City of Glendale’s City Attorney shall:
Review the Policy and the related policies, as defined in Section 5, and recommend updates as appropriate in compliance with the City Charter and applicable law;
Negotiate master/enabling agreements with counter-parties as directed by the authority under section 3.5 and GWP Power Contracts Manager; Assess legal enforceability of contracts with applicable laws and regulations;
Assure compliance with the Energy Risk Management Policy and related policies, as defined in Section 5; and
Participate on the GWP ERMC.
3.16 &,7<2)*/(1'$/($8',7
The City of Glendale Internal Audit assists the City in improving operations by providing independent audits and consulting services designed to add value and promote transparency, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. The City of Glendale’s Internal Audit Manager shall:
Verify proper segregation of external and internal reporting, energy risk management, accounting, treasury, and trading duties and maintenance of files;
Sample and review activities for compliance with related policies and procedures;
Document and report audit findings to GWP ERMC, including compliance with and discrepancies from this Policy and the related policies, as defined in Section 5, as well as any other irregularity which could expose GWP to financial or operational risk; and
433 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-24
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
20 Participate on the GWP ERMC.
3.17 &21)/,&72),17(5(67$1'&203/,$1&(
Potential conflict of interest by persons directly affected by this Policy is covered by State law and City of Glendale’s citywide Conflict of Interest Charter Code.
All City of Glendale employees who hold positions mentioned in this Policy or perform functions described herein shall not enter into, or direct others to enter into, any energy transactions or other related transactions other than on behalf of GWP, the City of Glendale, or its authorized agents.
6&23(2)%86,1(66$&7,9,7,(6*29(51('%<7+,6
32/,&<
The scope of this Policy is designed to address the management of the energy risks associated with GWP, as documented in GWP’s Risk Registry. The GWP Risk Registry is a comprehensive list of risks that affect GWP’s short-term business operations and long-term strategic planning and is maintained by the GWP Energy Risk Manager. The GWP Risk Registry is comprised of Tier1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 risks distinguished by business category and prioritized by impact and likelihood. GWP and CoG personnel have been identified as the owners of each risk and are responsible for developing strategies to mitigate each risk. The number of risks may vary dictated by business and market changes. The GWP Risk Registry reporting requirement is outlined in Section 6.1. 5(/$7('32/,&,(6$1'5(*,675<
Supporting related policies and registry are identified below. Responsibility for their approval, modification, oversight, and compliance shall be consistent with the organization and governance of this Policy (Section 3). *Denoted CoG City Council responsibility for final approval.
GWP Trading Authority Policy*
GWP Trading Sanctions Policy
GWP Credit Policy
GWP Hedge Policy
GWP Business Continuity Policy
GWP Cyber Security Policy
GWP Risk Registry
GWP Electric Cash Reserves Policy*
434 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-25
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
21 5(3257,1*
Reports required by this Policy communicate the operational, market, and credit risks assumed by GWP, and provide information to evaluate the portfolio performance and the effectiveness of the energy risk management program. The reports should be used as a basis for management discussions to determine future energy transactions and strategy.
6.1 5(3257,1*5(48,5(0(176
Management reporting will act as a formal means of communicating the performance of energy transactions and management decisions. On an ongoing basis, management and staff must also establish sufficient communications among parties with responsibilities relative to this Policy.
The following table identifies the reports that must be generated, their normal frequency, report access or distribution, and the originator of the report:
7DEOH±5HSRUWLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
5HSRUW 5HSRUW$FFHVV
1RUPDO
)UHTXHQF\ 2ULJLQDWRU
Load/Resource
Balance
GWP ERMC Members and
Participants
All Transaction Implementation
Staff
Monthly GWP Energy Risk
Manager
Trade Data Report GWP ERMC Members and
Participants
All Transaction Implementation
Staff
Monthly
(Updated
Daily)
GWP Energy Risk
Management Section
Mark-to-Market
Report
GWP ERMC Members and
Participants
All Transaction Implementation
Staff
Monthly
(Updated
Daily)
GWP Energy Risk
Management Section
Counterparty Credit
Exposure Report
GWP ERMC Members and
Participants
All Transaction Implementation
Staff
Monthly
(Updated
Daily)
GWP Energy Risk
Management Section
435 of 839
G. Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP G-26
Energy Risk Management Policy
Glendale Water & Power August 2022
22 Risk Registry and
Risk Mitigation
Activities (1)
GWP ERMC Members and
Participants
All Transaction Implementation
Staff
T1- Monthly
T2- Quarterly
T3 - Annually
GWP Energy Risk
Manager
Portfolio Modeling
Report
GWP ERMC Members and
Participants
All Transaction Implementation
Staff
Monthly GWP Energy Risk
Management Section
(1)As required in Section 3.3, GWP General Manager Responsibilities, the GWP General Manager shall report to the City Manager, annually, on the risk profile of the energy portfolio and on the results of energy risk management activities.
32/,&<5(9,(:
Following approval of this Policy, the GWP ERMC shall periodically, no less than annually, review the Policy and the related policies, as defined in Section 5, and recommend updates as appropriate in coordination with the GWP General Manger. Examples of events prompting updates to this Policy and related policies and reviews are changes in regulatory requirements, significant changes in the resource portfolio, significant changes in variable energy prices of alternative resources, changes in regulations, and reliability concerns. 352&('85(6
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Desk Procedures shall be developed for each functional area to provide specific operating criteria and parameters for day-to-day energy risk management activities as needed. The operating criteria and parameters shall be updated as frequently as appropriate to reflect changes in market conditions and staffing levels. All procedures shall be reviewed approved by management and monitored and reviewed by the GWP ERMC. 436 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-1
H. Utility Modernization Report
The GWP Utility Modernization Report 2020 begins by explaining the background and historic evolution that has led to the current situation that demands utility modernization, and commits GWP to embracing its transformation. Written by Stephen Zurn, GWP’s General Manager, the report outlines the modernization initiatives taken by Glendale’s Electric Division and Water Division. The report describes how GWP is transforming its operations and instituting programs in critical topic areas such as: § Solar solutions program § Renewable energy investments § Distribution system upgrades § Municipal street lighting conversions § Business system modernization and automation § In-home display and thermostat program § Electric vehicle infrastructure § Mobile source air pollution reduction partnership § Electric motorcycles for police § Fiber optic network § Voltage reduction program § Clean energy program § Commercial and residential demand response and thermostat program GWP not only understands the need for a resilient, reliable, and secure power grid to meet the ever demanding needs that the transformation in the energy industry demands, but is also taking steps to keep pace by modernizing its operations and engaging its customers in the process. 437 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-2
!"#$#"%&!" #$%&'()*'" &&'()* '"&+, +,!"#$%&"#'(&)#*'+',-(#* .)#,/#$'01'23*$4'!#$#*&"'0&$&!#*
438 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-3
2 !"#$%&'()*'+,%%,-.'/#0'1"".'02".3'3-',.4".3,5,6"'0-%#$',.03#%%#3,-.0'0,.4"'3/"' 2$-7$#+'1"7#.',.'8998:';<=',0'-."'->'3/"'%#03'?3,%,3,"0',.'3/"'$"7,-.'3/#3' 4-.3,.?"0'3-',.4".3,5,6"'3/"',.03#%%#3,-.'->'$-->3-2'0-%#$:'@0';<='%--A0',.3-' -B"$,.7'#'5,$3?#%'2-C"$'2%#.3'#.D'0-%#$'2$-7$#+'-23,-.'#0'2#$3'->',30'E%"#.' F."$7&'=$-7$#+0G',3'2$-2-0"0'3-'03-2'3/"'H-%#$'H-%?3,-.0'2$-7$#+'0-'3/#3' 4?03-+"$0'4#.'3#A"'#D5#.3#7"'->'#'+-$"'+-D"$.,6"D'#22$-#4/'3-'0-%#$' "."$7&',.5"03+".30:'
!"#$%&'"()'")*$"$+,-.$%
I/"';%".D#%"'E,3&'E-?.4,%'#D-23"D'#'$"0-%?3,-.'-.'J"4"+1"$')9G'89)K'3-' ".3"$',.3-'#'8LM&"#$'=-C"$'H#%"0'@7$""+".3'C,3/'3/"'H-?3/"$.'E#%,>-$.,#' =?1%,4'=-C"$'@?3/-$,3&'NHE==@OG'->'C/,4/';%".D#%"',0'#'+"+1"$G'>-$'#')8:LP'' 0/#$"'->'3/"'$"."C#1%"'0-%#$'"."$7&G'1#33"$&'"."$7&'03-$#7"'2$-D?430G'#.D'' #00-4,#3"D'".5,$-.+".3#%'#33$,1?3"0'>$-+'3/"'F%#.D')'H-%#$'#.D'H3-$#7"'' E".3"$'NF%#.DO',.'Q"$.'E-?.3&:'I/"'03#3"M->M3/"M#$3'F%#.D'>#4,%,3&'C,%%'2$-5,D"'' >?%%&'D,02#34/#1%"'2-C"$'>-$';<='3-'+""3'4?03-+"$'D"+#.D'C,3/'$"%,#1%"G' 4-03M"B"43,5"'2-C"$'M'#'4#2#1,%,3&'2$"5,-?0%&'$"0"$5"D'>-$'%#$7"'>-00,%'>?"%' 2-C"$'2%#.30:'
;<=R0')8:LP'0/#$"'->'F%#.D'C,%%'2$-5,D"'3/"'E,3&'->';%".D#%"'#22$-S,+#3"%&'' 8L'T<'->'$"."C#1%"'0-%#$'"."$7&'#.D')8:L'T<UL9T</'->'"."$7&'03-$#7":'' V3',0'"S2"43"D'3-'4-.3$,1?3"'3-'#1-?3'KP'->';%".D#%"R0'W"."C#1%"'=-$3>-%,-:' ;%".D#%"',0'-.'1-#$D'3-'3$#.0,3,-.'3-'#'%-CM4#$1-.'>?3?$"'#.D',0'2?33,.7'?0' -.'3/"'2#3/'3-'#4/,"5,.7')99P'->'3/"'"."$7&'.""D0'->'3/"';%".D#%"'' 4-++?.,3&'3/$-?7/'$"%,#1%"G'#B-$D#1%"'#.D'0?03#,.#1%"'4%"#.'"."$7&:
;<='/#0'#%0-'".3"$"D',.3-'3C-'-3/"$'$"."C#1%"'2$-X"430Y'3/"'</,3"7$#00'#.D' H3#$'="#A';"-3/"$+#%'=$-X"430:';<='/#0'0,7."D'8L'&"#$'2-C"$'2?$4/#0"'' #7$""+".30'>-$')L:L'T<'->'$"."C#1%"'7"-3/"$+#%'"."$7&'>$-+'3/"0"'2$-X"430'' C/,4/'C,%%'4-.3$,1?3"'#22$-S,+#3"%&'))P'->';<=R0'$"."C#1%"'2-C"$'2-$3>-%,-:
;<=',0'#%0-'0?104$,1"D'3-'#'Z:)[[P'0/#$"'->'3/"'V.3"$+-?.3#,.'=-C"$'=%#.3' NV==O'W"2-C"$,.7'=$-X"43'C/,4/'C,%%',.4$"#0"';%".D#%"R0'$,7/30'-.'3/"'HIH' I$#.0+,00,-.'>$-+'LLT<'3-')8*T<:'=#$3,4,2#3,-.',.'3/"'2$-X"43'2$-5,D"0' ;%".D#%"'#44"00'3-'2%".3,>?%G'4/"#2G'#.D'$"%,#1%"'$"."C#1%"'2$-X"430'3/#3'#$"' 1",.7'D"5"%-2"D'#.D',.3"$4-.."43'#3'3/"'V=='1?0',.'\3#/:'V==',0'"S2"43"D'3-' 1"'>?"%"D'1&']9P'7$"".'/&D$-7".'1&'5-%?+"'1&'89]9'C,3/'#'2%#.'->'' 3$#.0,3,-.,.7'3-')99P:
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
I/"'7$,D'->'3/"'>?3?$"'1"4A-.0Y'%-CM4#$1-.'2-C"$'0-?$4"0',.3"7$#3"D'' 0"#+%"00%&',.3-'#'+-$"'$"%,#1%"'#.D'0"4?$"'."3C-$AG'1?3'#%0-'4#2#1%"'->' -2"$#3,.7',.D"2".D".3%&`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a-4?0,.7'-.'#%%'#02"430'->'?3,%,3&'-2"$#3,-.0G' "02"4,#%%&'3"4/.-%-7&G',.>$#03$?43?$"G'#.D'$"7?%#3-$&'2-%,4,"0G'C"'/#5"' ,+2$-5"D'-?$'7$,D'$"%,#1,%,3&'#.D'$"0,%,".4&:'\3,%,3,"0'3/#3'"+1$#4"'' +-D"$.,6#3,-.'C,%%'/#5"'3/"'A.-C%"D7"'#.D'3--%0'3-'".7#7"'4?03-+"$0' #.D'-B"$'3/"'#44"00,1,%,3&'3/",$'4?03-+"$0'#$"'7$-C,.7'3-'"S2"43:
/3/<?*!<)6!@!9!AB)CA6/*B!DE?!AB
:.$"2,.$)F,&$7)G)H4+$7)I:FHJ',0'4-++,33"D'3-'#'4%"#.'"."$7&'>?3?$":' <"'4-.3,.?"'3-'"D?4#3"'#.D'#D5-4#3"'>-$'3/"'$"02-.0,5"'?0"'->'.#3?$#%' $"0-?$4"0'#.D'7$"".'"."$7&'0-?$4"0:'<"'0?22-$3'-?$'4?03-+"$0'3/#3'' C#.3'3-'#%0-'C-$A'3-C#$D0'#'4%"#.'#.D'7$"".'"."$7&'>?3?$"'1&'-B"$,.7' 3/"+'#'5#$,"3&'->'2$-7$#+0'#.D',.4".3,5"0'3-'/"%2'3/"+'#4/,"5"'3/"0"' 7-#%0:'I/"'>-%%-C,.7'#$"'2$-7$#+0G'2#$3."$0/,20G'#.D',.5"03+".30';<=' /#0'D"5"%-2"D'#.D',+2%"+".3"D:
94.,7)94.8&'4"%)H74(7,K)
;<=R0'H-%#$'H-%?3,-.0'2$-7$#+'2$-5,D"0'#.',.4".3,5"'->'(9:8L'2"$'C#33'>-$' ,.03#%%"D'0&03"+0'0,6"D']9Q<D4'-$'%"00'3/#3'+""3'2$-7$#+'7?,D"%,."0:'I/"0"' 0&03"+0'$"^?,$"'#.',.3"$4-.."43,-.'#7$""+".3'3/#3'#%%-C0';<='3-'1?&'#.&' "S4"00'$"."C#1%"'"."$7&'>$-+'3/"'4?03-+"$:'
H,.4"'8998G'#'3-3#%'->')GK99',.3"$4-.."43"D'0-%#$'0&03"+0'C"$"',.03#%%"D'C,3/' #'3-3#%'4#2#4,3&'->'89'T<',.';%".D#%":'_>'3/"0"'0&03"+0G')G]99'C"$"',.4".M 3,5,6"DG'3/$-?7/'-?$'H-%#$'H-%?3,-.0'=$-7$#+'C,3/'#'3-3#%'4#2#4,3&'->'K'T<:' 3 !"#$%&"#'()*+&$(,*,-$)*-))
&)"-.)/&+0-$)12*2+#))
,$/"2%#()*3#)45678)(3&+#)-1)
9"&$%).3,/3).,""))
:+-;,%#)&::+-<,=&*#">))
57)?@)-1)+#$#.&0"#)(-"&+)
#$#+A>)&$%))
4567)?@B7C?@3)-1))
#$#+A>)(*-+&A#6
D,$/#)5CC5E)4EFCC))
,$*#+/-$$#/*#%)(-"&+))
(>(*#=().#+#),$(*&""#%),$)
!"#$%&"#).,*3)*3#)*-*&"))
/&:&/,*>)-1)5C)?@6
!"#$#"%&!" #$%&'()*'" &&'()* '"&+, +,!"#$%&"#'(&)#*'+',-(#* 439 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-4
2 !"#$%&'()*'+,%%,-.'/#0'1"".'02".3'3-',.4".3,5,6"'0-%#$',.03#%%#3,-.0'0,.4"'3/"' 2$-7$#+'1"7#.',.'8998:';<=',0'-."'->'3/"'%#03'?3,%,3,"0',.'3/"'$"7,-.'3/#3' 4-.3,.?"0'3-',.4".3,5,6"'3/"',.03#%%#3,-.'->'$-->3-2'0-%#$:'@0';<='%--A0',.3-' -B"$,.7'#'5,$3?#%'2-C"$'2%#.3'#.D'0-%#$'2$-7$#+'-23,-.'#0'2#$3'->',30'E%"#.' F."$7&'=$-7$#+0G',3'2$-2-0"0'3-'03-2'3/"'H-%#$'H-%?3,-.0'2$-7$#+'0-'3/#3' 4?03-+"$0'4#.'3#A"'#D5#.3#7"'->'#'+-$"'+-D"$.,6"D'#22$-#4/'3-'0-%#$' "."$7&',.5"03+".30:'
!"#$%&'"()'")*$"$+,-.$%
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
;<=R0')8:LP'0/#$"'->'F%#.D'C,%%'2$-5,D"'3/"'E,3&'->';%".D#%"'#22$-S,+#3"%&'' 8L'T<'->'$"."C#1%"'0-%#$'"."$7&'#.D')8:L'T<UL9T</'->'"."$7&'03-$#7":'' V3',0'"S2"43"D'3-'4-.3$,1?3"'3-'#1-?3'KP'->';%".D#%"R0'W"."C#1%"'=-$3>-%,-:' ;%".D#%"',0'-.'1-#$D'3-'3$#.0,3,-.'3-'#'%-CM4#$1-.'>?3?$"'#.D',0'2?33,.7'?0' -.'3/"'2#3/'3-'#4/,"5,.7')99P'->'3/"'"."$7&'.""D0'->'3/"';%".D#%"'' 4-++?.,3&'3/$-?7/'$"%,#1%"G'#B-$D#1%"'#.D'0?03#,.#1%"'4%"#.'"."$7&:
;<='/#0'#%0-'".3"$"D',.3-'3C-'-3/"$'$"."C#1%"'2$-X"430Y'3/"'</,3"7$#00'#.D' H3#$'="#A';"-3/"$+#%'=$-X"430:';<='/#0'0,7."D'8L'&"#$'2-C"$'2?$4/#0"'' #7$""+".30'>-$')L:L'T<'->'$"."C#1%"'7"-3/"$+#%'"."$7&'>$-+'3/"0"'2$-X"430'' C/,4/'C,%%'4-.3$,1?3"'#22$-S,+#3"%&'))P'->';<=R0'$"."C#1%"'2-C"$'2-$3>-%,-:
;<=',0'#%0-'0?104$,1"D'3-'#'Z:)[[P'0/#$"'->'3/"'V.3"$+-?.3#,.'=-C"$'=%#.3' NV==O'W"2-C"$,.7'=$-X"43'C/,4/'C,%%',.4$"#0"';%".D#%"R0'$,7/30'-.'3/"'HIH' I$#.0+,00,-.'>$-+'LLT<'3-')8*T<:'=#$3,4,2#3,-.',.'3/"'2$-X"43'2$-5,D"0' ;%".D#%"'#44"00'3-'2%".3,>?%G'4/"#2G'#.D'$"%,#1%"'$"."C#1%"'2$-X"430'3/#3'#$"' 1",.7'D"5"%-2"D'#.D',.3"$4-.."43'#3'3/"'V=='1?0',.'\3#/:'V==',0'"S2"43"D'3-' 1"'>?"%"D'1&']9P'7$"".'/&D$-7".'1&'5-%?+"'1&'89]9'C,3/'#'2%#.'->'' 3$#.0,3,-.,.7'3-')99P:
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
I/"'7$,D'->'3/"'>?3?$"'1"4A-.0Y'%-CM4#$1-.'2-C"$'0-?$4"0',.3"7$#3"D'' 0"#+%"00%&',.3-'#'+-$"'$"%,#1%"'#.D'0"4?$"'."3C-$AG'1?3'#%0-'4#2#1%"'->' -2"$#3,.7',.D"2".D".3%&`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a-4?0,.7'-.'#%%'#02"430'->'?3,%,3&'-2"$#3,-.0G' "02"4,#%%&'3"4/.-%-7&G',.>$#03$?43?$"G'#.D'$"7?%#3-$&'2-%,4,"0G'C"'/#5"' ,+2$-5"D'-?$'7$,D'$"%,#1,%,3&'#.D'$"0,%,".4&:'\3,%,3,"0'3/#3'"+1$#4"'' +-D"$.,6#3,-.'C,%%'/#5"'3/"'A.-C%"D7"'#.D'3--%0'3-'".7#7"'4?03-+"$0' #.D'-B"$'3/"'#44"00,1,%,3&'3/",$'4?03-+"$0'#$"'7$-C,.7'3-'"S2"43:
/3/<?*!<)6!@!9!AB)CA6/*B!DE?!AB
:.$"2,.$)F,&$7)G)H4+$7)I:FHJ',0'4-++,33"D'3-'#'4%"#.'"."$7&'>?3?$":' <"'4-.3,.?"'3-'"D?4#3"'#.D'#D5-4#3"'>-$'3/"'$"02-.0,5"'?0"'->'.#3?$#%' $"0-?$4"0'#.D'7$"".'"."$7&'0-?$4"0:'<"'0?22-$3'-?$'4?03-+"$0'3/#3'' C#.3'3-'#%0-'C-$A'3-C#$D0'#'4%"#.'#.D'7$"".'"."$7&'>?3?$"'1&'-B"$,.7' 3/"+'#'5#$,"3&'->'2$-7$#+0'#.D',.4".3,5"0'3-'/"%2'3/"+'#4/,"5"'3/"0"' 7-#%0:'I/"'>-%%-C,.7'#$"'2$-7$#+0G'2#$3."$0/,20G'#.D',.5"03+".30';<=' /#0'D"5"%-2"D'#.D',+2%"+".3"D:
94.,7)94.8&'4"%)H74(7,K)
;<=R0'H-%#$'H-%?3,-.0'2$-7$#+'2$-5,D"0'#.',.4".3,5"'->'(9:8L'2"$'C#33'>-$' ,.03#%%"D'0&03"+0'0,6"D']9Q<D4'-$'%"00'3/#3'+""3'2$-7$#+'7?,D"%,."0:'I/"0"' 0&03"+0'$"^?,$"'#.',.3"$4-.."43,-.'#7$""+".3'3/#3'#%%-C0';<='3-'1?&'#.&' "S4"00'$"."C#1%"'"."$7&'>$-+'3/"'4?03-+"$:'
H,.4"'8998G'#'3-3#%'->')GK99',.3"$4-.."43"D'0-%#$'0&03"+0'C"$"',.03#%%"D'C,3/' #'3-3#%'4#2#4,3&'->'89'T<',.';%".D#%":'_>'3/"0"'0&03"+0G')G]99'C"$"',.4".M 3,5,6"DG'3/$-?7/'-?$'H-%#$'H-%?3,-.0'=$-7$#+'C,3/'#'3-3#%'4#2#4,3&'->'K'T<:' 3 !"#$%&"#'()*+&$(,*,-$)*-))
&)"-.)/&+0-$)12*2+#))
,$/"2%#()*3#)45678)(3&+#)-1)
9"&$%).3,/3).,""))
:+-;,%#)&::+-<,=&*#">))
57)?@)-1)+#$#.&0"#)(-"&+)
#$#+A>)&$%))
4567)?@B7C?@3)-1))
#$#+A>)(*-+&A#6
D,$/#)5CC5E)4EFCC))
,$*#+/-$$#/*#%)(-"&+))
(>(*#=().#+#),$(*&""#%),$)
!"#$%&"#).,*3)*3#)*-*&"))
/&:&/,*>)-1)5C)?@6
!"#$#"%&!" #$%&'()*'" &&'()* '"&+, +,!"#$%&"#'(&)#*'+',-(#* 440 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-5
4 5
!"#$%"#&'%%"()*+#,-&'./(0#-(#&-(1"%)/(0#$**#*/02).#/(#$(3#$%-'(3#)2"## 3-4()-4(#$%"$#$(3#-(#5$6-%#)2-%-'02,$%".#)2%-'02-')#)2"#&/)+#)-#789.:# !2"(#)2$)#/.#&-5;*")"3#4"#4/**#5-1"#)-#&-(1"%)#)2"#%"5$/(/(0#*/02).#/(## %"./3"()/$*#$%"$.:#<2"."#&-(1"%./-(.#4/**#.$1"#)2"#=/)+#-,#>*"(3$*"#-1"%## ?@@#A!B#-,#"("%0+#;"%#+"$%:
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
$;;*/&$)/-(.#-(*/("#$(3#%".)-%"#."%1/&"#$.#T'/&K*+#$.#;-../G*":#>!D## &-()/('".#)-#,-&'.#-(#."&'%/)+#$(3#3"1"*-;#$#.)%-(0"%F#.'.)$/($G*"#.)$)"#-,# ."&'%/)+#$(3#G'./("..#&-()/('/)+:
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
;<=>?@<=$A(('()$B&*C()2+&*
S(1".)/(0#/(#>*"(3$*"R.#,')'%"#/(&*'3".#';0%$3/(0#$(3#%";*$&/(0#$0/(0# /(,%$.)%'&)'%"F#$(3#G'/*3/(0#("4#$..").#)2$)#/5;%-1"#)2"#.+.)"5:#S5;%-1/(0# -'%#/(,%$.)%'&)'%"#$.#4"#';0%$3"#$(3#"(2$(&"#%"*/$G/*/)+#$(3#-;"%$)/-($*# "H/&/"(&+#K"";.#'.#%"$3+#,-%#,')'%"#&2$(0".:#\'%#&'.)-5"%.#&$(#&-'()#-(# %"*/$G*"#$(3#$H-%3$G*"#;-4"%#(-4#$(3#/()-#)2"#,')'%":#
C.#;$%)#-,#5-3"%(/E$)/-(#"H-%).F#4"#$%"#';0%$3/(0#]K^#3/.)%/G')/-(#*/(".#)-# QOK^#*/(".:#<2/.#';0%$3"#/.#(""3"3#3'"#)-#%$;/3#)"&2(-*-0+#$31$(&"5"().# $(3#/(&%"$."3#&'.)-5"%#"*"&)%/&/)+#3"5$(3:#<2"#2/02"%#1-*)$0"#*/(".#4/**# /5;%-1"#-'%#%"*/$G/*/)+#$(3#4/**#/(&%"$."#1-*)$0"#.)$G/*/)+:#<2/.#/.#".;"&/$**+# /5;-%)$()#,-%#&'.)-5"%.#'./(0#.-*$%#;$("*.#$(3#,-%#5$(',$&)'%/(0#$(3# /(3'.)%/$*#&'.)-5"%.#'./(0#."(./)/1"#"T'/;5"():#9'%/(0#)2"#;$.)#)4-#+"$%.F# 4"#2$1"_#
#`#=-(1"%)"3#)4-#]K^#,""3"%.#)-#QOK^#/(#<%-;/&-#,""3"%#$%"$.:
#`#a"G'/*)#bc#;-*".#,-%#QOK^#-;"%$)/-(:
#`#a";*$&"3#]X#3")"%/-%$)"3#;-*".:
#`#a";*$&"3#OO#3/.)%/G')/-(#)%$(.,-%5"%.:
3.)((.$D+EF.+*E$B&*C()2+&*$.&$DGH2
!"#$%"#&-()/('/(0#)-#/5;%-1"#>*"(3$*"#&/)+#.)%"").#G+#&-(1"%)/(0#)2"# "W/.)/(0#B/02#D%"..'%"#J-3/'5#UBDJV#.)%"")#*/02).#)-#"("%0+#"H/&/"()#7/02)# 85/))/(0#9/-3"#U789V#*/02).:#789.#$%"#.5$**#;/"&".#-,#"*"&)%/&$*#&/%&'/)%+# "(&$."3#/(#$#2$%3#;*$.)/&#)2$)#"5/)#*/02)#42"(#"("%0/E"3:#789.#%"T'/%"#*"..# ;-4"%#)2$(#BDJ#$(3#-)2"%#/(&$(3".&"()#*/02).:#<2"#789.#)2$)#$%"#G"/(0# /(.)$**"3#/(#>*"(3$*"#$%"#)+;/&$**+#c#)-#X#)/5".#5-%"#"H/&/"()#)2$(#)2"#*/02).# )2"+#$%"#%";*$&/(0:
<2"%"#$%"#$#)-)$*#-,#QQFc]c#*/02)#,/W)'%".#/(#>*"(3$*":#]@d#-,#)2"."#,/W)'%".# 2$1"#$*%"$3+#G""(#&-(1"%)"3#)-#789.F#42/*"#Xed#.)/**#'."#BDJ#*/02).F#$(3#)2"# -)2"%#Od#'."#3/H"%"()#K/(3.#-,#*/02)/(0:#<2/.#&-(1"%./-(#4/**#-H"%#./0(/,/&$()# "("%0+#.$1/(0.F#/(&%"$."3#%"*/$G/*/)+F#$(3#*/02).#4/)2#"W)"(3"3#*-(0"1/)+:#789# */02).#2"*;#%"3'&"#"("%0+#$(3#5$/()"($(&"#&-.).F#/(#$33/)/-(#)-#%"3'&/(0#)2"# -1"%$**#&$%G-(#,--);%/():#789#*/02)/(0#2$.#2/02#&-*-%#%"(3"%/(0#42/&2#5"$(.# /)#2$.#)2"#$G/*/)+#)-#%";%-3'&"#&-*-%.#-,#-G6"&).#4"**:#<2/.#/.#".."()/$*#,-%## 2"*;/(0#3%/1"%.#(-)/&"#$(3#/3"()/,+#-G6"&).#.'&2#$.#2$E$%3.#$(3#;"3".)%/$(.# -(#)2"#%-$3:
S(#)2"#;$.)#)4-#+"$%.F#4"#2$1"#&-5;*")"3#)2"#,-**-4/(0#5$6-%#789## =-(1"%./-(#;%-6"&)._
#`#=-(1"%)"3#Q]Q#*/02).#-(#^"%3'0-#a3:#,%-5#C&$&/$#C1":#)-## ##7$#=%".&"()$#C1":#
#`#=-(1"%)"3#X?#*/02).#-(#=-*-%$3-#J):#,%-5#J$(#M"%($(3-#a3:#)-## ##>*"(3$*"#C1":
#`#=-(1"%)"3#?Q#*/02).#-(#J$(#M"%($(3-#a3:#,%-5#!/(3.-%#a3:#)-#<+G'%(#J):
#`#=-(1"%)"3#?]b#*/02).#)-#789:
S(#)-)$*F#QF@QX#*/02).#2$1"#G""(#&-(1"%)"3#)-#789#/(#)2"#;$.)#)4-#+"$%.:# !"#$%&'()*+,&-$./&$$
+01(%.2*'&$(3$4*5&%67+*)$
.&'/*(6()+&-$.($1%(8+5&$9&..&%$
-&%8+'&$.($(4%$'4-.(0&%-$2*5$
.($+*'%&2-&$&:+'+&*'+&-;
<=>$-.%&&.$6+)/.-$/28&$6(?&%$
02+*.&*2*'&$'(-.-@$-28&$$
&*&%)7@$1%(8+5&$0(%&$6+)/.$
2*5$%&54'&$(4%$$
'2%9(*$3((.1%+*.;
441 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-6
4 5
!"#$%"#&'%%"()*+#,-&'./(0#-(#&-(1"%)/(0#$**#*/02).#/(#$(3#$%-'(3#)2"## 3-4()-4(#$%"$#$(3#-(#5$6-%#)2-%-'02,$%".#)2%-'02-')#)2"#&/)+#)-#789.:# !2"(#)2$)#/.#&-5;*")"3#4"#4/**#5-1"#)-#&-(1"%)#)2"#%"5$/(/(0#*/02).#/(## %"./3"()/$*#$%"$.:#<2"."#&-(1"%./-(.#4/**#.$1"#)2"#=/)+#-,#>*"(3$*"#-1"%## ?@@#A!B#-,#"("%0+#;"%#+"$%:
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
$;;*/&$)/-(.#-(*/("#$(3#%".)-%"#."%1/&"#$.#T'/&K*+#$.#;-../G*":#>!D## &-()/('".#)-#,-&'.#-(#."&'%/)+#$(3#3"1"*-;#$#.)%-(0"%F#.'.)$/($G*"#.)$)"#-,# ."&'%/)+#$(3#G'./("..#&-()/('/)+:
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
;<=>?@<=$A(('()$B&*C()2+&*
S(1".)/(0#/(#>*"(3$*"R.#,')'%"#/(&*'3".#';0%$3/(0#$(3#%";*$&/(0#$0/(0# /(,%$.)%'&)'%"F#$(3#G'/*3/(0#("4#$..").#)2$)#/5;%-1"#)2"#.+.)"5:#S5;%-1/(0# -'%#/(,%$.)%'&)'%"#$.#4"#';0%$3"#$(3#"(2$(&"#%"*/$G/*/)+#$(3#-;"%$)/-($*# "H/&/"(&+#K"";.#'.#%"$3+#,-%#,')'%"#&2$(0".:#\'%#&'.)-5"%.#&$(#&-'()#-(# %"*/$G*"#$(3#$H-%3$G*"#;-4"%#(-4#$(3#/()-#)2"#,')'%":#
C.#;$%)#-,#5-3"%(/E$)/-(#"H-%).F#4"#$%"#';0%$3/(0#]K^#3/.)%/G')/-(#*/(".#)-# QOK^#*/(".:#<2/.#';0%$3"#/.#(""3"3#3'"#)-#%$;/3#)"&2(-*-0+#$31$(&"5"().# $(3#/(&%"$."3#&'.)-5"%#"*"&)%/&/)+#3"5$(3:#<2"#2/02"%#1-*)$0"#*/(".#4/**# /5;%-1"#-'%#%"*/$G/*/)+#$(3#4/**#/(&%"$."#1-*)$0"#.)$G/*/)+:#<2/.#/.#".;"&/$**+# /5;-%)$()#,-%#&'.)-5"%.#'./(0#.-*$%#;$("*.#$(3#,-%#5$(',$&)'%/(0#$(3# /(3'.)%/$*#&'.)-5"%.#'./(0#."(./)/1"#"T'/;5"():#9'%/(0#)2"#;$.)#)4-#+"$%.F# 4"#2$1"_#
#`#=-(1"%)"3#)4-#]K^#,""3"%.#)-#QOK^#/(#<%-;/&-#,""3"%#$%"$.:
#`#a"G'/*)#bc#;-*".#,-%#QOK^#-;"%$)/-(:
#`#a";*$&"3#]X#3")"%/-%$)"3#;-*".:
#`#a";*$&"3#OO#3/.)%/G')/-(#)%$(.,-%5"%.:
3.)((.$D+EF.+*E$B&*C()2+&*$.&$DGH2
!"#$%"#&-()/('/(0#)-#/5;%-1"#>*"(3$*"#&/)+#.)%"").#G+#&-(1"%)/(0#)2"# "W/.)/(0#B/02#D%"..'%"#J-3/'5#UBDJV#.)%"")#*/02).#)-#"("%0+#"H/&/"()#7/02)# 85/))/(0#9/-3"#U789V#*/02).:#789.#$%"#.5$**#;/"&".#-,#"*"&)%/&$*#&/%&'/)%+# "(&$."3#/(#$#2$%3#;*$.)/&#)2$)#"5/)#*/02)#42"(#"("%0/E"3:#789.#%"T'/%"#*"..# ;-4"%#)2$(#BDJ#$(3#-)2"%#/(&$(3".&"()#*/02).:#<2"#789.#)2$)#$%"#G"/(0# /(.)$**"3#/(#>*"(3$*"#$%"#)+;/&$**+#c#)-#X#)/5".#5-%"#"H/&/"()#)2$(#)2"#*/02).# )2"+#$%"#%";*$&/(0:
<2"%"#$%"#$#)-)$*#-,#QQFc]c#*/02)#,/W)'%".#/(#>*"(3$*":#]@d#-,#)2"."#,/W)'%".# 2$1"#$*%"$3+#G""(#&-(1"%)"3#)-#789.F#42/*"#Xed#.)/**#'."#BDJ#*/02).F#$(3#)2"# -)2"%#Od#'."#3/H"%"()#K/(3.#-,#*/02)/(0:#<2/.#&-(1"%./-(#4/**#-H"%#./0(/,/&$()# "("%0+#.$1/(0.F#/(&%"$."3#%"*/$G/*/)+F#$(3#*/02).#4/)2#"W)"(3"3#*-(0"1/)+:#789# */02).#2"*;#%"3'&"#"("%0+#$(3#5$/()"($(&"#&-.).F#/(#$33/)/-(#)-#%"3'&/(0#)2"# -1"%$**#&$%G-(#,--);%/():#789#*/02)/(0#2$.#2/02#&-*-%#%"(3"%/(0#42/&2#5"$(.# /)#2$.#)2"#$G/*/)+#)-#%";%-3'&"#&-*-%.#-,#-G6"&).#4"**:#<2/.#/.#".."()/$*#,-%## 2"*;/(0#3%/1"%.#(-)/&"#$(3#/3"()/,+#-G6"&).#.'&2#$.#2$E$%3.#$(3#;"3".)%/$(.# -(#)2"#%-$3:
S(#)2"#;$.)#)4-#+"$%.F#4"#2$1"#&-5;*")"3#)2"#,-**-4/(0#5$6-%#789## =-(1"%./-(#;%-6"&)._
#`#=-(1"%)"3#Q]Q#*/02).#-(#^"%3'0-#a3:#,%-5#C&$&/$#C1":#)-## ##7$#=%".&"()$#C1":#
#`#=-(1"%)"3#X?#*/02).#-(#=-*-%$3-#J):#,%-5#J$(#M"%($(3-#a3:#)-## ##>*"(3$*"#C1":
#`#=-(1"%)"3#?Q#*/02).#-(#J$(#M"%($(3-#a3:#,%-5#!/(3.-%#a3:#)-#<+G'%(#J):
#`#=-(1"%)"3#?]b#*/02).#)-#789:
S(#)-)$*F#QF@QX#*/02).#2$1"#G""(#&-(1"%)"3#)-#789#/(#)2"#;$.)#)4-#+"$%.:# !"#$%&'()*+,&-$./&$$
+01(%.2*'&$(3$4*5&%67+*)$
.&'/*(6()+&-$.($1%(8+5&$9&..&%$
-&%8+'&$.($(4%$'4-.(0&%-$2*5$
.($+*'%&2-&$&:+'+&*'+&-;
<=>$-.%&&.$6+)/.-$/28&$6(?&%$
02+*.&*2*'&$'(-.-@$-28&$$
&*&%)7@$1%(8+5&$0(%&$6+)/.$
2*5$%&54'&$(4%$$
'2%9(*$3((.1%+*.;
442 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-7
6 7
!"#$"%&'(&)*++(,'&-./,01)-.2&.*340,)&(5&060/',-/&1.7&+6*28-.89:4,-7&& ;09-/60)<&=90&>$?@&A-66&/(.',-4*'0&*+&'(&BCD&(5&'90&/()'&(5&+*46-/6:&& 1//0))-460&"#$"&-.)'1661'-(.)&1.7&*+&'(&CED&(5&'90&'('16&"#$"&/()'&5(,&& +,-;1'0&1//0))&"#$"<&
!"#$%&'(#&%)*$%'+")"*%,%#&-
FGH&+1,'.0,07&A-'9&F60.7160&H(6-/0&I0+1,'30.'&!FHI%&'(&-3+6030.'&1&& +-6('&+,(2,13&A9-/9&A(*67&+,(3('0&2,00.9(*)0&21)&,07*/'-(.)&'9,(*29& '90&+*,/91)0&(5&'A(&J0,(&03-))-(.)&060/',-/&3('(,/:/60)&5(,&'90&FHI&'(&'0)'& 501)-4-6-':&(5&4,(170,&*)0&4:&'90&FHI<&"60/',-/&>('(,/:/60)&/1.&+('0.'-166:&& 40&*)07&(K8,(17&5(,&'90&+*,+()0&(5&+1',(66-.2&'90&5-,0&,(17)&1.7&9-L-.2&& ',1-6)&(5&F60.7160<
./01'/*&2$)-'342'/#&34'05&#'6&73*2-'!*"8*39
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
0$:&*
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
1.7&/1+1460&(5&+,(;-7-.2&)0,;-/0&+0,5(,31./0&1.7&/*)'(30,&)*++(,'&'91'& 300'&(,&0]/007&/(330,/-16&)'1.71,7)<&X./0&'90&+,(^0/'&-)&/(3+60'07O& '9,(*29&-.'0,/(..0/'-.2&1,,1.2030.'&1'&31^(,&/1,,-0,&9('06)&-.&P()&R.2060)O& F60.7160&4*)-.0))0)&/1.&/(..0/'&'90-,&6(/1'-(.)&-.&F60.7160&'(&6(/1'-(.)&
1.:A90,0&-.&'90&A(,67<&=90&6-'&)0,;-/0)&1,0&)0,;-/0)&(5&-.'0,0)'&'(&31^(,&& 4*)-.0))0)&A-'9&.007)&5(,&707-/1'07O&9-296:&)0/*,0O&1.7&;0,:&9-29&71'1&,1'0)& '(&-.'0,/(..0/'&'90-,&4*)-.0))0)O&+1,'.0,)O&/*)'(30,)O&1.7&)*++6-0,)<&& =90&70)-2.&+91)0&(5&'90&+,(^0/'&-)&0]+0/'07&'(&40&/(3+60'07&-.&$0+'0340,O& MEMEO&1.7&/(.)',*/'-(.&4:&'90&0.7&(5&MEMN<&
;4<="9&'>$-?#3,'342'@A&*9"-)3)'!*"8*39
$-./0&MENCO&FGH&91)&0.,(6607&(;0,&NMEE&/*)'(30,)&-.&'90&T.8_(30&I-)+61:&
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
(#&%)*$%'B&A$%#&';4C*3-)*5%)5*&'
FGH&-)&/(33-''07&'(&17;1./-.2&'90&17(+'-(.&(5&060/',-/&;09-/60)&1.7&'90-,& -.5,1)',*/'*,0&-.&'90&F60.7160&/(33*.-':<&$-./0&MEN`O&FGH&91)&-.)'16607&NN& +*46-/&"#&/91,20,)&'9,(*29(*'&F60.7160O&-./6*7-.2&(.0&"#&51)'&/91,20,& 1'&F60.7160&@-':&_166<&FGH&91)&16)(&+,(;-707&(;0,&UBEOEEE&'(&-./0.'-;-J0& NMa&,0)-70.'-16&1.7&/(330,/-16&/*)'(30,)&5(,&'90&-.)'1661'-(.&(5&60;06&M&"#& /91,20,)&1'&'90-,&9(30&(,&4*)-.0))<&T.&177-'-(.O&FGH&91)&9()'07&3*6'-+60& "60/',-/&@1,&F*0)'&I,-;0&0;0.')&'91'&166(A&,0)-70.')&'(&601,.&3(,0&& 14(*'&"#)&1.7&'0)'&7,-;0&"#)&A-'9(*'&'90&)160)&+,0))*,0&(5&7016-.2&& A-'9&70160,)9-+)<&FGH&+61.)&'(&/(.'-.*0&177-.2&3(,0&"#&/91,20,)& '9,(*29(*'&'90&/-':&'(&L00+&*+&A-'9&'90&-./,01)-.2&7031.7&5(,&"#)&1.7& "#&-.5,1)',*/'*,0<&
@A&'+":$#&'1"5*%&'D$*'!"##5)$"4'6&25%)$"4'6&E$&7'/"99$))&&' F+16/G'HIJK'."%3#'L"E&*49&4)'!3*)4&*-A$?'!*"8*39
>$?@&91)&,0)0,;07&5*.7-.2&5(,&F60.7160&'(&+1,'.0,&A-'9&'903&-.&,07*/-.2&& 3('(,&;09-/60&1-,&+(66*'-(.<&=90&>$?@Y)&P(/16&F(;0,.30.'&H1,'.0,)9-+& H,(2,13&-)&70)-2.07&'(&5(,20&+1,'.0,)9-+)&40'A00.&'90&>$?@&1.7&/-'-0)&(,& /(*.'-0)&A-'9-.&'90&$(*'9&@(1)'&,02-(.&'(&^*3+)'1,'&-3+6030.'1'-(.&(5&'90& $(*'9&@(1)'&Rb>IY)&MEN`&R-,&b*16-':&>1.12030.'&H61.&!Rb>H%<&=90&MEN`& Rb>H&,06-0)&901;-6:&(.&*)0&(5&-./0.'-;0)&'(&1/9-0;0&1-,&+(66*'-(.&,07*/'-(.)& 14(;0&1.7&40:(.7&'9()0&(4'1-.07&)(606:&4:&,02*61'-(.<&
=90&P(/16&F(;0,.30.'&H1,'.0,)9-+&H,(2,13&-)&1&*.-\*0&5*.7-.2&(++(,'*.-':& '91'&A-66&+,(;-70&FGH&A-'9&177-'-(.16&5*.7-.2&'(&-3+6030.'&9-29&+,-(,-':& /601.&1-,&+,(2,13)<&=90&13(*.'&(5&5*.7-.2&166(/1'07&'(&F60.7160&A-66&)/160& A-'9&'90&13(*.'&(5&1-,&\*16-':&-3+,(;030.'&5*.7-.2&'90&@-':&,0/0-;0)&*.70,& '90&RS&MB``&>('(,	-/60&$*4;0.'-(.&Q*.7&H,(2,13<&=90&@-':&(5&F60.7160& 91)&1.&1++,(;07&?0)0,;07&Q*.7-.2&R3(*.'&(5&UM`EOCEE<
FGH&A-66&40&+*,)*-.2&'90&"60/',-/	-/60&@91,2-.2&T.5,1)',*/'*,0&& T.)'1661'-(.&/1'02(,:&(5&'90&P(/16&F(;0,.30.'&H1,'.0,)9-+&H,(2,13O&A9-/9& -./6*70)&'90&/()')&'(&+*,/91)0&1.7&-.)'166&060/',-/&;09-/60&)*++6:&0\*-+30.'& !"#$%&'()*+&,-.&/01&&
"#12033%4&))&5673"$&89&$/0:;%:1&
2/:<6;/<62&,3%#403%+&&
"#$364"#;&<#%&89&=012&$/0:;%:&
02&,3%#403%&>"2?&@033A
443 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-8
6 7
!"#$"%&'(&)*++(,'&-./,01)-.2&.*340,)&(5&060/',-/&1.7&+6*28-.89:4,-7&& ;09-/60)<&=90&>$?@&A-66&/(.',-4*'0&*+&'(&BCD&(5&'90&/()'&(5&+*46-/6:&& 1//0))-460&"#$"&-.)'1661'-(.)&1.7&*+&'(&CED&(5&'90&'('16&"#$"&/()'&5(,&& +,-;1'0&1//0))&"#$"<&
!"#$%&'(#&%)*$%'+")"*%,%#&-
FGH&+1,'.0,07&A-'9&F60.7160&H(6-/0&I0+1,'30.'&!FHI%&'(&-3+6030.'&1&& +-6('&+,(2,13&A9-/9&A(*67&+,(3('0&2,00.9(*)0&21)&,07*/'-(.)&'9,(*29& '90&+*,/91)0&(5&'A(&J0,(&03-))-(.)&060/',-/&3('(,/:/60)&5(,&'90&FHI&'(&'0)'& 501)-4-6-':&(5&4,(170,&*)0&4:&'90&FHI<&"60/',-/&>('(,/:/60)&/1.&+('0.'-166:&& 40&*)07&(K8,(17&5(,&'90&+*,+()0&(5&+1',(66-.2&'90&5-,0&,(17)&1.7&9-L-.2&& ',1-6)&(5&F60.7160<
./01'/*&2$)-'342'/#&34'05&#'6&73*2-'!*"8*39
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
0$:&*
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
1.7&/1+1460&(5&+,(;-7-.2&)0,;-/0&+0,5(,31./0&1.7&/*)'(30,&)*++(,'&'91'& 300'&(,&0]/007&/(330,/-16&)'1.71,7)<&X./0&'90&+,(^0/'&-)&/(3+60'07O& '9,(*29&-.'0,/(..0/'-.2&1,,1.2030.'&1'&31^(,&/1,,-0,&9('06)&-.&P()&R.2060)O& F60.7160&4*)-.0))0)&/1.&/(..0/'&'90-,&6(/1'-(.)&-.&F60.7160&'(&6(/1'-(.)&
1.:A90,0&-.&'90&A(,67<&=90&6-'&)0,;-/0)&1,0&)0,;-/0)&(5&-.'0,0)'&'(&31^(,&& 4*)-.0))0)&A-'9&.007)&5(,&707-/1'07O&9-296:&)0/*,0O&1.7&;0,:&9-29&71'1&,1'0)& '(&-.'0,/(..0/'&'90-,&4*)-.0))0)O&+1,'.0,)O&/*)'(30,)O&1.7&)*++6-0,)<&& =90&70)-2.&+91)0&(5&'90&+,(^0/'&-)&0]+0/'07&'(&40&/(3+60'07&-.&$0+'0340,O& MEMEO&1.7&/(.)',*/'-(.&4:&'90&0.7&(5&MEMN<&
;4<="9&'>$-?#3,'342'@A&*9"-)3)'!*"8*39
$-./0&MENCO&FGH&91)&0.,(6607&(;0,&NMEE&/*)'(30,)&-.&'90&T.8_(30&I-)+61:&
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
(#&%)*$%'B&A$%#&';4C*3-)*5%)5*&'
FGH&-)&/(33-''07&'(&17;1./-.2&'90&17(+'-(.&(5&060/',-/&;09-/60)&1.7&'90-,& -.5,1)',*/'*,0&-.&'90&F60.7160&/(33*.-':<&$-./0&MEN`O&FGH&91)&-.)'16607&NN& +*46-/&"#&/91,20,)&'9,(*29(*'&F60.7160O&-./6*7-.2&(.0&"#&51)'&/91,20,& 1'&F60.7160&@-':&_166<&FGH&91)&16)(&+,(;-707&(;0,&UBEOEEE&'(&-./0.'-;-J0& NMa&,0)-70.'-16&1.7&/(330,/-16&/*)'(30,)&5(,&'90&-.)'1661'-(.&(5&60;06&M&"#& /91,20,)&1'&'90-,&9(30&(,&4*)-.0))<&T.&177-'-(.O&FGH&91)&9()'07&3*6'-+60& "60/',-/&@1,&F*0)'&I,-;0&0;0.')&'91'&166(A&,0)-70.')&'(&601,.&3(,0&& 14(*'&"#)&1.7&'0)'&7,-;0&"#)&A-'9(*'&'90&)160)&+,0))*,0&(5&7016-.2&& A-'9&70160,)9-+)<&FGH&+61.)&'(&/(.'-.*0&177-.2&3(,0&"#&/91,20,)& '9,(*29(*'&'90&/-':&'(&L00+&*+&A-'9&'90&-./,01)-.2&7031.7&5(,&"#)&1.7& "#&-.5,1)',*/'*,0<&
@A&'+":$#&'1"5*%&'D$*'!"##5)$"4'6&25%)$"4'6&E$&7'/"99$))&&' F+16/G'HIJK'."%3#'L"E&*49&4)'!3*)4&*-A$?'!*"8*39
>$?@&91)&,0)0,;07&5*.7-.2&5(,&F60.7160&'(&+1,'.0,&A-'9&'903&-.&,07*/-.2&& 3('(,&;09-/60&1-,&+(66*'-(.<&=90&>$?@Y)&P(/16&F(;0,.30.'&H1,'.0,)9-+& H,(2,13&-)&70)-2.07&'(&5(,20&+1,'.0,)9-+)&40'A00.&'90&>$?@&1.7&/-'-0)&(,& /(*.'-0)&A-'9-.&'90&$(*'9&@(1)'&,02-(.&'(&^*3+)'1,'&-3+6030.'1'-(.&(5&'90& $(*'9&@(1)'&Rb>IY)&MEN`&R-,&b*16-':&>1.12030.'&H61.&!Rb>H%<&=90&MEN`& Rb>H&,06-0)&901;-6:&(.&*)0&(5&-./0.'-;0)&'(&1/9-0;0&1-,&+(66*'-(.&,07*/'-(.)& 14(;0&1.7&40:(.7&'9()0&(4'1-.07&)(606:&4:&,02*61'-(.<&
=90&P(/16&F(;0,.30.'&H1,'.0,)9-+&H,(2,13&-)&1&*.-\*0&5*.7-.2&(++(,'*.-':& '91'&A-66&+,(;-70&FGH&A-'9&177-'-(.16&5*.7-.2&'(&-3+6030.'&9-29&+,-(,-':& /601.&1-,&+,(2,13)<&=90&13(*.'&(5&5*.7-.2&166(/1'07&'(&F60.7160&A-66&)/160& A-'9&'90&13(*.'&(5&1-,&\*16-':&-3+,(;030.'&5*.7-.2&'90&@-':&,0/0-;0)&*.70,& '90&RS&MB``&>('(,	-/60&$*4;0.'-(.&Q*.7&H,(2,13<&=90&@-':&(5&F60.7160& 91)&1.&1++,(;07&?0)0,;07&Q*.7-.2&R3(*.'&(5&UM`EOCEE<
FGH&A-66&40&+*,)*-.2&'90&"60/',-/	-/60&@91,2-.2&T.5,1)',*/'*,0&& T.)'1661'-(.&/1'02(,:&(5&'90&P(/16&F(;0,.30.'&H1,'.0,)9-+&H,(2,13O&A9-/9& -./6*70)&'90&/()')&'(&+*,/91)0&1.7&-.)'166&060/',-/&;09-/60&)*++6:&0\*-+30.'& !"#$%&'()*+&,-.&/01&&
"#12033%4&))&5673"$&89&$/0:;%:1&
2/:<6;/<62&,3%#403%+&&
"#$364"#;&<#%&89&=012&$/0:;%:&
02&,3%#403%&>"2?&@033A
444 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-9
8 9
!"#$%&'%'(#)$&#%'*#&+,-$'.$/&01(',$*+22$+,324)#$0$)+5#&(#$6+7$'.$#,#&-1$$ &#('4&3#($*+8"$0$-'02$'.$%&'5+)+,-$8"#$32#0,#(8$%'*#&$%'((+92#$*"+2#$60+,:
80+,+,-$+09+2+81$08$0$�(',092#$3'(8$+,$0$8&0,(6+((+',$3',(8&0+,#)$$ 2'308+',;$!"+($+($',#$'.$60,1$(8#%($+,$#(8092+("+,-$/<=$0($0$,08+',02$32#0,$ #,#&-1$2#0)#&$0,)$03"+#5+,-$/<=>($?@@A$32#0,$#,#&-1$-'02(;$B0(#)$4%',$ 8"#$)+&+',$'.$8"#$C+81$C'4,3+2$0,)$+,%48$.&'6$8"#$3'664,+81D$/<=$"0($ %0&8,#&#)$*+8"$C2#0,$E,#&-1$%&'5+)#&($8'$)#5#2'%$8"#$+,,'508+5#D$$ 3'664,+81:.03+,-$32#0,$#,#&-1;
!"##$%&'()*+$,'-$./'()*0$#(.-*+$,1".,$*(.-**
2#(%/*34$%#",/(/*5%"6%(#
!"#$'9F#38+5#$'.$8"+($%&'%'(#)$%&'-&06$+($8'$)#5#2'%$0$2'0)$3',8&'2$%&'-&06$ 8"08$*+22$)#2+5#&$4%$8'$?@$G<$'.$)#60,)$&#(%',(#$8'$/<=$)4&+,-$)#60,)$ &#(%',(#$#5#,8($*+8"$-40&0,8##)$30%03+81$'.$H;I$G<$'.$048'608+3$)#60,)$ &#(%',(#($.&'6$&#(+)#,8+02$8"#&6'(808($0,)$J;?$G<$'.$60,402$)#60,)$$ &#(%',(#$.&'6$3'66#&3+02$0,)$+,)4(8&+02$34(8'6#&(;
7'%/8()*5"9$%*5)(./
/<=$+($%&'%'(+,-$0$K+&8402$='*#&$=20,8$LK==M$%&'-&06$.'&$0%%&'7+608#21$ ND@@@$8'$JD@@@$(+,-2#$.06+21$&#(+)#,8+02$34(8'6#&($0,)$0%%&'7+608#21$N@:J@$ 6428+:.06+21$"'4(+,-$%&'%#&8+#($8"08$*'42)$+,324)#$9'8"$('20&$-#,#&08+',$0,)$ #,#&-1$(8'&0-#;$!"+($*'42)$9#$8"#$20&-#(8$%&'-&06$'.$+8($O+,)$0,)$*'42)$9#$ (+-,+.+30,821$20&-#&$8"0,$8"#$K==$%&'-&06($8"08$"05#$9##,$+6%2#6#,8#)$8'$ )08#$+,$'8"#&$F4&+()+38+',($*"+3"$"05#$9##,$+,8&')43#)$',$0$5#&1$(6022D$%+2'8:
(302#$90(+($8'$8#(8$8"#$3',3#%8;$!"&'4-"$0$%4&3"0(#$%'*#&$0-&##6#,8$L==PMD$ 8"+($%&'-&06$*'42)$%&'5+)#$/<=$*+8"$0,$05#&0-#$'.$QR$G<$'.$('20&$%'*#&$ 0,)$QH;QH$G<$'.$9088#&1$(8'&0-#$#03"$1#0&$'5#&$8"#$2+.#$'.$8"#$%&'-&06; !"##$%&'()*0'%$&/*:.,/())*5%"6%(#
!"#$'9F#38+5#$'.$8"+($%&'%'(#)$%&'-&06$+($8'$+6%2#6#,8$#,#&-1$#S+3+#,31$ 6#0(4&#($)#(+-,#)$8'$&#)43#$0,,402$#2#38&+3$4(0-#$91$NHD@@@G<"$+,$3'6:
6#&3+02$94+2)+,-($*"+3"$#T408#($8'$&#)43+,-$)#60,)$91$R;NQ$G<$',3#$.4221$ +6%2#6#,8#);$!"#$%&'-&06$*+22$9#$+6%2#6#,8#)$'5#&$0$(#5#,$1#0&$%#&+')$0,)$ 8"#$#,#&-1$(05+,-($6#0(4&#($0&#$#7%#38#)$8'$20(8$0,$05#&0-#$'.$?Q;H$1#0&(; ;$4(<'"%()*0$#(.-*+$,1".,$*=;0+>
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
45(,5+6&*+7-%&5-+)8*26-&&
9()*+,-&/+*+&+3/&0%-%&*:-&&
%(;*<+5-&*(&+/=0%*&*:-&&
*5+3%;(56-5&9()*+,-&*(&7--4&&
2*&+*&+&45-/-*-5623-/&)-9-)>&&
?3&+//2*2(3&*(&+1:2-923,&&
-3-5,@&%+923,%&*:5(0,:&&
9()*+,-&1(3*5()A&*:-&B'.&&
45(,5+6&:-)4%&!"#&2/-3*2;@&&
45(C)-6&+5-+%&(3&;--/-5%A&%01:&&
+%&4((5&*5+3%;(56-5&4-5;(58
6+31-A&%(&1(55-1*29-&+1*2(3&&
1+3&C-&*+7-3>
7")/(6$*+$-8&/'".*5%"6%(#
/<=$48+2+Z#($C',(#&508+',$K'280-#$Y#)438+',$LCKYM$%&'-&06($8'$)#3�(#$ %'*#&$3',(46%8+',D$*"+3"$9#,#.+8($8"#$#,5+&',6#,8$0,)$&#)43#($'4&$ 34(8'6#&(>$#2#38&+3+81$9+22(;$!"#$CKY$%&'-&06$80O#($:8+6#$5'280-#$)080$ 0,)$4(#($('.8*0&#$8'$0)F4(8$8"#$8&0,(.'&6#&$5'280-#$8'$O##%$+8$08$0$%&#:)#8#&:
6+,#)$2#5#2;$W,$0))+8+',$8'$03"+#5+,-$#,#&-1$(05+,-($8"&'4-"$5'280-#$3',8&'2D$ 8"#$CKY$%&'-&06$"#2%($/<=$+)#,8+.1$%&'92#6$0�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�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`;JN$G<];
!)$(.*?.$%6@*5%"6%(#,
W,$)#5#2'%+,-$+8($W,8#-&08#)$Y#('4&3#$=20,D$/<=$"#2)$%492+3$6##8+,-(D$ .'34($-&'4%(D$0,)$3',)438#)$(4&5#1($+,$'&)#&$8'$)#8#&6+,#$/2#,)02#$ &#(+)#,8(>$%&+'&+8+#($&#-0&)+,-$32#0,$#,#&-1$%&'-&06(;$$B0(#)$4%',$8"08$ .##)903OD$/<=$"0($%&'%'(#)$0$%20,$8"08$*+22$8&0,(.'&6$8"#$*01$/<=$ %&'5+)#($+092#$0,)$0S'&)092#$32#0,$#,#&-1$&#('4&3#($8'$+8($&#(+)#,8($ 0,)$94(+,#((;$W,$a421$Q@?ID$*#$#+5#)$0%%&'502$.&'6$8"#$/2#,)02#$C+81$ C'4,3+2$8'$6'5#$.'&*0&)$*+8"$8"#$)#5#2'%6#,8$%"0(#$'.$0$%20,$8'$&#%'*#&$ 8"#$0-+,-$/&01(',$='*#&$=20,8$*+8"$0$3'69+,08+',$'.$&#,#*092#$#,#&-1$ &#('4&3#(D$#,#&-1$(8'&0-#$0,)$0$2+6+8#)$06'4,8$'.$8"#&602$-#,#&08+',;$!"#$ %20,$+,324)#($0$`H$6#-0*088$LG<MD$N@@$6#-0*088:"'4&$LG<"M$B088#&1$ E,#&-1$\8'&0-#$\1(8#6$LBE\\MD$0($643"$0($H@$G<$'.$)+(8&+948#)$#,#&-1$ &#('4&3#($8"08$+,324)#$('20&$%"'8'5'280+3$(1(8#6(D$#,#&-1$#S+3+#,31$0,)$)#:
60,)$&#(%',(#$%&'-&06(D$0,)$IN$G<$'.$8"#&602$-#,#&08+',$.&'6$4%$8'$.+5#$ +,8#&,02$3'694(8+',$#,-+,#(;
445 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-10
8 9
!"#$%&'%'(#)$&#%'*#&+,-$'.$/&01(',$*+22$+,324)#$0$)+5#&(#$6+7$'.$#,#&-1$$ &#('4&3#($*+8"$0$-'02$'.$%&'5+)+,-$8"#$32#0,#(8$%'*#&$%'((+92#$*"+2#$60+,:
80+,+,-$+09+2+81$08$0$�(',092#$3'(8$+,$0$8&0,(6+((+',$3',(8&0+,#)$$ 2'308+',;$!"+($+($',#$'.$60,1$(8#%($+,$#(8092+("+,-$/<=$0($0$,08+',02$32#0,$ #,#&-1$2#0)#&$0,)$03"+#5+,-$/<=>($?@@A$32#0,$#,#&-1$-'02(;$B0(#)$4%',$ 8"#$)+&+',$'.$8"#$C+81$C'4,3+2$0,)$+,%48$.&'6$8"#$3'664,+81D$/<=$"0($ %0&8,#&#)$*+8"$C2#0,$E,#&-1$%&'5+)#&($8'$)#5#2'%$8"#$+,,'508+5#D$$ 3'664,+81:.03+,-$32#0,$#,#&-1;
!"##$%&'()*+$,'-$./'()*0$#(.-*+$,1".,$*(.-**
2#(%/*34$%#",/(/*5%"6%(#
!"#$'9F#38+5#$'.$8"+($%&'%'(#)$%&'-&06$+($8'$)#5#2'%$0$2'0)$3',8&'2$%&'-&06$ 8"08$*+22$)#2+5#&$4%$8'$?@$G<$'.$)#60,)$&#(%',(#$8'$/<=$)4&+,-$)#60,)$ &#(%',(#$#5#,8($*+8"$-40&0,8##)$30%03+81$'.$H;I$G<$'.$048'608+3$)#60,)$ &#(%',(#($.&'6$&#(+)#,8+02$8"#&6'(808($0,)$J;?$G<$'.$60,402$)#60,)$$ &#(%',(#$.&'6$3'66#&3+02$0,)$+,)4(8&+02$34(8'6#&(;
7'%/8()*5"9$%*5)(./
/<=$+($%&'%'(+,-$0$K+&8402$='*#&$=20,8$LK==M$%&'-&06$.'&$0%%&'7+608#21$ ND@@@$8'$JD@@@$(+,-2#$.06+21$&#(+)#,8+02$34(8'6#&($0,)$0%%&'7+608#21$N@:J@$ 6428+:.06+21$"'4(+,-$%&'%#&8+#($8"08$*'42)$+,324)#$9'8"$('20&$-#,#&08+',$0,)$ #,#&-1$(8'&0-#;$!"+($*'42)$9#$8"#$20&-#(8$%&'-&06$'.$+8($O+,)$0,)$*'42)$9#$ (+-,+.+30,821$20&-#&$8"0,$8"#$K==$%&'-&06($8"08$"05#$9##,$+6%2#6#,8#)$8'$ )08#$+,$'8"#&$F4&+()+38+',($*"+3"$"05#$9##,$+,8&')43#)$',$0$5#&1$(6022D$%+2'8:
(302#$90(+($8'$8#(8$8"#$3',3#%8;$!"&'4-"$0$%4&3"0(#$%'*#&$0-&##6#,8$L==PMD$ 8"+($%&'-&06$*'42)$%&'5+)#$/<=$*+8"$0,$05#&0-#$'.$QR$G<$'.$('20&$%'*#&$ 0,)$QH;QH$G<$'.$9088#&1$(8'&0-#$#03"$1#0&$'5#&$8"#$2+.#$'.$8"#$%&'-&06; !"##$%&'()*0'%$&/*:.,/())*5%"6%(#
!"#$'9F#38+5#$'.$8"+($%&'%'(#)$%&'-&06$+($8'$+6%2#6#,8$#,#&-1$#S+3+#,31$ 6#0(4&#($)#(+-,#)$8'$&#)43#$0,,402$#2#38&+3$4(0-#$91$NHD@@@G<"$+,$3'6:
6#&3+02$94+2)+,-($*"+3"$#T408#($8'$&#)43+,-$)#60,)$91$R;NQ$G<$',3#$.4221$ +6%2#6#,8#);$!"#$%&'-&06$*+22$9#$+6%2#6#,8#)$'5#&$0$(#5#,$1#0&$%#&+')$0,)$ 8"#$#,#&-1$(05+,-($6#0(4&#($0&#$#7%#38#)$8'$20(8$0,$05#&0-#$'.$?Q;H$1#0&(; ;$4(<'"%()*0$#(.-*+$,1".,$*=;0+>
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
45(,5+6&*+7-%&5-+)8*26-&&
9()*+,-&/+*+&+3/&0%-%&*:-&&
%(;*<+5-&*(&+/=0%*&*:-&&
*5+3%;(56-5&9()*+,-&*(&7--4&&
2*&+*&+&45-/-*-5623-/&)-9-)>&&
?3&+//2*2(3&*(&+1:2-923,&&
-3-5,@&%+923,%&*:5(0,:&&
9()*+,-&1(3*5()A&*:-&B'.&&
45(,5+6&:-)4%&!"#&2/-3*2;@&&
45(C)-6&+5-+%&(3&;--/-5%A&%01:&&
+%&4((5&*5+3%;(56-5&4-5;(58
6+31-A&%(&1(55-1*29-&+1*2(3&&
1+3&C-&*+7-3>
7")/(6$*+$-8&/'".*5%"6%(#
/<=$48+2+Z#($C',(#&508+',$K'280-#$Y#)438+',$LCKYM$%&'-&06($8'$)#3�(#$ %'*#&$3',(46%8+',D$*"+3"$9#,#.+8($8"#$#,5+&',6#,8$0,)$&#)43#($'4&$ 34(8'6#&(>$#2#38&+3+81$9+22(;$!"#$CKY$%&'-&06$80O#($:8+6#$5'280-#$)080$ 0,)$4(#($('.8*0&#$8'$0)F4(8$8"#$8&0,(.'&6#&$5'280-#$8'$O##%$+8$08$0$%&#:)#8#&:
6+,#)$2#5#2;$W,$0))+8+',$8'$03"+#5+,-$#,#&-1$(05+,-($8"&'4-"$5'280-#$3',8&'2D$ 8"#$CKY$%&'-&06$"#2%($/<=$+)#,8+.1$%&'92#6$0�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�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`;JN$G<];
!)$(.*?.$%6@*5%"6%(#,
W,$)#5#2'%+,-$+8($W,8#-&08#)$Y#('4&3#$=20,D$/<=$"#2)$%492+3$6##8+,-(D$ .'34($-&'4%(D$0,)$3',)438#)$(4&5#1($+,$'&)#&$8'$)#8#&6+,#$/2#,)02#$ &#(+)#,8(>$%&+'&+8+#($&#-0&)+,-$32#0,$#,#&-1$%&'-&06(;$$B0(#)$4%',$8"08$ .##)903OD$/<=$"0($%&'%'(#)$0$%20,$8"08$*+22$8&0,(.'&6$8"#$*01$/<=$ %&'5+)#($+092#$0,)$0S'&)092#$32#0,$#,#&-1$&#('4&3#($8'$+8($&#(+)#,8($ 0,)$94(+,#((;$W,$a421$Q@?ID$*#$#+5#)$0%%&'502$.&'6$8"#$/2#,)02#$C+81$ C'4,3+2$8'$6'5#$.'&*0&)$*+8"$8"#$)#5#2'%6#,8$%"0(#$'.$0$%20,$8'$&#%'*#&$ 8"#$0-+,-$/&01(',$='*#&$=20,8$*+8"$0$3'69+,08+',$'.$&#,#*092#$#,#&-1$ &#('4&3#(D$#,#&-1$(8'&0-#$0,)$0$2+6+8#)$06'4,8$'.$8"#&602$-#,#&08+',;$!"#$ %20,$+,324)#($0$`H$6#-0*088$LG<MD$N@@$6#-0*088:"'4&$LG<"M$B088#&1$ E,#&-1$\8'&0-#$\1(8#6$LBE\\MD$0($643"$0($H@$G<$'.$)+(8&+948#)$#,#&-1$ &#('4&3#($8"08$+,324)#$('20&$%"'8'5'280+3$(1(8#6(D$#,#&-1$#S+3+#,31$0,)$)#:
60,)$&#(%',(#$%&'-&06(D$0,)$IN$G<$'.$8"#&602$-#,#&08+',$.&'6$4%$8'$.+5#$ +,8#&,02$3'694(8+',$#,-+,#(;
446 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-11
10 11
!"#$%$&$'()*+,)#-.)/0#0,.
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
12#.,3'4$(-#)5,+(,2%)6)7.28)9:.,#4)
K!L&,-&/"%#-$%'2,/&3,#2&!"#$%A)"%#&A*9#3"%$;&."+-:2$0$&& !"#$%8-',52#&L%*5%")&#*&$-:*+%"5$&)*%$&3"#$%&:*-'$%4"#,*-&")*-5&& %$',0$-#,".&:+'#*)$%'7&<2$&/%*5%")&,-:.+0$'&!"#$%A)"%#>'&1,M)*-#2.(&& N*)$&!"#$%&O$/*%#&0$',5-$0&#*&/%*4,0$&%$',0$-#,".&:+'#*)$%'&3,#2&"&& )*%$&5%"-+."%&+-0$%'#"-0,-5&*9$,%&3"#$%&:*-'+)/#,*-;&"-0&2$./&0%,4$&& :*-'$%4"#,*-&")*-5&%$',0$-#'7&
<2%*+52$&!"#$%8-',52#&L%*5%");&:+'#*)$%'&:"-&.*5&,-#*$&!"#$%8-',52#& /*%#".&"-0&'$$$,%&2*+%.(;&0",.(;&3$$6.(&*%&)*-#2.(&3"#$%&+'"5$&"-0&:2$:6& #*&'$$&,9$(&2"4$&"-(&3"#$%&.$"6'7&=+'#*)$%'&:"-&".'*&',5-&+/&#*&%$:$,4$& .$"6&".$%#'%*+52&$M)",.&"-0&#$P#&)$''"5$'7&Q-*3,-5&"1*+#&"&/*#$-#,".& 3"#$%&.$"6&,'&*-$&*9$&)*'#&$E$:#,4$&3"('&#*&'"4$&3"#$%&"-0&/%$4$-#&,#&& 9%*)&1$,-5&3"'#$07&8-$&/"'#&($"%;&?R;STS&.$"6&".$%#'&2"4$&1$$-&'$-#&& #*&:+'#*)$%'7&
U":2&($"%;&K!L&/%*4,0$'&"//%*P,)"#$.(&?V@;@@@&!"#$%&8-',52#&O$/*%#'&#*&& *+%&%$',0$-#,".&:+'#*)$%'&#*&,-9*%)$)&"1*+#$,%&3"#$%&+'"5$&"-0&& /%*4,0$$)&3,#2&#,/'&#*&:*-'$%4$&3"#$%7&W(&,)/%*4,-5$&$E,:,$-:(&*9&& 3"#$%&+'$;&:+'#*)$%'&:"-&I+,:6.(&1$-$9,#&9%*)&')"..$%&3"#$%&1,..';&2$./&& )",-#",-&*+%&%$.,"1.$&.*-5M#$%)&3"#$%&'+//.(;&"-0&%$0+:$&9+#+%$&,)/":#'&& *-&*+%&.*:".&5%*+-03"#$%&%$'*+%:$'7
!"#$%&$'()*&+,$(-$+-&*.%-/$
0120$01+$3%04$('$!5+-,25+6&$$
720+.$&4&0+8$%&$.+&%5%+-0$2-,$
)2-$82%-02%-9$(.$:*%);54$$
.+&0(.+9$720+.$&+.<%)+$2'0+.$
-20*.25$,%&2&0+.&
#2,'&,'&/"%")*+-#&#*&.*:6,-5&,-&/*',#,4$&/$"6M'2"4,-5&1$2"4,*%'&9*%&9+#+%$& $4$-#'7&<2$&5*".&,'&#*&)"6$&'+%$"#&K!L&:+'#*)$%'&2"4$$&%,52#&& ,-9*%)"#,*-&"-0&#**.'&#*&$)/*3$%$)&#*&#"6$&":#,*-&#*&%$0+:$&$-$%5(&& +'"5$&0+%,-5&/$"6&0"('7&
19;<=)>3?3@3!A)B!><=A3C9;3!A
F*0$%-,G,-5&*+%&3"#$%&+#,.,#(&5,4$'&*+%&:+'#*)$%'&*//*%#+-,#,$'&#*&'"4$&& 3"#$%&"-0&9*%&+'&#*&*/$%"#$&,-&"&)*%$&$E,:,$-#;&$E$:#,4$&"-0&%$.,"1.(&3"(7&& H+%&:+'#*)$%'&:"-&":#,4$.(&/"%#,:,/"#$&,-&/%*5%")'"#&2$./&)"-"5$$,%& 3"#$%&+'"5$7&W$.*3&"%$&3"#$%&/%*5%")';&/"%#-$%'2,/';&"-0&,-4$'#)$-#'&K!L& 2"'&0$4$.*/$0&"-0&,)/.$)$-#$07
A.D#)7.E.:)@%2,#)F#$:$#G
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
447 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-12
10 11
!"#$%$&$'()*+,)#-.)/0#0,.
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
12#.,3'4$(-#)5,+(,2%)6)7.28)9:.,#4)
K!L&,-&/"%#-$%'2,/&3,#2&!"#$%A)"%#&A*9#3"%$;&."+-:2$0$&& !"#$%8-',52#&L%*5%")&#*&$-:*+%"5$&)*%$&3"#$%&:*-'$%4"#,*-&")*-5&& %$',0$-#,".&:+'#*)$%'7&<2$&/%*5%")&,-:.+0$'&!"#$%A)"%#>'&1,M)*-#2.(&& N*)$&!"#$%&O$/*%#&0$',5-$0&#*&/%*4,0$&%$',0$-#,".&:+'#*)$%'&3,#2&"&& )*%$&5%"-+."%&+-0$%'#"-0,-5&*9$,%&3"#$%&:*-'+)/#,*-;&"-0&2$./&0%,4$&& :*-'$%4"#,*-&")*-5&%$',0$-#'7&
<2%*+52$&!"#$%8-',52#&L%*5%");&:+'#*)$%'&:"-&.*5&,-#*$&!"#$%8-',52#& /*%#".&"-0&'$$$,%&2*+%.(;&0",.(;&3$$6.(&*%&)*-#2.(&3"#$%&+'"5$&"-0&:2$:6& #*&'$$&,9$(&2"4$&"-(&3"#$%&.$"6'7&=+'#*)$%'&:"-&".'*&',5-&+/&#*&%$:$,4$& .$"6&".$%#'%*+52&$M)",.&"-0&#$P#&)$''"5$'7&Q-*3,-5&"1*+#&"&/*#$-#,".& 3"#$%&.$"6&,'&*-$&*9$&)*'#&$E$:#,4$&3"('&#*&'"4$&3"#$%&"-0&/%$4$-#&,#&& 9%*)&1$,-5&3"'#$07&8-$&/"'#&($"%;&?R;STS&.$"6&".$%#'&2"4$&1$$-&'$-#&& #*&:+'#*)$%'7&
U":2&($"%;&K!L&/%*4,0$'&"//%*P,)"#$.(&?V@;@@@&!"#$%&8-',52#&O$/*%#'&#*&& *+%&%$',0$-#,".&:+'#*)$%'&#*&,-9*%)$)&"1*+#$,%&3"#$%&+'"5$&"-0&& /%*4,0$$)&3,#2&#,/'&#*&:*-'$%4$&3"#$%7&W(&,)/%*4,-5$&$E,:,$-:(&*9&& 3"#$%&+'$;&:+'#*)$%'&:"-&I+,:6.(&1$-$9,#&9%*)&')"..$%&3"#$%&1,..';&2$./&& )",-#",-&*+%&%$.,"1.$&.*-5M#$%)&3"#$%&'+//.(;&"-0&%$0+:$&9+#+%$&,)/":#'&& *-&*+%&.*:".&5%*+-03"#$%&%$'*+%:$'7
!"#$%&$'()*&+,$(-$+-&*.%-/$
0120$01+$3%04$('$!5+-,25+6&$$
720+.$&4&0+8$%&$.+&%5%+-0$2-,$
)2-$82%-02%-9$(.$:*%);54$$
.+&0(.+9$720+.$&+.<%)+$2'0+.$
-20*.25$,%&2&0+.&
#2,'&,'&/"%")*+-#&#*&.*:6,-5&,-&/*',#,4$&/$"6M'2"4,-5&1$2"4,*%'&9*%&9+#+%$& $4$-#'7&<2$&5*".&,'&#*&)"6$&'+%$"#&K!L&:+'#*)$%'&2"4$$&%,52#&& ,-9*%)"#,*-&"-0&#**.'&#*&$)/*3$%$)&#*&#"6$&":#,*-&#*&%$0+:$&$-$%5(&& +'"5$&0+%,-5&/$"6&0"('7&
19;<=)>3?3@3!A)B!><=A3C9;3!A
F*0$%-,G,-5&*+%&3"#$%&+#,.,#(&5,4$'&*+%&:+'#*)$%'&*//*%#+-,#,$'&#*&'"4$&& 3"#$%&"-0&9*%&+'&#*&*/$%"#$&,-&"&)*%$&$E,:,$-#;&$E$:#,4$&"-0&%$.,"1.(&3"(7&& H+%&:+'#*)$%'&:"-&":#,4$.(&/"%#,:,/"#$&,-&/%*5%")'"#&2$./&)"-"5$$,%& 3"#$%&+'"5$7&W$.*3&"%$&3"#$%&/%*5%")';&/"%#-$%'2,/';&"-0&,-4$'#)$-#'&K!L& 2"'&0$4$.*/$0&"-0&,)/.$)$-#$07
A.D#)7.E.:)@%2,#)F#$:$#G
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
448 of 839
H. Utility Modernization Report
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP H-13
12 !"#$%&'()*"+%,-,-
!"#$%&"#'(&)#*'+',-(#*
./.%0$%12"3452"%6#"$%
12"3452"7%86%9.,-:
;<.<=%>/<?@@--
AAA$12"3452"B5("+634C)A"+$')D
12"3452"B5("+634C)A"+
12"3452"B5("+634C)A"+
E8&1B6FG!C&BG!
449 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP I-1
I. Energy Efficiency Program Results
Every year, California’s POUs collaborate to develop cost-effective energy efficiency programs and report those results to their customers and the CEC. The POUs publish these results in Energy Efficiency in California’s Public Power Sector. The 2023 report was the 17th edition. During fiscal year 2022, the POUs collectively expended $223 million on energy efficiency programs for their communities, including low-income customers, resulting in 362 GWh of net annual energy savings with 4,268 GWh of net lifecycle energy savings and reducing peak demand by 71 MW. Table 35 lists GWP’s energy efficiency savings for 2022. Gross Peak Savings (kW) Gross Annual Savings (kWh) Gross Lifecycle Energy Savings (kWh) Net Peak Savings (kW) Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) Net Lifecycle Energy Savings (kWh) Net Lifecycle GHG Reductions (Tons) 1,510 11,316,344 64,239,265 1,504 11,281,064 63,746,054 19,524 Table 35. Energy Efficiency Program Results Table 36 lists GWP’s energy efficiency program costs, including the Program Administrator Cost and the Total Resource Cost. Total Utility Cost PAC TRC Utility ($/kWh) $3,162,930 $2.26 $1.37 $0.071 Table 36. Energy Efficiency Program Costs For more information, see Chapter 8. Energy Efficiency Programs and Initiatives. 450 of 839
I. Energy Efficiency Program Results
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP I-2
Table 37 lists GWP’s energy efficiency program results by end use for 2022.
Table 37. Energy Efficiency Program Results by End Use
EE in California’s Public Power Sector: 17th Edition — 2023 A-67
TABLE 1. GWP EE Program Results by End Use
Summary by End Use Resource Savings Summary Cost Test Results End Use Gross Peak
Savings (kW)
Gross Annual
Savings (kWh)
Gross Lifecycle
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Peak
Savings (kW)
Net Annual
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Lifecycle
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Lifecycle GHG
Reductions (Tons)
Total Utility
Cost PAC TRC Utility
($/kWh)
Appliance & Plug Loads 1 48,292 600,914 1 30,604 385,470 139 $46,119 0.87 0.84 0.163 Building Envelope 4 6,431 102,311 1 1,801 28,647 10 $3,750 1.43 0.93 0.191 HVAC - Cooling 1,055 1,142,666 16,281,759 1,053 1,138,006 16,208,886 5,225 $1,367,184 1.93 0.82 0.118 Lighting - Indoor 92 421,974 5,133,096 92 413,992 5,005,385 1,557 $85,858 7.67 2.08 0.023 Lighting - Outdoor 0 69,051 1,450,071 0 69,051 1,450,071 653 $16,308 10.65 10.65 0.017 Miscellaneous 358 9,627,130 40,662,314 358 9,627,130 40,662,314 11,938 $1,643,161 2.21 2.21 0.059 Service & Domestic Hot Water 0 800 8,800 0 480 5,280 2 $551 0.85 0.55 0.139 EE Subtotal 1,510 11,316,344 64,239,265 1,504 11,281,064 63,746,054 19,524 $3,162,930 2.26 1.37 0.071 EE and Low Income Subtotal 1,510 11,316,344 64,239,265 1,504 11,281,064 63,746,054 19,524 $3,162,930 2.26 1.37 0.071
All 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034 T&D Subtotal 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034 C&S, T&D and Electrification
Subtotal 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034
Utility Total 1,510 15,378,344 72,363,265 1,504 15,343,064 71,870,054 21,402 $3,300,536 2.28 1.40 0.068 451 of 839
I. Energy Efficiency Program Results
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP I-3
Table 38 lists GWP’s energy efficiency program results by sector for 2022.
Table 38. Energy Efficiency Program Results by Sector
EE in California’s Public Power Sector: 17th Edition — 2023 A-68
TABLE 2. GWP EE Program Results by Sector
Summary by Sector Resource Savings Summary Cost Test Results Sector Gross Peak
Savings (kW)
Gross Annual
Savings (kWh)
Gross Lifecycle
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Peak
Savings (kW)
Net Annual
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Lifecycle
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Lifecycle GHG
Reductions (Tons)
Total Utility
Cost PAC TRC Utility
($/kWh)
Commercial 460 2,750,418 33,199,428 460 2,750,418 33,199,428 10,243 $868,658 4.59 1.38 0.035 Other 777 69,051 1,450,071 777 69,051 1,450,071 653 $917,575 0.37 0.37 0.978 Residential 273 8,496,875 29,589,766 267 8,461,595 29,096,555 8,628 $1,376,697 2.05 1.99 0.073 EE Subtotal 1,510 11,316,344 64,239,265 1,504 11,281,064 63,746,054 19,524 $3,162,930 2.26 1.37 0.071 EE and Low Income Subtotal 1,510 11,316,344 64,239,265 1,504 11,281,064 63,746,054 19,524 $3,162,930 2.26 1.37 0.071
Residential 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034 T&D Subtotal 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034 C&S, T&D and Electrification
Subtotal 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034
Utility Total 1,510 15,378,344 72,363,265 1,504 15,343,064 71,870,054 21,402 $3,300,536 2.28 1.40 0.068 452 of 839
I. Energy Efficiency Program Results
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP I-4
Table 39 lists GWP’s energy efficiency program results by building type for 2022.
Table 39. Energy Efficiency Program Results by Building Type
EE in California’s Public Power Sector: 17th Edition — 2023 A-69
TABLE 3. GWP EE Program Results by Building Type
Summary by Building Type Resource Savings Summary Cost Test Results Building Type Gross Peak
Savings (kW)
Gross Annual
Savings (kWh)
Gross Lifecycle
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Peak
Savings (kW)
Net Annual
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Lifecycle
Energy Savings
(kWh)
Net Lifecycle GHG
Reductions (Tons)
Total Utility
Cost PAC TRC Utility
($/kWh)
All 996 1,496,004 17,146,554 996 1,494,579 17,130,881 5,518 $1,510,102 1.42 1.43 0.119 Office - Large 241 1,327,027 17,542,127 241 1,327,027 17,542,127 5,388 $279,986 7.79 0.95 0.022 Residential 268 8,452,518 29,031,568 265 8,433,956 28,743,475 8,504 $1,337,855 2.08 2.02 0.072 Residential - Single-Family 5 40,795 519,016 2 25,502 329,571 113 $34,987 1.08 1.10 0.146 EE Subtotal 1,510 11,316,344 64,239,265 1,504 11,281,064 63,746,054 19,524 $3,162,930 2.26 1.37 0.071 EE and Low Income Subtotal 1,510 11,316,344 64,239,265 1,504 11,281,064 63,746,054 19,524 $3,162,930 2.26 1.37 0.071
All 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034 T&D Subtotal 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034 C&S, T&D and Electrification
Subtotal 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 0 4,062,000 8,124,000 1,878 $137,606 2.72 2.72 0.034
Utility Total 1,510 15,378,344 72,363,265 1,504 15,343,064 71,870,054 21,402 $3,300,536 2.28 1.40 0.068 453 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP J-1
J. City Council Clean Energy Resolution
On August 16, 2022, the Glendale City Council unanimously approved “a resolution establishing goals for solar energy installations by Glendale Water & Power customers and clean energy targets, establishing a City Council subcommittee, and directing staff to take actions in furtherance thereof.” The resolution essentially states three goals for GWP to work toward attaining: § Future GWP investments in producing energy, to the maximum extent possible, be from “clean, renewable, or non-carbon-emitting resources excluding renewable biofuels not already permitted or approved”. The resolution further sets a target date for this goal as “no later than 2035”. § At least 10 percent of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027. § Additional demand management measures be developed with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW. The resolution also authorized GWP to engage with a consultant to analyze the steps needed to attain these goals and to work toward attaining them. 454 of 839
J. City Council Clean Energy Resolution
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP J-2
455 of 839
J. City Council Clean Energy Resolution
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP J-3
456 of 839
J. City Council Clean Energy Resolution
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP J-4
457 of 839
J. City Council Clean Energy Resolution
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP J-5
458 of 839
J. City Council Clean Energy Resolution
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP J-6
459 of 839
J. City Council Clean Energy Resolution
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP J-7
460 of 839
EXHIBIT 1
461 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP ii
PREFACE This Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) was developed in accordance with the mandates set forth in Senate Bill 350 (SB 350), enacted to advance California’s commitment to sustainable energy practices. This report investigated six scenarios, each offering a nuanced perspective on the City’s energy future, including the accelerated adoption of 100% Clean Energy by 2035. The comprehensive analysis of these scenarios formed the basis for the strategic decision-making to ensure the IRP is robust, adaptable, and aligned with the dynamic nature of the energy sector. The IRP is not merely a document prepared to fulfill regulatory obligations; it serves as GWP’s blueprint for a future where energy is both reliable and sustainable, while safeguarding the welfare of the City and its residents for generations to come. The preparation of the IRP was a collaborative effort, drawing on the expertise of Ascend Analytics, Strategen Consulting, and dedicated internal staff. GWP appreciates the community and Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) members for their invaluable contributions, support, and dedication in shaping the trajectory of Glendale’s energy landscape. The STAG members are: Zanku Armenian, Armenian National Committee (ANC) Mike Borisov, Resident at-large member Anita Quiñonez Gabrielian, Glendale Latino Association (GLA) Peter Hebert, Resident at-large member Karin Kachler, Resident at-large member Karen Kwak, Glendale Tenant’s Union (GTU) Grant Michals, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council (GHCC) Gustavo Moreno, Resident at-large member Glenn Pittman, Resident at-large member Kurt Sawitskas, Resident at-large member Greg Tan, Glendale Chamber of Commerce Pierre Thompson, Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) Jack Walworth, Glendale Environmental Coalition (GEC) 462 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 | Ascend Analytics iii
Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 The Results of Integrated Resource Planning ..................................................................................................... 1-1 The Preferred Resource Portfolio ................................................................................................................................ 1-2 Timeline for Acquiring Resources ................................................................................................................................ 1-4 IRP Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................................ 1-6 Developing this IRP .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-7 Six Portfolio Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-8 Resource Capacity Mix in 2035 ..................................................................................................................................... 1-9 Acting on the IRP Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 1-10 2. THE INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING PROCESS .......................................................... 2-1 The Inception of the Integrated Resource Plan ................................................................................................. 2-2 Customer-Oriented Priorities ........................................................................................................................................ 2-2 Planning Horizon ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3 The IRP Planning Process .............................................................................................................................................. 2-3 Overriding IRP Goals ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Additional Planning Objectives for the IRP ............................................................................................................. 2-4 Steps of the IRP Framework ........................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Stakeholder Participation .............................................................................................................................................. 2-8 Townhall Attendee Participation .................................................................................................................................. 2-8 Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group Participation .......................................................................................... 2-9 Implementing the IRP .................................................................................................................................................. 2-11 3. ABOUT GLENDALE WATER & POWER ...................................................................................... 3-1 The City of Glendale ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 About Glendale Water & Power ................................................................................................................................ 3-2 GWP Customers .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Award Winning Grid Reliability and Service ........................................................................................................... 3-3 Membership in SCPPA ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Energy Mix ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Clean energy Progress .................................................................................................................................................... 3-5 Resource Generation Portfolio ................................................................................................................................... 3-6 Upcoming Generation Projects ............................................................................................................................... 3-12 Natural Gas Transportation Pipelines ................................................................................................................... 3-13 4. 2019 IRP OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................................ 4-1 2019 IRP Recommended Portfolio ........................................................................................................................... 4-1 Energy Efficiency, Demand Response, and Behind-the-Meter Batteries ................................................... 4-2 Distributed Solar and Storage ....................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Internal Combustion Engines and Battery Energy Storage Systems ........................................................... 4-3 Additional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-3 463 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP iv
5. STATUTORY DRIVERS AND REGULATORY FACTORS ......................................................... 5-1 Statutory Drivers ................................................................................................................................................................ 5-1 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Statutes ...................................................................................................... 5-2 Renewable Portfolio Standard and Zero-Carbon Resources .......................................................................... 5-4 Subsidies for Customer Rooftop Solar Statutes .................................................................................................... 5-6 Cap-and-Trade Program and Market Statutes ...................................................................................................... 5-6 Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Management ............................................................................................. 5-7 Transportation Electrification ........................................................................................................................................ 5-7 Regulatory Factors ............................................................................................................................................................ 5-8 Transportation Electrification Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 5-8 Building Electrification Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 5-9 Adopting Energy Reach Code Standards .............................................................................................................. 5-10 City Clean Energy Goals ................................................................................................................................................ 5-11 6. PLANNING FORECASTS AND REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 6-1 Forecast Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Load Forecasts .................................................................................................................................................................... 6-3 Energy Demand Forecast ................................................................................................................................................ 6-3 Peak Demand Forecast ..................................................................................................................................................... 6-3 Rooftop Solar PV Installations ....................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Energy Efficiency Savings Forecast .............................................................................................................................. 6-5 Transportation Electrification Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 6-7 Power and Natural Gas Price Forecasts .................................................................................................................. 6-8 Power Price Forecast ......................................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Natural Gas Price Forecast ........................................................................................................................................... 6-10 Resource and Carbon Cost Forecasts .................................................................................................................. 6-11 California Carbon Price Forecast ............................................................................................................................... 6-11 Social Cost of Carbon Forecast .................................................................................................................................. 6-12 Green Hydrogen Fuel Cost Forecast ....................................................................................................................... 6-13 Candidate Resource Cost Forecasts ........................................................................................................................ 6-14 7. COST OF SERVICE AND RATE IMPACTS ................................................................................... 7-1 Rates ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7-1 Cost of Service and Rate Design Process .............................................................................................................. 7-2 8. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES ........................................................... 8-1 Conservation and Utility Modernization .................................................................................................................. 8-1 Contributions to Peak Demand ................................................................................................................................. 8-2 Energy Efficiency Programs ......................................................................................................................................... 8-3 Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs ....................................................................................... 8-3 Residential Energy Efficiency Programs .................................................................................................................... 8-4 Conservation Voltage Reduction Programs ............................................................................................................ 8-6 Energy Efficiency Portfolio Results .............................................................................................................................. 8-7 Setting Energy Efficiency Potential Targets ............................................................................................................. 8-9 Demand Response Programs .................................................................................................................................. 8-11 Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Studies ......................................................................................... 8-12 Current Low Income Programs ............................................................................................................................... 8-13 Community Solar ........................................................................................................................................................... 8-14 464 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP v
Transportation Electrification Initiatives .............................................................................................................. 8-14 Transportation Electrification Program History .................................................................................................. 8-15 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................... 8-16 Grants .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8-17 The Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee ................................................................. 8-18 Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program Credits ....................................................................................................... 8-18 Electric Vehicle Charging Initiatives ...................................................................................................................... 8-19 Southern California Public Power Authority EV Working Group ................................................................. 8-19 Electric Vehicle Level 2 Charger Rebates ............................................................................................................... 8-20 Electric Vehicle Guest Drive Events ........................................................................................................................... 8-20 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Customer Programs ................................................................................. 8-20 New Programs for Disadvantaged and Low-Income Customers ........................................................... 8-22 Localized Air Pollution and Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................................. 8-22 Transportation Electrification in Disadvantaged Communities .................................................................... 8-23 9. TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................ 9-1 Bulk Transmission System ............................................................................................................................................. 9-1 Transmission Load Pocket Bottleneck ....................................................................................................................... 9-4 Transmission Utilization ................................................................................................................................................... 9-5 The Need for More Transmission Capacity .......................................................................................................... 9-6 System Reliability Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 9-6 Distribution System .......................................................................................................................................................... 9-8 Distribution System Capital Improvements ............................................................................................................ 9-8 Updated Electric Services Master Plan ...................................................................................................................... 9-9 Cause of Outages ............................................................................................................................................................ 9-11 10. RPS COMPLIANCE AND RESOURCES ................................................................................... 10-1 RPS Compliance Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 10-1 Renewable Energy Credits ........................................................................................................................................... 10-2 Portfolio Balance Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 10-3 GWP Compliance Status ............................................................................................................................................... 10-3 RPS Procurement ........................................................................................................................................................... 10-5 Long-Term Contracts ..................................................................................................................................................... 10-5 Excess Procurement and Historic Carryover ........................................................................................................ 10-6 Procurement Plan and Cost Containment ............................................................................................................ 10-6 RPS Enforcement Procedures .................................................................................................................................. 10-7 Determination ................................................................................................................................................................... 10-7 Complaint ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10-8 Hearing and Final Decision .......................................................................................................................................... 10-8 Penalties ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10-8 Renewable Resources and Clean Energy ........................................................................................................... 10-9 Renewable Generation ................................................................................................................................................ 10-11 GWP Clean Energy Projections ................................................................................................................................ 10-12 11. PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................................. 11-1 Modeling and Analysis Framework ....................................................................................................................... 11-2 Input Assumptions and Portfolio Modeling ........................................................................................................ 11-3 Modeling Constraints ..................................................................................................................................................... 11-3 Candidate Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 11-4 Candidate Portfolio Options Procurement Plan ................................................................................................ 11-5 Modeling Process for Portfolio Scenarios .......................................................................................................... 11-7 Six Modeled Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................. 11-7 Scenario Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................... 11-8 465 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP vi
Modeling Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 11-9 Preferred Candidate Portfolio Scenario ............................................................................................................ 11-19 Risk Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11-20 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11-21 12. ACTION PLANS .............................................................................................................................. 12-1 Capacity Expansion Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 12-1 Customer-Oriented and Reliability Driven Action Plans ............................................................................. 12-5 Distributed Energy Resources Action Plan ........................................................................................................... 12-5 Transportation and Distribution Action Plan ....................................................................................................... 12-5 Integrating Community Input .................................................................................................................................... 12-5 A. IRP GUIDELINES CROSS-REFERENCE ........................................................................................ A-1 B. GLOSSARY AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................... B-1 C. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ............................................................................................................ C-1 Community Townhalls ................................................................................................................................................... C-2 Townhall 1: Thursday, June 29, 2023 .......................................................................................................................... C-3 Townhall 2: Monday, July 24, 2023 ............................................................................................................................. C-8 Townhall 3: Saturday, August 12, 2023 .................................................................................................................. C-13 Townhall 4: Thursday, November 16, 2023 .......................................................................................................... C-19 Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) ............................................................................................... C-25 The STAG’s Role in the IRP .......................................................................................................................................... C-25 How the STAG Was Formed ....................................................................................................................................... C-25 About the STAG Meetings ......................................................................................................................................... C-30 STAG Meeting 1: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 ........................................................................................................ C-32 STAG Meeting 2: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 ........................................................................................................ C-42 STAG Meeting 3: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 ................................................................................................... C-50 STAG Meeting 4: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 ................................................................................................... C-62 STAG Scenario Preference Survey Results ............................................................................................................ C-73 STAG Meeting 5: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 ........................................................................................... C-90 STAG Meeting 6: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 ......................................................................................... C-104 D. STANDARDIZED TABLES ................................................................................................................ D-1 Capacity Resource Accounting Table (CRAT) ........................................................................................................ D-1 Energy Balance Table (EBT) ............................................................................................................................................ D-2 Resource Procurement Table (RPT) ........................................................................................................................... D-3 GHG Emissions Accounting Table (GEAT) ................................................................................................................ D-4 E. KEY MODELING ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................. E-1 Generation Resource Cost Forecasts ....................................................................................................................... E-2 Renewable Generation Cost Forecasts ...................................................................................................................... E-2 BESS Cost Forecasts ........................................................................................................................................................... E-2 Power and Natural Gas Fuel Price Forecasts ....................................................................................................... E-4 466 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP vii
F. POWERSIMM PLANNER ................................................................................................................... F-1 PowerSIMM Overview .................................................................................................................................................... F-1 Simulations in PowerSIMM ............................................................................................................................................ F-1 Dispatch in PowerSIMM .................................................................................................................................................. F-2 Resource Planning Modeling ...................................................................................................................................... F-3 Production Cost Modeling ............................................................................................................................................. F-3 Capacity Expansion Optimization ................................................................................................................................ F-4 Resource Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... F-5 Simulation Details ............................................................................................................................................................. F-7 Weather Simulation ........................................................................................................................................................... F-7 Load Simulation ................................................................................................................................................................... F-8 Wind and Solar Simulation ........................................................................................................................................... F-10 Small Hydro Simulation ................................................................................................................................................. F-12 Forward Price Simulation .............................................................................................................................................. F-13 Spot Price Simulation ...................................................................................................................................................... F-14 Basis Price Simulation ..................................................................................................................................................... F-14 G. ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY ..................................................................................... G-1 H. UTILITY MODERNIZATION REPORT .......................................................................................... H-1 I. ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM RESULTS ................................................................................. I-1 J. CITY COUNCIL CLEAN ENERGY RESOLUTION ......................................................................... J-1 467 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP viii
FIGURES Figure 1. California Policy Preferred Portfolio Annual Energy Produced and Consumed .................................... 1-2 Figure 2. California Policy Preferred Portfolio Capacity Build-Out ................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 3. California Policy Preferred Portfolio Resource Additions and Retirements ............................................ 1-4 Figure 4. Preferred Portfolio Annual Cost of New Resources ......................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 5. Resource Capacity Mix in 2034: All Scenarios .................................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 6. GWP Clean Energy Progress .................................................................................................................................... 1-11 Figure 7. Integrated Resource Planning Process .................................................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 8. Glendale Water & Power Service Territory .......................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 9. GWP Customer Count .................................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 10. GWP Energy Consumed .............................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 11. 2022 Energy Resource Mix ......................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 12. GWP Clean Energy Progress ...................................................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 13. Grayson Power Plant ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 14. Magnolia Power Plant .................................................................................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 15. Intermountain Power Project .................................................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 16. High Winds ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 17. Pebble Springs Wind .................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 18. Townsite Solar Plant ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 19. Star Peak Geothermal Energy Project .................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 20. Whitegrass No.1 Geothermal Plant ...................................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 21. Tieton Hydropower Project ...................................................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 22. Hoover Dam Power Plant ......................................................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 23. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station .............................................................................................................. 3-11 Figure 24. Scholl Canyon Biogas Project (rendering) .......................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 25. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Legislation ........................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 26. RPS and Zero-Carbon Requirements Legislation .............................................................................................. 5-4 Figure 27. Customer Rooftop Solar Installation Legislation ............................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 28. Cap-and-Trade Program Legislation ...................................................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 29. Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Management Legislation ................................................................... 5-7 Figure 30. Transportation Electrification Legislation ............................................................................................................. 5-7 Figure 31. Annual Zero-Emission Vehicles Sales Targets for the Advanced Clean Cars II Rule ........................... 5-9 Figure 32. Energy Forecast .............................................................................................................................................................. 6-3 Figure 33. Peak Demand plus Reserve Margin Forecast ...................................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 34. Solar PV Distributed Energy Resources Forecast .............................................................................................. 6-5 Figure 35. Energy Efficiency Savings Forecast ......................................................................................................................... 6-6 Figure 36. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicle Population Forecast ................................................................ 6-7 468 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP ix
Figure 37. Transportation Electrification Demand Forecast ............................................................................................... 6-8 Figure 38. Southern California SP-15 Power Price Forecast ............................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 39. SoCal City Gate Natural Gas Price Forecast ....................................................................................................... 6-10 Figure 40. California Carbon Price Forecast ............................................................................................................................ 6-11 Figure 41. Social Cost of Carbon Forecast ............................................................................................................................... 6-12 Figure 42. Green Hydrogen Fuel Cost Forecast ..................................................................................................................... 6-13 Figure 43. Battery Energy Storage System Cost Forecast ................................................................................................. 6-14 Figure 44. Renewable Power Purchase Agreement Cost Forecast ................................................................................ 6-15 Figure 45. Resource Portfolio Candidate Cost Forecast ..................................................................................................... 6-16 Figure 46. Cost of Service Process Steps ................................................................................................................................... 7-2 Figure 47. Annual Energy Efficiency Savings ............................................................................................................................ 8-2 Figure 48. Energy Efficiency Net Savings as a Percent of Sales for California POUs ................................................ 8-9 Figure 49. Cumulative Energy Efficiency Savings with CEC Adjustments .................................................................... 8-10 Figure 50. Net Incremental Market Potential by Sector and Percent of Sales .......................................................... 8-11 Figure 51. Disadvantaged Communities Map ........................................................................................................................ 8-23 Figure 52. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations in Glendale ............................................................................... 8-25 Figure 53. Geographic Transmission Schematic ........................................................................................................................ 9-1 Figure 54. Southwest AC Intertie Transmission Line Average Usage .................................................................................... 9-5 Figure 55. Causes of Distribution System Outages .............................................................................................................. 9-11 Figure 56. RPS Compliance Period Requirements ................................................................................................................ 10-1 Figure 57. Current Portfolio RPS and Clean Energy .......................................................................................................... 10-10 Figure 58. Preferred Portfolio RPS and Clean Energy ...................................................................................................... 10-12 Figure 59. IRP PowerSIMM Modeling Process Flow ............................................................................................................ 11-1 Figure 60. Base Portfolio LOLH by Year ................................................................................................................................. 11-11 Figure 61. Reduced LOLH Risk with Resource Additions by Year ............................................................................... 11-12 Figure 62. Six Scenarios: Annual Total Cost ......................................................................................................................... 11-16 Figure 63. Six Scenarios: CO2 Emissions ................................................................................................................................ 11-17 Figure 64. Six Scenarios: RPS Generation ............................................................................................................................. 11-18 Figure 65. Six Scenarios: Clean Energy Generation ........................................................................................................... 11-18 Figure 66. Scenario 1: California Policy Capacity Build-Out .......................................................................................... 11-19 Figure 67. Scenario 1: California Policy Annual Energy Produced and Consumed .............................................. 11-20 Figure 68. Scenario 1: California Policy Annual Resource Additions and Retirements .......................................... 12-2 Figure 69. Annual Cost of New Resources .............................................................................................................................. 12-4 Figure 70. Townhall 1 Presentation Slides ................................................................................................................................. C-7 Figure 71. Townhall 2 Presentation Slides .............................................................................................................................. C-12 Figure 72. Townhall 3 Presentation Slides .............................................................................................................................. C-18 Figure 73. Townhall 4 Presentation Slides .............................................................................................................................. C-24 Figure 74. STAG At-Large Member Application ................................................................................................................... C-26 469 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP x
Figure 75. STAG Member Agreement ...................................................................................................................................... C-29 Figure 76. The Chatham House Rule ........................................................................................................................................ C-30 Figure 77. STAG Meeting 1 Presentation Slides ................................................................................................................... C-41 Figure 78. STAG Meeting 2 Presentation Slides ................................................................................................................... C-49 Figure 79. STAG Poll Scenario Assumptions Response ..................................................................................................... C-53 Figure 80. STAG Poll Clean Energy Timeline Response ..................................................................................................... C-54 Figure 81. STAG Meeting 3 Presentation Slides ................................................................................................................... C-61 Figure 82. STAG Survey Q5 Results: DERs plus Storage .................................................................................................... C-74 Figure 83. STAG Survey Q6 Results: DER Target in STAG Scenario 1 .......................................................................... C-74 Figure 84. STAG Survey Q7 Results: Reach Code Target in STAG Scenario 1 .......................................................... C-75 Figure 85. STAG Survey Q8 Results: Resources to Exclude in STAG Scenario 1 ...................................................... C-75 Figure 86. STAG Survey Q9 Results: High Electrification Adoption in STAG Scenarios ........................................ C-76 Figure 87. STAG Survey Q12 Results: Clean Energy Timeline Ranking ....................................................................... C-78 Figure 88. STAG Survey Q12 Results: Clean Energy Adoption Priority ....................................................................... C-78 Figure 89. STAG Survey Q14 Results: Input Assumptions Considered in STAG Scenarios 1 and 2 ................. C-80 Figure 90. STAG Survey Q15 Results: STAG Scenario 2 Elements ................................................................................. C-81 Figure 91. STAG Survey Q16 Results: Excluded Resources from STAG Scenario 2 ................................................ C-82 Figure 92. STAG Meeting 4 Presentation Slides ................................................................................................................... C-89 Figure 93. STAG Meeting 5 Presentation Slides ................................................................................................................. C-103 Figure 94. STAG Meeting 6 Presentation Slides ................................................................................................................. C-119 Figure 95. STAG Top Three Scenario Selections (Survey 1) ........................................................................................... C-121 Figure 96. STAG Scenario Preference by Total Points Allocated per Scenario (Survey 1) ................................. C-122 Figure 97. STAG Top Three Scenario Selections (Survey 2) ........................................................................................... C-124 Figure 98. STAG Scenario Preference by Total Points Allocated per Scenario (Survey 2) ................................. C-125 Figure 99. California Policy Scenario Capacity Build Out (CRAT) .................................................................................... D-1 Figure 100. California Policy Scenario Annual Energy Produced and Consumed (EBT) ........................................... D-2 Figure 101. RPS and Clean Energy Totals by Year (RPT) ....................................................................................................... D-3 Figure 102. Annual CO2 Emissions (GEAT) .................................................................................................................................. D-4 Figure 103. Three-Day Dispatch Outputs Plotted against Load .......................................................................................... F-4 Figure 104. ARS Schematic of Candidate Resource Expansion ........................................................................................... F-5 Figure 105. PowerSIMM Simulation Engine ................................................................................................................................ F-6 Figure 106. Multiple Simulations of Daily Maximum Dry Bulb Temperatures ............................................................... F-8 Figure 107. Multiple Simulations of Load Over a Single Week ........................................................................................... F-9 Figure 108. Load versus Temperature Relationships ............................................................................................................... F-9 Figure 109. Multiple Simulations of Solar Generation Over a Single Week ................................................................. F-10 Figure 110. Multiple Simulations of Wind Generation Over a Single Week ................................................................. F-11 470 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP xi
Figure 111. Multiple Simulations of Hydro Generation Over a Single Week ............................................................... F-12 Figure 112. Multiple Simulations of Forward Prices ............................................................................................................... F-13 Figure 113. Simulations for Spot Prices Over a Single Week ............................................................................................. F-14 TABLES Table 1. GWP Generation Resource Portfolio ...................................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 2. Functionalized Test Year Revenue Requirements ............................................................................................. 7-4 Table 3. Conservation Voltage Reduction Program Results .......................................................................................... 8-7 Table 4. Energy Efficiency Program Results Fiscal Year End 2022 ............................................................................... 8-8 Table 5. Energy Efficiency Targets with Codes and Standards ...................................................................................... 8-9 Table 6. Installed Electric Vehicle Charging Stations ...................................................................................................... 8-15 Table 7. Proposed Electric Vehicle Charging Stations .................................................................................................... 8-16 Table 8. Transportation Electrification LCFS Proposed Budget .................................................................................. 8-19 Table 9. Compliance Period Percent of Retail Sales Requirements ........................................................................... 10-2 Table 10. Compliance Period 1 Retired and Applied RECs ............................................................................................. 10-3 Table 11. Compliance Period 2 Available and Applied RECs .......................................................................................... 10-4 Table 12. Reported Procurement Target Calculations ...................................................................................................... 10-4 Table 13. Reported Retired RECs ............................................................................................................................................... 10-4 Table 14. Current Renewable and Clean Energy Resources ........................................................................................ 10-11 Table 15. First Year Cost of RPS-Compliant, Clean Energy, and Storage Resource Portfolio Options .......... 11-6 Table 16. Local Resource Assumptions for All Six Scenarios .......................................................................................... 11-9 Table 17. N-1-1 Resource Contribution for Contingencies ......................................................................................... 11-10 Table 18. Six Scenarios: Resource Capacity in 2035 and 2045 ................................................................................... 11-13 Table 19. Six Scenarios: Cost and Emission Summaries ................................................................................................ 11-14 Table 20. Six Scenarios: Market Purchases and Sales ..................................................................................................... 11-15 Table 21. Resource Portfolio Expansion by Year ................................................................................................................. 12-3 Table 22. CEC IRP Guidelines Cross-Reference ...................................................................................................................... A-4 Table 23. Results of Community Resource Preference Activity ....................................................................................... C-3 Table 24. Original and Updated New Resource Costs: All Scenarios ....................................................................... C-120 Table 25. STAG Scenario Weighting: Survey 1 .................................................................................................................. C-122 Table 26. Top Three Scenario Selection Comparison between Survey 1 and Survey 2 .................................... C-124 Table 27. Scenario Point Allocation Comparison between Survey 1 and Survey 2 ............................................ C-126 Table 28. Scenario Summary for Top Three Selection and Allocated Points ........................................................ C-126 Table 29. Average Point Allocation Comparison between Survey 1 and Survey 2 ............................................. C-126 471 of 839
Table of Contents
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP xii
Table 30. Renewable Costs through PPAs Forecasts ($/MWh) ....................................................................................... E-2 Table 31. Battery Energy Storage Systems Cost Forecasts ($/kW) ................................................................................. E-2 Table 32. Hydrogen CT, CCS, and SMR Cost Forecasts ($/kW) ....................................................................................... E-3 Table 33. Hydrogen Fuel, California Carbon, and Social Cost of Carbon Price Forecasts ..................................... E-3 Table 34. Power (Off-Peak & On-Peak) and Natural Gas Price Forecasts ................................................................... E-9 Table 35. Energy Efficiency Program Results ........................................................................................................................... I-1 Table 36. Energy Efficiency Program Costs .............................................................................................................................. I-1 Table 37. Energy Efficiency Program Results by End Use ................................................................................................... I-2 Table 38. Energy Efficiency Program Results by Sector ....................................................................................................... I-3 Table 39. Energy Efficiency Program Results by Building Type ........................................................................................ I-4 472 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-1
1. Executive Summary
Glendale Water & Power’s (GWP) 2024 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) presents a strategy for meeting forecasted peak and net energy demand, plus a planning reserve margin (PRM) to address contingency events and grid reliability over a five to twenty year planning period. This strategy focuses on ensuring that greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction as well as renewable and clean energy targets are met.
THE RESUL TS OF INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING The IRP considered candidate resources for an incremental build-out that were included in all modeled portfolio scenarios and were limited only to non-fossil, renewable, and clean energy resources that GWP could realistically procure. These resources include solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear small modular reactors (SMR), battery energy storage systems (BESS), and green hydrogen. The preferred portfolio allows the existing natural gas units to be retained to ensure reliable service but provides a pathway to significantly reduce reliance on the output from the natural gas generation and spot purchases from energy markets. GWP and the Stakeholder Technical Advisory Group (STAG) developed six portfolio scenarios for consideration. Initially, only five scenarios were to be developed, but it became clear that a sixth scenario was necessary. GWP relied heavily on STAG input, together with information garnered from Community Townhall events. All scenarios were extensively and comprehensively modeled, analyzed, and reviewed to ensure completeness and accuracy. The resultant preferred resource portfolio meets forecasted load as well as state renewable energy and clean energy goals while maintaining a high level of system reliability and minimizing cost impact. As required by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in the Publicly-Owned Utility Integrated Resource Plan Submission and Review Guidelines, “The IRP Filing must address procurement for a diversified procurement portfolio of short- and long-term electricity, electricity-related, and demand-response products and strategies or programs.” The IRP employed an overall modeling and planning horizon extending from 2024 through 2045. To comply with statutory mandates, the IRP needed to satisfy and plan for 2030 and 2045 targets. In addition, the modeling studied the year 2035, aligning with the City of Glendale’s City Council objective to achieve 100 percent clean energy by that year. 473 of 839
1. Executive Summary The Results of Integrated Resource Planning Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-2
The Preferred Resource Portfolio Of the six scenarios considered, the IRP modeling process selected Scenario 1: California Policy as the preferred portfolio. This scenario meets the aggressive California clean energy mandates while keeping costs lower for the residents of Glendale. The preferred scenario also presents the most realistic path forward for meeting renewable and zero-carbon generation requirements as it relies solely on mature renewable and clean energy technologies—wind, solar PV, geothermal, and energy storage—and not on nascent emerging technologies. In addition, the California Policy scenario was based on the assumption that historic levels of distributed energy resource (DER) installations and demand response (DR) adoption continue in the future. GWP has limited control of DER and DR, so the scenario was specifically designed to not overly rely on these resources. The path forward in the preferred portfolio includes a mix of geothermal, wind, solar PV, and energy storage while keeping Grayson Unit 9, Magnolia, and the internal combustion engine (ICE) units—currently being installed—online. Figure 1 shows the energy mix from the resources in the preferred scenario.
Figure 1. California Policy Preferred Portfolio Annual Energy Produced and Consumed Natural gas generation remains constant year over year as a result of the Magnolia Power Plant’s must-run status. Generation from Grayson and the ICE units drops to a combined amount of less than 30,000 MWh (megawatt hours) per year while Magnolia remains around 46,000 MWh per year. As a result, Grayson Unit 9 will run at a capacity factor of 2 percent while the ICE units will run at a capacity factor of 4 percent. The 474 of 839
1. Executive Summary The Results of Integrated Resource Planning Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-3
decline in natural gas generation is a function of added resources to serve load, a decline in power prices, and increasing carbon costs. The capacity build out for the preferred portfolio is shown in Figure 2. In the build out, natural gas capacity remains online through 2045. Some hydrogen is in the mix from the pending conversion of the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) scheduled to be completed by the end of 2025.
Figure 2. California Policy Preferred Portfolio Capacity Build-Out 475 of 839
1. Executive Summary The Results of Integrated Resource Planning Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-4
Timeline for Acquiring Resources Figure 3 depicts the planned resource additions and retirements in the California Policy preferred portfolio. The already planned ICE unit additions occur in 2025 and 2026; IPP’s partial conversion from coal to hydrogen occurs in 2025. The California Policy capacity expansions begin in 2027.
Figure 3. California Policy Preferred Portfolio Resource Additions and Retirements In the short term, GWP will continue to focus on increasing the penetration of DERs from customer-sited solar PV and energy storage, as well as on its effective energy efficiency savings initiatives, including DR and other demand-side management (DSM) measures. 476 of 839
1. Executive Summary The Results of Integrated Resource Planning Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-5
Figure 4 shows the annual cost of the capacity expansion action plan. There is no cost for capacity expansion in the first three years. The expenditures for the ICE units that are being added to the resource mix during these years has already been allocated.
Figure 4. Preferred Portfolio Annual Cost of New Resources In the long term, GWP plans to investigate the potential of using green hydrogen in its current natural gas units, and to explore the potential for other emerging technologies such as long-duration storage and SMR. While hydrogen is the most promising of the options for clean and dispatchable energy, there is no certainty that hydrogen will be available in the Los Angeles basin by 2035 or that it will be affordable. GWP will monitor hydrogen generation development over the next few years and reconsider it as the situation warrants. 477 of 839
1. Executive Summary IRP Key Findings
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-6
IRP KEY FINDINGS Three key findings that would help further a transition to clean energy resulted from the integrated resource planning process. Technological Progress Is Required A transition to a clean energy system relies on technical progress for medium and long duration energy storage, green hydrogen fuel, and nuclear SMR. Multi-day long-duration storage can shift variable generation over several days, however this technology is not yet commercially available. Long duration storage provides dispatchable capacity by shifting generation over many hours. Long-duration storage, however, has a low efficiency rate—approximately 50 percent to 60 percent efficient. Installation requires large amounts of land–approximately 3MW per acre—plus the cells cannot presently be stacked to economize space. Some pilot projects are being planned with small capacities. A company called Form Energy is developing a 100-hour Iron-Air battery with plans for small pilots with multiple utilities. Another company, ESS, is developing a 12-hour Iron Flow battery, which is also in the pilot stage. Medium-duration storage (approximately eight to ten hours) shifts variable generation from low demand to high demand hours within a day. While commercially available, it is not yet widely installed. Other promising technologies include green hydrogen fuel, nuclear SMR, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and renewable natural gas. While none are commercially available, hydrogen and SMR show some promise. Green hydrogen presents as the most probable technology, considering the possibility to convert existing assets to using hydrogen exclusively for in-basin generation and that this generation would be dispatchable and carbon-free. Due to the need for continued technological advancements and new infrastructure, the cost projections for green hydrogen use are high. Infrastructure is needed to get hydrogen to the power plants, a situation that is difficult in urban areas such as the City of Glendale. In addition, large losses occur when transforming renewable energy to hydrogen and then back to clean power. As previously mentioned, IPP in Delta, Utah will be one of the first hydrogen facilities in the world when it comes online in 2025. As a participant in this project with the City of Burbank and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Glendale will have an opportunity to gain significant insights in the use of green hydrogen which will support the transition of our in-basin generation. SMR are, by design, small when compared to traditional reactors. They would provide carbon-free, fully dispatchable generation. Costs, however, will likely be higher than hydrogen. NuScale was attempting to build the world’s first SMR in Idaho, but that project was recently cancelled because it lacked the necessary subscribers to purchase its energy. 478 of 839
1. Executive Summary Developing this IRP
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-7
Local Thermal Generation Retirements Impact Reliability A full transition to clean energy requires that Grayson Unit 9, Magnolia, and the ICE units currently being installed be replaced with firm, clean options. However, retiring these natural gas resources create reliability challenges for GWP. GWP is required to maintain operational reserves based on the N-1-1 contingency planning. In 2035, the peak load is projected to be 416 MW. To cover an N-1-1 contingency, GWP can only rely on 113 MW from the Southwest AC Intertie transmission line; the remaining capacity must be local. Together, this generation amounts to 376 MW, leaving GWP with a 40 MW shortfall which must be met with local generation. Mature Renewable Resources Form the Foundation Based on the projected resource costs and market outlook, the modeling process selected geothermal, wind, energy storage, and hydrogen generation as foundational renewable resources. Solar was not selected due to the heavy build out of solar in California which has pushed market prices lower during solar hours. Solar generation, however, replaced a portion of wind generation in the modeling process because solar resources were required by the scenarios. The modeling process added geothermal resources as soon as possible in all scenarios due to its high capacity and RPS contribution. Hydrogen was also selected for its capacity contribution. Energy storage, especially long-duration storage, was selected to boost capacity for reliability and to manage fluctuations in daily renewable generation profiles.
DEVELOPING THIS IRP Many voices participated in developing the IRP, including direct and meaningful input from community stakeholders. The integrated resource planning process was based on modeling and analyzing six resource portfolio scenarios. GWP developed three of these scenarios; the STAG also developed three scenarios. GWP, together with its consultants Ascend Analytics and Strategen Consulting, formed the STAG to assist in developing scenarios to model and analyze in the integrated resource planning process. The STAG met six times during a little over five months. GWP also held four Community Townhalls, starting at the end of June and running through mid-November. GWP garnered valuable input and commentary from these Townhalls. In addition, the STAG considered input from these Townhalls when developing its three scenarios. The STAG scenarios put a heavy emphasis on customer resources (such as rooftop solar PV, energy efficiency, and DR) with a preference for local renewables, and clean energy timelines that exceed California’s 2045 zero-carbon requirement. As a result of community interest, Ascend included the social cost of carbon in its modeling and analysis. 479 of 839
1. Executive Summary Developing this IRP
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-8
Six Portfolio Scenarios The six modeled scenarios contain varied resources and requirements. Scenario 1. California Policy for Clean by 2045: Assumes GWP procures resources to meet the California mandates for renewable energy and clean energy. The mandates state that GWP must serve 60 percent of load with renewable energy by 2030 and 100 percent of the retail sales with clean energy by 2045. In this path, GWP continues to develop geothermal, wind, and solar resources remotely while adding distributed solar PV and energy storage in Glendale. Natural gas units are expected to remain online after 2045 to ensure system reliability while operating infrequently. Scenario 2. Zero-Carbon Emissions by 2035: Meets the City Council target of fully clean by 2035. GWP aggressively procures renewable resources including geothermal, wind, and solar while also building storage early in the process. Natural gas generation will be replaced or converted to a clean fuel source (such as green hydrogen) by 2035. Energy storage will provide necessary capacity to maintain reliable operations. The costs of this transition are uncertain as they depend heavily on the cost of replacing natural gas with green hydrogen. Scenario 3. Clean by 2045 with REC Purchases for Offsets: Procures resources to come within 10 percent of the RPS requirement and fills the remaining gap with REC purchases. This scenario is meant to show the least-cost path to fulfill the renewable energy and zero-carbon energy requirements of SB 350, SB 100, and SB 1020. Scenario 4. Zero Carbon Emissions by 2035: Meets the City Council target of fully clean by 2035. Aggressively procures utility-scale geothermal, wind, and solar while pursuing customer-sited resources. Rooftop solar increases significantly along with distributed batteries at residences. GWP would also work to increase energy efficiency savings. All natural gas generation transitions to green hydrogen in 2035 supplemented with long-duration storage. Scenario 5. Zero-Carbon Emissions by 2042: Converts natural gas resources to run on green hydrogen by 2042. GWP pushes for increased renewable procurement in the near- and mid-term while working towards transitioning away from natural gas. Given the longer timeline for a carbon free transition, GWP stops normal operation of Magnolia power plant in 2038 keeping it for capacity and reliability purposes. In 2042, all natural gas resources transition to green hydrogen fuel. Scenario 6. Zero Carbon Emissions by 2040: Achieves a carbon-free portfolio by 2040 through increased procurements of renewables and storage along with a full transition of natural gas to green hydrogen by 2040. 480 of 839
1. Executive Summary Developing this IRP
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-9
Resource Capacity Mix in 2035 Figure 5 shows the varying resource capacity portfolio mix in 2035 for all six modeled scenarios. Renewable resources form the bottom of the chart’s columns, followed by clean energy resources, with thermal resources topping the columns.
Figure 5. Resource Capacity Mix in 2034: All Scenarios
481 of 839
1. Executive Summary Acting on the IRP Recommendations
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-10
ACTING ON THE IRP RECOMMENDATIONS The goal of the actions resulting from this IRP is to attain the state’s requirements for GHG emission reductions by transitioning to renewable and zero-carbon generation, to reduce costs, to strengthen reliability, and to improve the lives of GWP’s customers. Toward that end, GWP will continue to explore and engage in power purchase agreements (PPA) that align with the capacity build out from the preferred portfolio. In addition, GWP will focus on expanding the integration of DER and look for innovative models to engage customers and business in the energy efficiency and DR programs. GWP is working diligently with LADWP and the City of Burbank Water and Power to explore joint infrastructure projects to expand and upgrade transmission capabilities, leveraging shared resources. GWP is updating its Electric Services Master Plan. Implementing that plan will ensure that GWP’s distribution system continues its high level of reliability and can effectively carry the forecasted increase in load. GWP continues to monitor and assess changes in planning assumptions, policy, markets, technologies, and all other factors affecting energy generation. GWP will respond to changes in these factors to pursue a constant goal of delivering reliable, affordable, clean energy to its customers. While GWP recognizes that the California Policy scenario, identified as the most viable solution for meeting the City of Glendale’s resource needs and IRP obligations, does not explicitly address the City Council’s goal of 100 percent clean or non-carbon emitting energy by 2035, it also does not prevent GWP from adjusting to meet this goal should technologies or resources advance sufficiently to make it possible. This IRP addresses the obligation of GWP to meet the State of California renewable and zero-carbon mandates under the guidelines of existing and probable technologies and resources. GWP will continue to seek options and alternatives to meet the City’s goal of 100 percent clean or non-carbon emitting energy by 2035. To that end, GWP is currently working with a consultant on a study to determine the utility’s and community’s ability to adopt additional solar penetration such that it is representative of 10 percent of Glendale’s electric customers. This same study will additionally consider the potential for developing demand management measures equivalent to a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW. The effort to meet such goals are widely recognized as complex and onerous. 482 of 839
1. Executive Summary Acting on the IRP Recommendations
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 1-11
GWP is committed to finding opportunities that will help the City shift toward a carbon-free future while considering the implications of reliability, sustainability, and affordability to the Glendale Community as a whole. As evidence, Figure 6 depicts how GWP’s clean energy progress through 2022 has significantly exceeded state requirements, demonstrating its commitment to sustainable energy practices.
Figure 6. GWP Clean Energy Progress
483 of 839
Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 2-1
2. The Integrated Resource Planning Process
GWP developed this IRP by employing an integrated approach that considered several specific planning objectives. These key objectives were identified by GWP, the Glendale City Council, the California legislature, and various state agencies including the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The driving factors influencing the IRP are shaped significantly by two pivotal directives: the California mandates and the City Council’s 100% Clean Energy by 2035 resolution. These directives serve as the guiding pillars for the strategic decision-making within the planning process. The California requirements are: § Reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 as mandated by SB 350, and then by 85 percent of 1990 levels by 2045 as codified by Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. § Achieve a 60 percent RPS by 2030 by procuring adequate renewable generation, as mandated by Senate Bill (SB) 350, and updated by Senate Bill 100. In addition, meet the interim RPS goals of 44 percent by the end of 2024 and 52 percent by the end of 2027. § Achieve a 100 percent zero-carbon generation portfolio by 2045, also mandated by SB 100, with interim goals of 90 percent zero-carbon generation by 2035 and 95 percent zero-carbon generation by 2040 as mandated by SB 1020. The Glendale City Council Resolution 22-125 intends to: § Achieve 100 percent of energy sales from clean, renewable, or non-carbon-emitting resources by 2035. § Adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least 10 percent of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027. § Develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW. The convergence of these driving factors compels the IRP process to prioritize integrating renewable energy, reducing emissions by either transitioning away from or significantly reducing natural gas generation, and adopting DERs. The planning process is not only shaped by legal mandates but also by the local vision and commitment to environmental sustainability. 484 of 839
2. The Integrated Resource Planning Process The Inception of the Integrated Resource Plan Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 2-2
THE INCEPTION OF THE INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN Customer-Oriented Priorities GWP’s internal and community-oriented goals have remained constant since its last IRP: serving its customers with reliable, clean energy at affordable rates. In addition, the planning process retains a consistent set of priorities: Keep the lights on. GWP’s immediate and ongoing priority is to ensure that its customers’ lights stay on. Its customers—residents, businesses, industries, and municipal services—expect reliable power. Reliability in energy delivery supports the people and institutions that depend on constant power for their quality of life, such as: § Healthy lifestyles for household tasks, public lighting, and medical equipment. § Income generation for home offices, business interactions, and industrial production. § Quality lifestyles for the heating, cooling, and lighting of public buildings and schools. This requires a resilient infrastructure to provide this power. While there are many–sometimes conflicting–goals in creating an integrated resource plan, an overriding and crucial priority is reliability. Renewable and clean energy generation. GWP prides itself on being a leader in progressing toward a clean power system. GWP continues to aggressively pursue all available, cost-effective options for using renewable and clean energy resources to generate and deliver reliable energy. This IRP seeks to accelerate state mandated renewable and clean energy requirements to reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change. The community as contributor. GWP is no longer the sole producer of energy. Consumers are joining the renewable energy transition by installing rooftop solar PV systems often combined with energy storage, and saving energy by participating in efficiency efforts and demand-side management programs. GWP embraces and supports this transformation. The community as collaborator. GWP actively and intentionally engaged customers—its stakeholders—to meaningfully participate in developing this 2024 IRP. GWP has taken a leadership role in involving the Glendale community to support clean energy opportunities through a stakeholder technical advisory group and several townhall meetings. Steady, incremental steps. The future remains uncertain. GWP’s integrated resource planning implements a prudent, measured approach to meet community needs and state energy requirements, and to retain enough agility to respond to changes. A look back confirms that energy-related technologies continue to evolve; GWP expects them to continue that evolution even more rapidly in the following decades. The GWP plan aims to meet immediate needs while being flexible enough to quickly respond and implement technological maturations that best serve the energy needs of its customers. 485 of 839
2. The Integrated Resource Planning Process The IRP Planning Process Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 2-3
Retain affordable customer bills. Affordability is an important pillar of GWP’s resource planning. Just and reasonable rates are important to its customers, and GWP continues to prioritize that goal. Affordable rates begin with evaluating the cost of generating and delivering energy from various resource options and choosing wisely. GWP is also committed to ensuring the benefits it delivers are fair to all Glendale customers, especially for lower-income residents.
Planning Horizon The IRP employed an overall modeling and planning period that ranged from 2024 through 2045. Due to statutory goals for renewable generation and clean (zero-carbon) energy requirements, the IRP also considered two consecutive timeframes within this overall planning period: Short Term: 2024–2030. This term focuses on identifying common needs for meeting existing demand and evaluating conditions (such as transportation and building electrification) that affect planning. Short-term planning also focuses on retiring, repowering, and adding renewable resources to meet regulatory requirements and increased demand, and handling system adaptations necessary with increased renewable generation. Ultimately, short-term planning focuses on attaining the state-mandated 60 percent RPS by 2030 requirement and scaling customer rooftop solar plus storage installations to support City Council goals. Long Term: 2031–2045. As required by state statutory goals, this long-term planning period focuses on attaining a 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon portfolio by 2045, identifying potential impediments, and incorporating new technologies to attain that goal. Long-term planning also involves attaining the City Council’s resolution of speeding up the state clean energy goal by a decade and potentially meeting it in 2035. In addition, modeling and analysis considered the year 2035, the year the Glendale City Council seeks “to achieve 100 percent clean, renewable, and non-carbon-emitting energy” for generating electricity for city residents.
THE IRP PLANNING PROCESS GWP begins the planning process by identifying its overriding goals and specific objectives that the IRP must address, and by defining the overall planning and modeling periods.
Overriding IRP Goals To begin developing the IRP, GWP first identified these overriding goals that form the foundation of its planning. Reliability. Maintaining service without curtailing energy during environmental, generation, and transmission contingencies. 486 of 839
2. The Integrated Resource Planning Process The IRP Planning Process Glendale Water & Power 2024 IRP 2-4
Just and Reasonable Rates. Focusing on reasonable costs for providing energy, which translates to reasonable rates for customers. Resource Portfolio. Planning for and developing a diverse portfolio of resources to meet renewable and zero-carbon generation goals to generate energy that can be dispatched to meet customer demand throughout the day, every day. Efficiency. Achieving the highest level of productivity possible with minimum wasted effort to ensure the smooth delivery of energy. Constraints. Identifying state statutes, regulatory mandates, transmission and distribution issues, geographic limitations, and other restrictions on its operation and handling them adeptly. GWP’s overarching constraint is its location in a load pocket that restricts receiving remote generation through only two transmission lines, the Pacific DC Intertie and the Southwest AC Intertie. Due to operating issues, GWP can only plan to receive 200 MW of remote generation through both lines. (See Chapter 9. Transmission and Distribution for details.) Risk. Assessing the risks from regulatory and statutory mandates, new and emerging resource technologies, the volatility of fuel prices and transmission costs, infrastructure investments, and other unavoidable factors to determine an acceptable level of risk while minimizing its impact. Environmental Responsibility. Accelerating progress toward 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon energy; empowering customers to participate in clean energy programs, such as energy efficiency; and focusing on the social benefit of a cleaner environment through renewable generation, both for today and for future generations. Social Responsibility. Fosters economic, health, and electric rate benefits for low-income customers and disadvantaged communities.