Flores, Valerie
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
John Odell
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:04 PM
Acevedo, Gloria; Flares, Valeric
Bawa, Gurcharan; Margaret McAustin; Madison, Steve
submission for today's MSC meeting
220125jotoPasMSC.docx
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more.... 1370 Chamberlain Road, Pasadena
25 January 2022
Dear Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hampton, Ms. Rivas, and Ms. Williams/ I am John Odell, Pasadena resident and member of the Power IRP Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the 2018 revision. I am grateful to you and Water and Power for the 2021 draft update to that plan. I think the draft improves on the 2018 plan in some ways. For the first time we set a date for retiring our Magnolia fossil-fueled plant, though that date is not until 2036. We dip our toe, at least, in planning to incorporate storage, and we acknowledge in a small way that demand conservation can cost less than purchasing more energy. The resulting rate increase is low.
I believe this draft is also inferior to the 2018 plan in the way it deploys the social cost of carbon. The logic is that if our decision rule places heavy weight on holding down the cost of power, the report should include all costs we pay — not only the direct costs/ the checks we write, but also the indirect costs that we also surely pay when we burn fossil fuels - the extreme heat, lower worker productivity, air pollution, health damage, property loss from fires, and the rest. A fair model would apply an additional cost to all energy that comes from burning any fossil fuel, to show how much we could save by avoiding those fuels. This draft does not do that. It applies this penalty only to a fraction - only the fossil-based energy Pasadena will sell into the grid for consumption elsewhere. By thus shielding much fossil energy from the cost penalty, this draft biases its conclusion in favor of more fossil energy. Please ask Water and Power to re-run their scenarios applying the social cost of carbon to all energy for which Pasadena is responsible, and then ask what is the optimum mix of resources.
This draft is also disappointing in failing even to ask what it would cost to reach zero carbon emissions by 2030. Several other cities have declared this as their goal, to align with the urgent calls the world's scientists have been niaking for years to save us from the climate emergency that already engulfs us because we have moved too slowly. You should ask Water and Power to add such a scenario and ask how much it would raise rates. Why should you not even *ask* how much it would cost to move faster?
This is also the time to give Water and Power guidance for the coming full IRP revision. Judging from 2018, PWP will probably hire consultants and give them their requirements, closing off some options, before they invite stakeholders to give advice. So our elected leaders/ representing those 1 stakeholders/ should insist now that the next full revision include a scenario that will reach net zero carbon emissions by 2030, plus another scenario that will reach actual zero carbon emissions without any offsets by 2030. All scenarios should also be fair and apply a reasonable social cost of carbon to all fossil energy for which Pasadena is responsible as a consumer or producer.
Thank you for your attention and your generous service to our community.
Sincerely,
John Odell
2