Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Posting Issue
CarbonFree2030CityCouncil.pdf
From: Sam Berndt< >
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:47 AM
To: Jomsky, Mark <[email protected]>
Cc:Cynthia Cannady < >; Denise Jones <denisemionesl913(a)yahoo.com>; Madison, Steve <[email protected]>; Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Posting Issue
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Mark,
Sorry for all of the requests.
Since the EAC supports the PASADENA 100 resolution and it will inevitably be part of the conversation today, could you add the PASADENA 100 resolution attached to a separate correspondence item? Thanks,
Sam Berndt
1 •\
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASADENA DIRECTING PASADENA WATER AND POWER TO SET A GOAL TO PROVIDE 100% OF PASADENA'S ELECTRICITY FROM CARBON FREE SOURCES BY 2030
WhlEREAS, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change poses an imminent and existential threat to life and any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future; and WhlEREAS, the primary driver of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels; and WhlEREAS, if the current trend of fossil fuel use continues beyond 2030, many Pasadena residents will experience significantly worsened water insecurity, food insecurity, extreme heat waves, drought, wildfire, air quality, poverty, and habitat loss within their lifetimes; and WHEREAS, according to the American Medical Association, climate change is a public health crisis that threatens the health and well being of all people and disproportionately impacts the health of historically marginalized communities; and WhlEREAS, according to the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, the price of solar and wind electricity has declined dramatically over the last 10 years, and is now generally less than the price of coal and gas; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of all governmental agencies and policy makers to eliminate the use of fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS, other publicly-owned energy utilities in California, such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), have declared a climate emergency and have committed to 100% carbon free energy generation by 2030;and
WHEREAS, Pasadena's neighbors have already implemented a 100% clean energy default for residents, including the City of South Pasadena in 2019, the City of Sierra Madre in 2020,and the City ofAlhambra and the County of Los Angeles, including unincorporated East Pasadena and Altadena, are scheduled to do so in 2023; and
WHEREAS, Pasadena Water and Power is undergoing its Power Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process where it is determining how it will source its electricity for the next 20 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pasadena as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby directs Pasadena Water and Power to set a goal to provide 100% of its electricity from carbon free sources by 2030.
Section 2. The City Council hereby directs Pasadena Water and Power to utilize the 2023 Power Integrated Resource Planning process to plan the transition to 100% carbon free electricity by 2030 and optimize the cost, stability, and reliability of electricity while achieving this goal.
Section 3. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Pasadena Water and Power General Manager.
Adopted at the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
of the City Council on theday of January, 2023, by the
s
• l •—••-'—• . 1-1 ....
2023 JAN 24 PH 1:20
SIERRA
CLUB
January 24,2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mayor Victor Gordo
Vice Mayor Felicia Williams
ec: City Manager, Miguel Marquez
General Manager, Pasadena Water & Power, Sidney Jackson City of Pasadena
Re: Pasadena Resolution for 100% Carbon - Free Electricity Dear Honorable Mayor and Vice Mayor,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Sierra Club, the nation's oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization with over 500,000 members and supporters in California in support of the Pasadena 100 Coalition's call for the City of Pasadena to plan for a transition to 100% carbon free electricity by 2030. Setting a 100% clean energy target for 2030 would meet state mandates early and provide Pasadena with a cost-effective, reliable grid with important health and environmental benefits.
By leveraging its current Integrated Resource Planning to plan for a 100% carbon free power system, the City of Pasadena has the opportunity to be a leader in one of the most polluted air basins in the state by proactively planning for a cost-efficient clean energy transition that prioritizes our climate and public health. The climate crisis is already affecting millions of Califomians through droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather. The City of Pasadena should continue California's global leadership by committing to a clean power grid that will reduce heat-trapping emissions, slow climate change and mitigate its impacts while also protecting frontline communities in and outside of Pasadena.
Currently, almost half of Pasadena's power comes from coal and gas.' In addition to climate- warming carbon dioxide, coal and gas power plants emit harmful pollution, including oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds, which form ozone and particulate matter. These emissions pose considerable health risks for nearby communities, and Blair Middle School and preschool are located adjacent to the City's Glenarm Power Plant. Fine particulate matter, for example, is closely connected to decreased lung function, more frequent emergency department visits, additional hospitalization and increased morbidity." Although most of the fossil fuel pollution emitted in the City's power generation occurs outside the Los Angeles Basin, any additional pollution is a serious issue in Southern California, whose air basin is in serious, extreme, and/or severe nonattainment for one or more criteria pollutants'" State Mandates Require Planning for a Carbon-Free Grid
California has committed to a 100 percent clean energy future through climate laws that require the electric sector to cut its global warming emissions deeply and swiftly. SB 100 requires that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045."iv President Biden's Executive Order has also set a goal of 100% carbon-free electricity for the United States on a net annual basis by 2030." In September 2022, SB 1020 also accelerated interim targets to require renewable energy and zero- carbon resources to supply 90% of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95% of all retail electricity sales by 2040.
A "zero-carbon electric system" cannot be realized with nearly half of all generated electricity provided in Pasadena originating from burning fossil fuels. Governor Newsom also recently emphasized that: "[w]e must remove carbon emissions from our energy sources to support a sustainable future" and that "[ajlthough California has made great strides in eliminating coal power plants and increasing renewable energy resources, our current electricity system is still producing greenhouse gas emissions and conta-ibuting to unhealthy air quality in communities. "vi The direction from the Governor is clear: we must act rapidly now to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Carbon Free Resources Can Provide Lower-Cost, Reliable, and Safer Alternatives to Fossil Fuels
New clean energy development can produce a resilient, reliable electric grid and should be the default assumption for Pasadena's IRP planning. New or continued reliance on fossil fuels should be categorically excluded from every alternative to meet the City's climate, environmental justice, air quality and reliability needs.
Zero-emitting resources can and should be deployed to meet future energy needs and can provide system reliability as well as or better than gas-fired resources. The California Energy Commission's (CEC) Mid Term Reliability Analysis consisted of a loss-of-load-expectation analysis and provided new insight to the reliability benefits of battery storage. The analysis demonstrated that "relying on non-emitting resources like renewable generation and energy storage did not diminish reliability compared to portfolios that contained differing or additional amounts of thermal resources."vii
Additionally, continued or increased reliance on gas resources face fuel price volatility and will likely be more expensive than renewables, especially given the increased federal incentives for renewables and skyrocketing costs of wholesale gas prices on the West Coast. Southern California ratepayers felt these rising costs sharply with their gas bills more than doubling this month.viii The cost of keeping polluting gas plants online is only going up, with the Commission's recent Resource Adequacy ("RA") report noting "significant increases in prices reported in prior years."" Aside from rising gas prices, there are many other costs of retaining gas that make them economically risky, including high maintenance costs (especially for cycling units), the costs to maintain aging fossil fuel pipelines and infrastructure, the costs of additional air pollution including potential methane leaks, and the social costs of carbon. A better and more affordable way to plan the electrical grid is to transition to carbon-free resources.
Additionally, continued or increased reliance on gas resources is not likely to help maintain reliability on the hottest days. The forced outage rate of gas plants has been increasing in recent years, with some types of gas facilities experiencing an average forced outage rate of 14%,x and higher outage rates in extreme heat.xi As one article describes, these "old clmikers" are "breaking left and right.""" Heatwaves are also a significant concern for natural gas power plant efficiency because these plants need ambient air to produce electricity, and the higher the temperature, the lower the plant's efficiency." These findings suggest that Pasadena should not be relying on gas plants for reliability because they simply cannot deliver.
Continued or increased reliance on gas resources also risks leakage of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that is a significant contributor to climate change. Keeping gas plants online, with all their pipelines and old equipment, will likely lead to more methane leaks. These leaks can arise from storage facilities (like the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility), nahiral gas plants themselves (like the Valley Generating Station),xiv or from the many pipelines interconnecting the natural gas generators to the natural gas system. In 2015, the Environmental Defense Fund released mapping data indicating over 100 methane leaks dispersed across the City of Pasadena alone. At the time of the study, about 16% of Southern California Gas Company's pipelines are made from corrosive and leak-prone materials, and more than 38% of them are more than 50 years old.xvXV
Satellite data has found massive methane leaks from gas infrastructure, suggesting that gas leaks may be a more significant problem than currently estimated,xvi especially considering methane's high global warming potential. In addition to its potent global warming potential, methane leakage can cause severe health impacts, from nausea and trouble breathing to bone marrow suppression, as witnessed by the community living near the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility.xvii Meeting future goals and requirements must start with planning because if we set the wrong target now, we will not meet it in the future. Without thoughtful planning and procurement now, it's likely that Pasadena ratepayers will be stuck with paying for costly gas resources that are only needed because of the failure to effectively cite local clean resources.
The Inflation Reduction Act is a Gamechanger for Pasadena Water & Power The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) provides powerful new tools for municipal utilities to tap low-cost clean energy and directs nearly $400 billion in tax credits and direct spending to fund clean energy and transmission resilience investments. Under the IRA, public power entities like PWP have new opportunities to lead the clean energy transition, reduce costs for Pasadena ratepayers, and drive a new, local clean energy economy. Under the IRA, towns and cities can support local investments in residential and commercial efficiency, electrification, and distributed generation, build and own clean energy, and improve public infrastructure.
First, the IRA will significantly decrease the cost of resources that could replace existing gas resources by dramatically altering and expanding federal tax credits available for zero greenhouse gas emitting facilities such as solar, wind, and batteries. Before the enactment of the IRA, for example, battery storage resources received no federal tax credits. Now, a stand-alone battery project is entitled to a 30% base Investment Tax Credit. Like the IRA's battery tax credits, solar and wind projects are subject to an additional 10% tax credit if they are located in what is defined as an "energy community," generally a community with a history of fossil fuel generation, extraction, transport, or processing, a brownfield, or where a coal unit has retired after 2009, which the Glenarm Power Plant site may qualify for.xviii The Act also increases the size and term of the Production Tax Credit ("PTC") and ITC available to solar and wind projects.
Each of these zero-emitting resources is entitled to another 10% increase in the ITC if the project meets certain requirements for including U.S.-manufactured components, and the expanded credits extend through at least December 31, 2032, whereas prior to the IRA, existing wind and solar credits were expected to sunset in the next several years.
Pasadena Water & Power can use these programs in concert to reduce costs, increase resiliency, bring new economic opportunities and tax base, and keep their communities competitive in the new energy economy. For municipal utilities, every dollar of savings that can be harnessed through IRA programs frees up critical dollars for education, fire and police services, critical infrastructure, and other municipal programs.
In sum, the IRA drastically changes the landscape across a multitude of planning inputs. PWP should take these changes into account in developing its proposed course of action. We welcome discussion on these issues and would be happy to partner in sharing further information and analysis as to the expected impacts of the IRA.
New Federal and State Funds Promote Long Duration Storage and Distributed Generation An unprecedented amount of funds has also recently been made available for the development and deployment of long duration batteries. In May 2022, the Department of Energy announced $505 million to promote long duration energy storage; and in July, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 205, which allocated $140 million for long duration energy storage. More could be on the way: the California Assembly proposed $240 million in additional grants for long-duration energy storage projects.
These announcements come on the heels of long-duration battery company ESS announcing a deal with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which has committed to 100% zero carbon electricity generation by 2030, to supply an iron flow battery that can provide 200 megawatts of electricity phased in over multiple years and can provide flexible energy capacity for up to 12 hours.xix Utility Georgia Power also announced its program with battery company Fonn Energy to deploy an iron-air-exchange flow battery that can provide up to 100 hours of electricity storage at a price of less than $20/kWh. Many long-duration energy storage technologies and companies are also beginning to attract mature and institutional investors, pointing to the growing range of potentially commercially-viable long-duration storage alternatives to fossil generation.
Ifincentivized properly, customers could also install more distributed energy resources (DERs) like behind-the-meter (BTM) solar and storage in PWP territory, which can decrease the energy required during times of peak load and also support system reliability. This was clearly recognized by the State Legislature in allocating $200 Million to the Demand Side Grid Support Program, which would incentivize solar and storage deployment and reductions in energy demand during extreme weather. When operationalized for system benefit and to support building and vehicle electrification, DERs have the potential to provide dispatchable capacity and reduce the need to bum fossil fuels in the basin.
Two recent independent modeling studies and analyses (Vibrant Clean Energyxx and Stanfordxxi) show that optimizing DERs results in lower costs and decreasing electricity rates over time compared to meeting clean energy goals by investments in utility scale resources—in part by avoiding substantial investments in transmission infrastructure. A Vibrant Clean Energy model for California shows savings of $120 billion dollars over 20 years by optimizing DERs and indicates that incorporating DERs at approximately 10% of load levels optimizes grid performance.
We believe that PWP's modeling assumptions must be refined over time to operationalize DERs for system benefit and to support innovative programs, tariffs, and rates to maximize DER deployment. Utility programs and rate design can accelerate the development of DERs and encourage customer behavior to align with wholesale prices. PWP should start by setting up rates tailored to customers with storage in order to minimize the need for in-basin combustion and provide additional resiliency while advancing the City's enviromnental goals.
California Cities and Utilities are Rejecting Fossil Fuels for Clean Energy Cities across California are rejecting fossil fuels for energy generation. In April 2019, Southern California Edison chose to install an array of battery storage units instead of following through with the gas plant repowering proposal that was planned in La Puente.xxii And in June of the same year, citing cheap wind and solar, PG&E said it would retire a 750-megawatt natural-gas- fired plant in the Inland Empire 20 years before its expected lifetime expiration. xxiii Just in December, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to unanimously pass its Scoping Plan, which rejected plans for any new gas generation to be built in California to meet our state climate targets as well as growing energy and electrification needs.
A growing number of cities, corporations and community energy providers are committing to 100% clean energy to meet their energy needs, including Sacramento, Peninsula Clean Energy, Google, and Microsoft. As Los Angeles and Glendale have both committed to 100% clean energy, it is critical that Pasadena help lead in the effort to mitigate climate change and achieve clean air in the Southern California region. With significant technological advancements in clean energy, the decreasing cost of renewable energy and skyrocketing wholesale price of natural gas, as well as new financial incentives made possible for municipal utilities through the IRA, this moment is more opportune than ever for the City of Pasadena to commit to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030.
Sincerely,
Teresa Cheng
Senior Campaigns Representative
Sierra Club
ii
iil
v
2020 Power Content Label, City of Pasadena, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/water-and-power/wp- contenVuploads/sites/54/2021/08/2020-Power-Content-Label-for-Website.pdf American Lung Association, Particle Pollution, https://www.lung.org/clean air/outdoors/what-makes-air- unhealthy/particle-pollution.
U.S. EPA, Green Book: Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants (data current as of Dec. 31, 2020), available at https://www3 .epa.gov/airqualitv/greenbook/ancl.html. iv Pub. Util. Code Section 454.53 (SB 100 De Lean).
U.S. Whitehouse, President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target (April 22, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov^riefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030- greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-oavina-union-iobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership- on-clean-energy-technologies/.
v Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, Electricity System of the Future (July 30, 2021), https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/07/Electricity-System-of-the-Future-7.30.21.pdf v" CEC August 30 Analysis on Mid-Tenn Reliability Presentation, Slide 33 (Aug. 30, 2021), available at https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21-ESR-01. vi" R. Nikolewski, Why Natural Gas Prices - and Bills - are soaring in Southern California, (Jan. 2023), https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-01-09/why-natural-gas-prices-and-bills-are-soaring-in-southem- California
ix CPUC, 2020 RA Report, pp. 27 (April 2022), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy- division/documents/resource-adequacv-homepage/2020 ra report-revised.pdf (showing increases in average price between 2020, 2021, and 2022).
x See, e.g., CEC MTR Analysis, p. A-10, https://www.energY.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/CEC-200-2021- O09.pdf.
x Another study showed the connection between increased forced outage rates and extreme heat. See, e.g., Sinott Murphy et al., Resource adequacy implications of temperature-dependent electric generator availability (Mar. 15, 2020), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261919321117. x" C. Bermel, Politico, Old Clunkers: California power plants break down during heat wave (July 6,2021), https://www.politico.com/states/califomia/story/2021/06/30/old-cluiikers-califomia-power-plants-break-down- during-heat-wave-1387507
x K. Handayani, How climate-related weather conditions dismpt power plants and affect people (Jan. 2020) https://phvs.ore/news/2020-01 -climate-related-weather-conditions-dismpt-uower.html. xiv N. Groom, Reuters, Los Angeles natural gas plant has been leaking methane for years (Aug. 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-methane-califomia/los-angeles-natural-gas-plant-has-been-leaking-methane-for- years-idUKL!N2FS29W
Environmental Defense Fund, Los Angeles Area: Snapshot of natural gas leaks under city streets, (Oct. 2019), https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps/city-snapshots/los-angeles-area xv NPR, A satellite finds massive methane leaks from gas pipelines (Feb. 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/02/03/1077392791/a-satellite-finds-massive-methane-leaks-from-gas-pipelines '"' Diane A. Garcia-Gonzales, et al.. Associations among particulate matter, hazardous air pollutants and methane emissions from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility during the 2015 blowout, (Nov. 2019), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018327314?via%3Dihub. x'"i Legislative text for the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is available at https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/inflation_reduction_act_of_2022.pdf. The Congressional Research Service's analysis of the law is available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47.
xix J. Runyon, SMUD signs contract for 200MW/2000MWh of energy storage, (Sep. 2022), https://www.power- grid.com/energy-storage/smud-signs-contract-for-200mw-2000mwh-of-energy-storage/ xx Vibrant Clean Energy Executive Summary Why Local Solar For All Costs Less: A New Roadmap for the Lowest Cost Grid, https://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WhyDERs_ES_Final.pdf. xxl Jacobson et al https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.11.067. xx" J. Spector, Southern California Edison Picks 195MW Battery Portfolio in Place ofPuente Gas Plant (Apr. 2019), https://www.greentechi'nedia.com/articles/read/sce-picks-major-battery-portfolio-in-place-of-puente-gas- plant#gs.rlxllw
A. Scott, General Electric to scrap California power plant 20 years early (Jun. 2019), https://www.reuters.coiTi/articIe/us-ge-power/general-electric-to-scrap-califomia-power-plant-20-years-early- iduskcnltm2mv
Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: support for 100% carbon FREE energy for Pasadena From: Liz Schiller < >
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 1:05 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: support for 100% carbon FREE energy for Pasadena To the members of the Municipal Services Committee,
I am writing to urge you to amend the resolution that is item 2 on your agenda today, not to pass it as written.
As written, the resolution commits the city to carbon "neutrality." Carbon neutrality is not useful and will not effectively address the climate catastrophe we are in. Multiple reports have shown that most carbon offset credits are a scam:
httDS://www.americanDroaress.ora/article/the-cftc-should-raise-standards-and-mitiaate- fraud-in-the-carbon-offsets-market/
httDS://az.com/2009746/not-all-carbon-offsets-are-a-scam-but-manv-still-are Carbon capture technology that can function at scale AND which would not lead to serious risks to the life and health of humans and other living things does not exist. httDS://www.huffDost.com/entrv/aassina-satartia-mississiDDi-co2- pipeline n 60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f
Please pass a resolution declaring a climate emergency and committing to 100% carbon FREE energy for our city.
Sincerely,
Liz Schiller
Resident, District 5
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: 4'Public Comment - Please Support 100% CARBON FREE Power by 2030 -—Original Message-—
From: Therese Brummel < >
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:02 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]> Cc: Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: -^Public Comment - Please Support 100% CARBON FREE Power by 2030 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>.
Dear Municipal Service Committee Members,
As a local constituent deeply concerned by Pasadena's continued dependence on polluting fossil fuels, I urge you to set the City on a path towards clean, affordable, CARBON-FREE power by 2030.
Language matters. "Carbon Neutrality" is NOT the same as "Carbon Free" Energy. Carbon neutrality permits the burning of fossil fuels and the purchase of carbon credits to "offset" greenhouse gas emissions. Offsets are too often loosely monitored and fail to address the pollution and other harms associated with the continued burning of fossil fuels, especially to low-income communities.
Over the past few years Pasadena's neighbors - including the communities of South Pasadena, Sierra Madre, and unincorporated Los Angeles County - have implemented 100% clean energy standards. In doing so they realized largely Carbon-Free power in 2022 or before. The MSC's proposal would set a lower standard for Pasadena to reach in seven years. This is not climate leadership.
A "carbon neutrality" goal would allow Pasadena to remain on its current course, the bare minimum required by state law - 60% clean power by 2030 - and offsetting the rest. This is not climate leadership.
Local climate leaders in California have already adopted 100% standards and are working towards procuring even more clean, renewable energy. 24 cities in San Mateo County just committed to work towards 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2025
(https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canarymedia.com%2Farticles%2Fclean- energy%2F24-7-carbon-free-energy-is-about-to-become-a-reality-in- california&data=05%7C01%7Cgstevenson%40cityofpasadena.net%7Cccaccl539aa84c588ca408dafe45d802%7C82d9fcO 02c664402a28fc6bcdc32e491%7Cl%7CO%7C638101873181608736%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA wMDAiLCJQIjoiV21uMzliLCJBTil61klhaWwiLCJXVC16MnO%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ukerd9LZaS3JAuEF26UQFfgD b9W%2Fh5JrVBEPTrJZadO%3D&reserved=0). These communities have already realized that doing the right thing is not only feasible, it is cost effective, reliable, and stable. Renewable energy is not subject to the vagaries of the fossil gas market. Over the last few months alone fossil gas prices more than doubled in the City.
Pasadena residents deserve more than lip service. The MSC's draft resolution accurately highlights that we are faced by a climate emergency. Only Carbon Free Energy will guarantee Pasadena does its part to address the emergency at hand.
Please support a 100% Carbon Free Energy goal as outlined in the Pasadena 100 resolution. 1 Thank you for your time and consideration, Therese Brummel RN, D2 resident, Grandmother 2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: 4" Public Comment - Please Support 100% CARBON FREE Power by 2030 From: Blair Miller <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:01 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]> Cc: Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: -^Public Comment - Please Support 100% CARBON FREE Power by 2030 Dear Municipal Service Committee Members,
As a local constituent deeply concerned by climate change, I urge you to set the City of Pasadena on a path towards clean, affordable, CARBON-FREE power by 2030.
I share your concerns about the potential cost to ratepayers. However, in most cases, renewable energy is now less expensive than fossil fuels. I also understand that there are other practical considerations such as emergency supplies and storage. However, as it says in the staff report, quoting the Scoping Plan:
"...limiting irreversible damage caused by climate change requires increased ambition..." Local climate leaders in California have already adopted 100% standards and are working towards procuring even more clean, renewable energy. 24 cities in San Mateo County just committed to work towards 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2025 (https://www.canarvmedia.com/articles/clean-energv/24-7-carbon-free-energv-is-about-to-become-a-realitv-in- California). These communities have already realized that doing the right thing is not only feasible, it is cost effective, reliable, and stable. Renewable energy is not subject to the vagaries of the fossil gas market. Over the last few months alone fossil gas prices more than doubled in the City.
Therefore, I urge you to support CARBON-FREE power by 2030.
Language matters. "Carbon Neutrality" is NOT the same as "Carbon Free" Energy. Carbon neutrality permits the burning of fossil fuels and the purchase of carbon credits to "offset" greenhouse gas emissions. Offsets are too often loosely monitored and fail to address the pollution and other harms associated with the continued burning of fossil fuels, especially to low-income communities.
Over the past few years Pasadena's neighbors-including the communities of South Pasadena, Sierra Madre, and unincorporated Los Angeles County - have implemented 100% clean energy standards. In doing so they realized largely Carbon-Free power in 2022 or before. The MSC's proposal would set a lower standard for Pasadena to reach in seven years. This is not climate leadership.
A "carbon neutrality" goal would allow Pasadena to remain on its current course, the bare minimum required by state law - 60% clean power by 2030 - and offsetting the rest. This is not climate leadership.
Pasadena residents deserve more than lip service. The MSC's draft resolution accurately highlights that we are faced by a climate emergency. Only Carbon Free Energy will guarantee Pasadena does its part to address the emergency at hand.
Please support a 100% Carbon Free Energy goal as outlined in the Pasadena 100 resolution.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
1 Blair Miller
District 4 resident
2 Dear Municipal Services Committee,
As a community member who is involved in many organizations, I would like to inform you of my support for the Pasadena 100's resolution that calls for carbon free electric power sourcing in Pasadena by 2023. It is extremely important for us to make this happen so that we take care of the precious resources that we have on this planet. I strongly recommend that we take the steps necessary to get ahead of our climate crisis and make Pasadena a beacon of responsible power sources in the state.
While I can't make it to today's meeting, I look forward to hearing your final recommendation.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Lacey
Pasadena Humane, Major Gifts Officer
City of Pasadena Commission on the Status of Women, Chair, District 7 Junior League of Pasadena, Past President '18-'19
Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, Vice President Legislative and Government Affairs Association of Fundraising Professionals, Vice President of Philanthropy & Volunteers Pasadenans Organizing for Progress, Board Member at Large Pasadena Showcase House for the. Arts, Graphics Chair
r~o
r~J
c-0
3S
no
4—
-0
3;
p^
f~
00 i •
,
I
Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: 1/24/23 MSC Meeting Public Comment
From: Denise Jones <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:31 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: 1/24/23 MSC Meeting Public Comment
Denise Houlemard Jones, District 1 Resident
Have lived in Pasadena since age 3 years and have lived in 5 of the 7 council districts.
My comments are related to agenda Item #2. While I greatly appreciate the declaration of the climate emergency the focus on methods and means to combat it, I am disappointed that the Resolution introduced by PASADENA 100 and adopted by PUSD and PCC Boards of Trustees, calling for 100% carbon-free energy by 2030 is not included on the MSC agenda..
The resolution to which I refer is straight forward, concise and provides timely direction/policy for the IRP work. Please consider and support this resolution.
Thank you.
1