1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject: FW: PWP
From: lorraine montgomery < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 4:01 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Subject: PWP
[ ❚❛❜] 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.... ------------------------ I support Pasadena 100’s position with regard to doing all we an to minimize climate change.
The Social Cost of Carbon is a real value that offsets future damages of climate change (e.g. floods, droughts, crop- failures) by including those damages on today's energy supply modeling. Including the SCC ultimately leads the model to prefer carbon free sources of energy because it takes the climate emergency into account.
By not including the SCC in the modeling, such as the Base Case (Carbon Free by 2045) scenario above, PWP will be introducing a bias in our IRP that will favor business-as-usual fossil fuel electricity over the future of humanity at the cost of $170 per MWh of natural gas. The SCC must be included in every single model to avoid this bias.
Pasadena 100 has not yet been given access to the cost data.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Montgomery
Pasadena