Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: correspondence submitted to MSC, May 9 2023 From: Robert Haw < >
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>
Cc: Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]>
Subject: correspondence submitted to MSC, May 9 2023
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....
Re agenda item #1, Integrated Resource Plan update
Dear MSC Councillors.
If PWP is to produce a believable (rather than perfunctory) Power IRP then it has to incorporate models that are true to the chapter & verse of our circumstances.
Twice in three months I've asked PWP about their plans for modelling weather patterns over the next 25-years. The single, cursory answer I heard at April's Town Hall was not clear, but I inferred that a representative current weaker model will be used for all scenarios, not a future weather model. Surely after the City, and yourselves, passed a Climate Emergency Resolution, you'd like to see PWP undertake steps acknowledging the reality we face when it assesses future, city-wide loads.
One IRP stress-test that is under consideration simulates a severe, week-long heat wave. That is a good stand-alone test but it does not compensate for a secular, month-upon- month rise in ambient temperatures over 25-years.
I want PWP to use a conservative future weather file for all IRP scenarios — meaning a model following the UN'S RCP8.5 predictions at the 95% level — for all 25-years of the plan.
Sincerely,
Robert Haw
1