Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC Oct 10 Meeting - Agenda Item 2: Support Compromise, Scenario 5 From: Robert Haw <>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 1:19 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]> Cc: Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: MSC Oct 10 Meeting - Agenda Item 2: Support Compromise, Scenario 5 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....
Please enter the following letter into the public record for the Municipal Services Committee meeting scheduled for October 10, Agenda Item #2. Thank you.
-Robert Haw
As the founder of Pasadena 100 (in 2016), here's my view on why Scenario 5 should be selected as PWP's preferred IRP portfolio.
PWP's debt obligation to Magnolia Power Plant will be retired in 2036. Presuming that PWP won't terminate Magnolia early (nor Glenarm - needed for resource adequacy). Scenarios 1-3* can be dismissed as candidates for the preferred portfolio because both Magnolia and Glenarm are fossil-fuel sources of power. Thus only Scenarios 4 and 5 * remain.
Either PWP demonstrates ambition in addressing the climate emergency (as outlined in City Resolution 9977) or it doesn't — in which case it'll slouch along and comply with the state-mandated goal. Given the climate circumstances we're all aware of, Scenario 4 is not ambitious. Scenario 5 is ambitious and practical, while remaining affordable.
My comments below refer to PWP's memo to the Mayor and City Council dated November 6, 2023 (presented to the Municipal Services Committee on October 10, 2023) entitled "ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF THE 2023 POWER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN FOR THE WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT".
Table I forecasts that GHG emissions will equal 100,924 tons of C02 by 203 1 for the Reference Case (Scenario 4). Compare this with Scenario 5's forecast emissions: 17,041 tons — a more ambitious number. A savings of 83,883 tons, roughly 17% of Scenario 4's total.
Table IV compares high-end cost estimates of ratepayers' utility bills. In this example. Scenario 4's monthly Energy Charge Portion of Customer Bill rises from $70/month to $102/month over 7-years (recall, this is the have-to-achieve, baseline case). Scenario 5's energy charge part of the monthly bill is predicted to rise from $70 to $143/month. That's an additional increase of $143-$ 102 = $41/month more by the end of 2030. In other words, a year-on-year increase of only $6/month with respect to Scenario 4's rate. That's not a lot of money in return for accomplishing something downright good in the world. (2024-203 1 is 7-years;'$41/7 = $6/mo.) Under Scenario 5, over the next 7-years the ratepayer pays 4 cents more per ton ofC02 released for each ton ofC02 saved in 2031 (C02 not released) in order to achieve Scenario 5's ambition (relative to the Reference Case). 1-ton of C02 is approximately equal to the emissions from a gas-powered mid-sized car traveling 2500 miles. The gasoline alone for that 1-ton trip would cost about $500.
($41/mo * 12 mo/yr * 7 yr / 83883 tons = 4 cents per ton ofC02.) (https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-ton-carbon-dioxide.) 1 (2500 miles/22 mpg * $5 per gal = $568 for the trip.) Isn't 4 cents per ton ofC02-saved a cost that Pasadena can well afford in order to preserve its reputation as a climate leader? Muse on that while considering Resolution 9977. I urge the MSC members to recommend Scenario 5 as the preferred portfolio for PWP's 2023 Power IRP.
*PWP's draft Power IRP outlines 5 scenarios: Scenarios 1-3 represent different portfolios for achieving 100% carbon-free energy by 2031; Scenario 4 is the Reference Case, achieving a state-mandated, 60% clean-energy portfolio by 2031; Scenario 5 modifies Scenario 4 by adding the EPA's Social Cost of Carbon to all its retail sales.
2 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC 10/10 Public Comment - Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2030
From: Blair Miller < >
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 3:59 PM
To: Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>
Cc: Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]>; Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]> Subject: MSC 10/10 Public Comment - Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2030 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you Arnowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Councilmembers,
I will be at MSC tomorrow but may have to leave early, so I am writing to add my voice to the chorus calling for a commitment to 100% carbon free electrical power.
I understand that there are potential cost issues that must be considered, especially so lower income Pasadenans do not carry the brunt of addressing the climate change crisis.
However, I am concerned about PWP's communication. I understand they have not been clear about the difference between costs attributable to the transition to cleaner energy and costs attributable to the volatility of the cost of gas. As you know, gas is not addressed in this plan. I am also concerned that PWP has assumed that the entire cost of rooftop solar will be born by the ratepayers. As you know, this is not true. Property owners pay for most or all of the costs of rooftop solar.
I am also concerned about CM Williams' request to Pasadena 100 to drop their focus on the IRP and focus on the Climate Action Plan instead. This is an aspirational document that sits on a shelf and does not meaningfully affect Pasadena's policies.
I know there will need to be robust incentive procirams for rooftop solar, and also programs to support low income residents. Tills will not be a free transition! But I hope that as Councilmembers you insist in accurate information from PWP so that you can make an informed decision.
Thank you,
Blair Miller
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC 10/10 Public Comment-Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2030
From: Joel Haber< >
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]>; Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]> Cc: Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]> Subject: MSC 10/10 Public Comment - Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2030 City Council Members,
My name is Joel Haber, I am a resident of district 2, and a scientist well acquainted with the processes leading to the crisis of climate change and the accelerating pace of extreme weather disasters and the rapidly rising cost of recovery and mitigation. It is clear that rapidly transitioning to carbon-free electricity is the lowest cost option for Pasadena Residents, both directly in electricity rates and indirectly from reducing the costs of fossil- fuel induced climate change. This past year's volatile and rapid increase in electricity rates stemming from natural gas price increases serve as a reminder that fossil fuel prices are not stable, but also that our municipally owned utility is increasingly reliant upon a for-profit, monopoly gas company—Sempra, which along with Enron, not so long ago manipulated the gas market to inflate their profits and caused California's traumatic rolling blackouts.
"The Energy Commission also has specific and limited regulatory authority over the state's 44 publicly owned utilities", because it is understood that the public has direct influence over the policies and operations of these municipally owned utilities via their elected local representatives. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years I have become painfully aware of the methods used by PWP to frustrate public input urging reform of the utility's over-reliance on fossil fuel generated electricity. These methods include, but are not limited to, subdividing the public planning process to prevent comprehensive review of their operations or plans, "cooking the books" in the IRP process by using remarkably optimistic cost projections for fossil fuels while utilizing inflated, already out-of-date costs for renewable sources and battery storage, and by "running out the clock" by publicly disclosing all information at the last allowable moment to minimize the opportunity for the public to review and fact-check their information, and by submitting all reports requiring approval of city coinmittees and of City Council at the last meeting possible before required submission to state regulatory authorities, again to prevent proper public review.
Nevertheless, PWP's previous two general managers, and other senior managers, always declared "but we work for the city, and we will do what City Council directs us to do." Now they have dropped even that pretense, by openly defying the City Council directive to develop as part of this IRP a plan to reach 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030, and not producing any plan.
I urge you not to accept this defiance of your directive to PWP, which is in accordance with how California's electric utility regulatory system is designed to work. I urge you to reassert the public's right to provide input and guidance to their utility via their elected representatives on City Council and by mandating reforms to the publicconsultation process.
1 I urge you to support a plan for 100% carbon free electricity by 2030, to reassert YOUR authority over this rouge utility.
2