Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC 10/10 Public Comment-Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2030
From: Christine O'Connell < >
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 1:40 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 Christine Sierra O'Connell, I am a resident of Pasadena district 2, and I urge you to support a plan for 100% carbon free electricity by 2030.
My understanding is that during Agenda Item 2, you will be able to vote on one of the plans put forward in the IRP from Pasadena Water and Power. Please vote yes for one of the plans that leads to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030.
Combating climate change is in my top two issues as a voter (alongside racial and social justice issues). I feel it is imperative that Pasadena, as a SoCal community that will be highly impacted by a changing climate, take aggressive steps to alter our energy mix.
Thank you.
Best,
Christine O'Connell
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC 10/10 Public Comment-Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon-Free Electricity by 2030
From: Machiko Yasuda < >
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 2:01 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,
I urge you to support a plan for 100% carbon free electricity by 2030.
Do you want a city full of electric cars, that are actually powered by coal? For the future of Pasadena, commit to carbon-free electricity so that Pasadena doesn't have to contribute to polluting the Earth with dirty fossil fuels.
MachikoYasuda
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC 10/10 Public Comment-Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2030
From: Blair Miller <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3:00 PM
To: Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]>; Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]> Cc: Williams, Felicia <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]> Subject: MSC 10/10 Public Comment - Agenda Item 2 - Support for 100% Carbon Free Electricity by 2030 City Council Members,
I respectfully request that you direct Pasadena Water and Power staff to address the concerns of the Pasadena 100 volunteers who wilt speak at this afternoon's meeting.
Specifically, the 2028 waypoint for assessment is only two years before 2030. It does not take into account the amount of'backloaded" resources required in 2030.
Also, the IRP does not address the Environmental Advisory Commission's memorandum recommending a doubling of rooftop solar.
Finally, this plan needs to address the impact on financially disadvantaged customers, while at the same time not shying away from the Council's goal of moving to 100% carbon free electrical power.
Thank you,
Blair Miller
Resident, District 4
1 Stevenson, Garrett
Subject:FW: MSC 11/14 Public Comment - Agenda Item 2
From: Sam Berndt < >
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Stevenson, Garrett <[email protected]>; Sabha, Tamer <[email protected]> Cc: Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Williams, Felicia <[email protected]> Subject: MSC 11/14 Public Comment - Agenda Item 2
My name is Sam Berndt.
At the October 17th MSC meeting, PWP was directed to come back with a plan to get to 2030, with a waypoint set up along the way.
Instead, what we see before us, is a plan to get to 55% carbon free by 2028, and a plan that will make it logistically infeasible to get to 2030.
According to the Waypoint Framework which follows Scenario 2 over the next 5 years, PWP will seek to acquire 300MW of carbon free resources. Then, in 2028, PWP will "reassess" the feasibility of the 2030 plan.
At that time, they will see that to complete Scenario 2, they will need to acquire an additional 1,01 5 MW of carbon free resources in two years.
You do not need to be a power supply expert to know that backloading 3x the amount of resources to procure in Vs the amount of time is a plan that is not set up for success. If they wanted this to be successful, they would plan for 2030 and attempt to procure an equal amount of resources each year until then, not wait until the last minute to "suddenly realize" they didn't plan ahead.
What is ironic about this, is that PWP claims that this is the most ambitious plan, but in reality Scenario 2 has the second least amount of carbon free resources in 2028. [[[In fact, if PWP came back with the same plan they had last time, Scenario 4, in 2028 they would have 22% more carbon free resources than what they are proposing. Scenario 5, the scenario that takes into consideration the social cost of carbon has more than 2x the amount of carbon free resources by 2028]]]
Now, if you really want to see PWP's intentions, you would go to the very back of their submitted document and look at their Renewable Portfolio Standard Procurement Plan. In there, you will see that they only plan to meet the state mandates of 60% renewable by 2030, and 100% renewable by 2045.
PWP is playing us all for fools.
There is nowhere in the document that shows they are planning on getting to 100% carbon free by 2030.
The underlying flaw in all of this is that PWP set a plan for 2028, not for 2030. Setting a plan for 2030 would allow them to make all of the considerations necessary to actually achieve the goal.
I urge the MSC to send PWP back to the drawing board to redraft the Renewable Portfolio Standard Procurement Plan and create a plan in the IRP that will get us to 100% carbon free electricity by 2030.
Sam Berndt
1