Municipal Services Committee
February 25, 2025

1 Comments/Questions re: E3 Presentation MSC Mtg: February 25, 2025 Pasadena 100 Slide 3 Metrics: These metrics can be misleading unless everyone understands how relevant they are to achieving the Resolution 9977 goal. Metric 1: This metric is the total amount of forecasted MWh generated by carbon-free resources divided by the total forecasted MWh sold to PWP customers, regardless of whether these resources are actually used to meet the electrical demand throughout the year. It is typical for utilities to procure resources in excess of their forecasted demand, and in the case of renewable resources such as wind and solar which vary considerably in relation to demand, it is necessary to procure even higher levels of surplus energy (some of which can be stored in battery systems and possibly resold if not needed). The bottom line here is that exceeding 100% for Metric 1 does not help people understand how close we are to generating 100% of Pasadena’s electricity with carbon-free resources. We should probably stop using it. Question: We assume the annual load refers only to retail sales to PWP customers and is exclusive of MWh exported/sold to other utilities. Is this correct? How many additional MWh does this represent? Metric 2: This metric is the total amount of forecasted MWh generated by carbon-free resources divided by the total amount of forecasted MWh generated by both carbon-free and carbon-emitting (Magnolia and Glenarm) resources. As additional renewable resources are procured by PWP, and carbon-emitting resources are maintained at their current level, this metric will obviously show improvement, regardless of the extent to which the additional renewable resources are utilized to meet demand. However, the intent of Resolution 9977 is for PWP to reduce the amount of carbon-emitting electricity sources beyond their current forecasted usage, and improvements in this metric will not necessarily reflect that. Question: We assume that the total forecasted generation includes retail sales to PWP customers, power exported to other utilities, and generation requested by CAISO for grid emergencies and/or reliability. Is this correct? Comment: It would be more useful to track the total amount of forecasted MWh generated by carbon-emitting sources divided by the total generation load, with the goal of reducing this as much as possible. 2 Metric 3: This metric is really the only one that is indicative of the progress we are making to achieve the intent of Resolution 9977. It is an estimation of the amount of carbon-free MWh that are utilized in meeting our total MWh annual load. In the scenarios E3 has studied, there will be hours during the year when PWP’s carbon-free resources generate more electricity than is being demanded by customers, and hours when only a fraction of the demand can be met by carbon-free resources (eg. at night, after battery power has been exhausted, or during periods of extremely high demand that exceeds our import capability). We must strive to make investments and/or modify demand behaviours in a manner that allows us to maximize the utilization of our carbon-free resources – this metric measures that progress. Questions: We note the exception regarding CAISO dispatch requests. By excluding CAISO requests from the forecasted annual load, does this also exclude all power exported to other utilities (ie. is this the same amount of MWh or a different amount)? Given that Metric 3 is forecasted to be at 88% with projects currently under development, what additional improvement can be achieved by the “Mitigate Glenarm” scenario reflected on Slide 14? [THIS IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION] Slide 7 Internal Generation: Question: Given the importance of internal generation to the reliability of our system, why can’t PWP set a reasonable goal for solar development (>100MW additional) within Pasadena and create a stable investment environment by publicizing that the current NEM policy will be maintained? Slide 12 Import Reliability: Question: How many times during the year is PWP’s intertie capability derated to 140MW, and for how many total hours? Slide 15 Renewable Natural Gas: Question: How is this option “up to 100% carbon neutral”? Cost impacts? Res. 9977 calls for Carbon Free. Slide 17 Local Resource Development to Mitigate Glenarm/Magnolia: Question: Point 2 is where we need to focus E3’s work going forward, but this isn’t just about Glenarm. We can’t forget about Magnolia – it is not a local resource that is critical in the same way that Glenarm is. Can’t we replace/mitigate Magnolia with a carbon-free alternative (ie. more geothermal or renewables paired with BESS)? Does the Magnolia contract have a take-or-pay provision or may it be 3 cancelled? If it can be cancelled what are the terms? (We asked this last year and, to my knowledge, did not get an answer. More on Magnolia What is the role of Magnolia, not Glenarm, comprises the largest percentage of PWP’s carbon emitting resources. Because Magnolia power comes to us through Goodrich, we should be able to replace it with another external PPA/geothermal “clean firm”. It looks as though they don’t even run Magnolia 24/7 if the energy tracker amount includes all they get from this gas plant (ie around 80,000 MWh/yr). Note that I’m not sure it does and have posed questions to figure this out. Geothermal Are geothermal available in the near term? New projects? Another geothermal contract could really help with the “chip away” strategy. What would be the impact in normal times when we can import without worrying about the import bottleneck of having another 20 MW capacity of clean firm? Could we combine forces with Glendale/Burbank and/or through SCPPA? Hydrogen Fuel Cells + Batteries When will E3 model Jacobson’s suggestion of hydrogen fuel cells plus batteries? PWP Exports We also don’t know if the $10m revenue from other utilities is generated from Glenarm alone and how much of Glenarm’s overall behavior is dictated by CAISO compared with PWP being opportunistic during peaks.