From: Cynthia Cannady
To: Gao, Beilei
Cc: Lyon, Jason; Jones, Justin; Rick Cole; Hampton, Tyron; Reyes, David; Márquez, Miguel Subject: Agenda item #2 MSC April 8, 2025
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 3:07:32 PM
[ ] 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. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DoIT portal.
------------------------
Dear Members of the Municipal Services Committee:
At this time, many people who are concerned about the climate crisis are looking to our city for hope. And for good reason: The E3 update shows that our city's transition to carbon free electric power is realistically achievable. This is a testament to political will and technical expertise.
What E3 calls the “Accelerated Local Resources Plus Glenarm Backup” Portfolio is a pathway to remarkable success for our city. It assumes that the Glenarm Gas Plant will only be used in emergencies where Goodrich is derated or in cases where CAISO mandates. And that all other sources of our electric power—both imported and local—will be 100 % carbon free.
E3's analysis shows that major growth in local solar is critical for our successful transition from dirty fuels: We must increase local solar from our current 30 MW to 130 MW in 5 years. (If we do nothing proactive, E3 predicts "naturally occurring" growth by 2030 at 66 MW.) And we must complement that local solar resource with around 125 MW of storage.
Combined with our contracted external resources at 81% of our load, and PWP’s good plans to install Advanced Metering Infrastructure so we can have time of use rates by the end of 2028, we can do this. Long Duration Energy Storage and grid optimization technologies will only add to our success.
The need for increases in local solar is particularly important because of the combination of two very unfortunate realities:
1)
The Goodrich bottleneck that limits our ability to import electricity; 2) The deleterious supply chain problems caused by federal government policy.
Last week CAISO (and all the other ISOs) testified before Congress that they are in danger of being unable to meet demand. There is short supply of electricity, a coming “reliability shortfall” and it’s not because of renewables.
Glenarm--which has been missing its main combined cycle gas turbine since Nov. of 2023 when it broke down and had to be sent to Texas for repair without warranty--is a peaker plant.
It is not designed for ongoing supply. And it’s still not back here in Pasadena. The notion that Glenarm saved us during the crisis last summer is incorrect; we got by with expensive purchases from the spot market. We were missing the GT-5 turbine. Furthermore, today’s Financial Times reports that gas turbines and parts are in extremely short-supply with prices rising.
Given these realities, and the findings of our own consultants, it’s clear we need more local solar and storage for 1.) resources; 2.) demand reduction; and 3.) resilience.
PWP appears to be waiting for guidance on local solar policy. What are they waiting for?
I believe that they are waiting for you, our elected leaders. And that is understandable. Will you please confirm to staff that our city needs to commit to an education and outreach campaign to increasing local solar and storage? Planning and PWP need to work together to make it easy, affordable and fast to get permits. Please listen to solar installers to hear their perspective. We need to keep strong NEM 1 incentives so private investors can amortize their investment in no more than 10 years and begin to get a return on their investment.
I am concerned that what is holding us up is a set of false notions about cost. The E3 analysis of the cost of our transition needs to be more transparent. Even if the E3 cost analysis is sound, the incremental cost is manageable and probably could be shaved down through careful policy and budget prioritizing.
Also, we have asked many times in the Technical Advisory Panel about how E3 defines Total System Cost, specifically who pays for private investments in rooftop solar beyond what they call “naturally occurring” growth. E3 calculates cost assuming that solar panels on these private properties are fully funded by PWP. That likely inflates the cost shown on slide 21 quite a bit especially given the amount of new solar that we need.
Most important, cost is relative. The cost of doing nothing is referred to as the Social Cost of Carbon. E3 has declined to take that into account because it is a policy matter. But you as our elected official in a community ravaged by the terrible cost of carbon must not ignore it.
The financial cost of staying with fossil fuels is also real--when you see cost estimates for the cost of the transition to carbon free please keep in mind that the market and infrastructure costs of burning gas are rising and volatile. We won't have cheap and dirty IPP electricity anymore after 2027. What replaces that is not free, no matter the source.
We now have a pathway to success before us. It may be refined over coming months and exact amounts may change. But after two years of studying, it's time to start moving forward on that pathway to success.
Yours truly,
Cynthia Cannady
Resident District 6
Chairperson PASADENA 100