From: Shayne Smith
To: cityclerk; Lyon, Jason
Cc: Cynthia Cannady
Subject: Personal insights for the April 8 MSC meeting: For Consideration by the MSC Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 6:48:11 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[ ] 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.
------------------------
I’m Shayne Smith, a Pasadena District 7 resident.
As a strong supporter of Pasadena 100 goals, I have been carefully reviewing E3’s ongoing work, and offer the following personal thoughts and observations.
I do not speak for Pasadena
100.
These views are my own:
1. I applaud E3’s focus on providing options to maximize the achievement of Metric 3.
Resolution 9977 is about achieving 100% with this metric.
Despite the confusion as to
whether we will achieve 81%, 83%, or 88% in 2031 with PWP’s current resource planning (please clarify), I DO NOT SUPPORT STOPPING THERE.
E3 has provided
affordable pathways to do better.
2. I’m confused by the absence of any discussion regarding our Magnolia contract, which does not expire until 2036.
WE NEED TO FIND OTHER OPTIONS TO REPLACE
MAGNOLIA.
How is it that E3’s analysis has only dealt with options regarding Glenarm?
Am I missing something?
3. E3 has shown that completely replacing Glenarm will be prohibitively expensive, but that it’s usage can be curtailed to extremely low levels (including grid emergencies).
This could change if PWP is able to improve upon Goodrich bottleneck issues and/or secure additional clean firm contracts (i.e. more geothermal). 4 . E3’s work shows the value and importance of internal solar and battery storage (i.e., within PWP’s service area).
By combining this with additional external solar and
storage, E3 has shown that we can significantly improve our Metric 3 performance for as little as 4 cents / kWh.
I suspect this cost can be optimized further, through time-of- use incentives, investments by residential customers in their own rooftops, and other renewable resource opportunities that may arise.
5. Encouraging Pasadena residents to invest their own money in residential solar systems is a much more valuable proposition to PWP than to investor-owned-utilities (who don’t have the Goodrich problem, and who want the additional revenues).
This needs to
become an unambiguous PWP priority.
E3’s work provides sufficient justification for
City Council to mandate PWP to develop, at minimum, an additional 100 MW of rooftop solar and 100 MW of additional battery storage by 2031.
Some of this
additional rooftop solar resource could be funded by PWP, but why wouldn’t PWP want to rely upon residents who are willing to build these systems with their own money?
6. PWP NEEDS TO CONTINUE ITS CURRENT ROOFTOP INCENTIVE PROGRAM UNTIL AT LEAST 2030 to encourage Pasadena residents to work together to help achieve Resolution 9977.
E3’s analysis already assumes that current rooftop adoption levels will be maintained, more than doubling our current levels to over 60MW of installed rooftop capacity by 2030.
Make no mistake, if PWP adopts the same net
metering policies that have been advocated by investor-owned-utilities, natural adoption rates will crater. PWP will have to contend with higher levels of peak demand - beyond their current forecast.
And we can forget about relying on residents to assist in developing enhanced levels of internal solar resource.
PWP will have to fund all of this
by themselves, and pay extra to access and to rent the rooftops/parking lots of residents and businesses.
So dumb.
I would like to personally thank the MSC for their engagement in this important work.
Good
luck in your deliberations.
Regards,
S.
Shayne Smith