From: Felix Breden
To: Gao, Beilei
Cc:
Subject: E3 presentation at MSC April 8 2025
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 12:25:18 PM
You 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.
------------------------
Hi
This is Felix Breden, member of PASADENA 100 and Environmental Advisory Commission First I would like to thank E3 for including “Glenarm as backup” in the scenarios they are modelling.
It is ovbious that the City Council will soon have to make some strategic decisions. The numbers that E3 produces are critical to this decision making. For example, at last MSC meeting, several of us, including I think Council member Rick Cole, were confused about why the scenario closing Glenarm would demand 700-800 MW of solar. It slowly became clear that this was based on the contingency that if Goodrich failed from 280 MW to 140MW, we would need pretty much unattainable amounts of Solar and storage to meet our demand.
This confusion is unnecessary - and i think it partly stems from reports that are always “slide decks” with explanations squeezed into margins.
I taught Ecology and Evolution >35 years at
the university level, and if I were given a presentation with this level of explanation I would be very tempted to mark this project F.
So some questions;
1. when will we be given a report that is accompanied by a narrative that explains the numbers, WHICH ARE SO CRITICAL TO THE ENTIRE PROCESS, in a understandable way?
2. For example, I do believe our Maximum load has been presented as 330 MW all along, and is now presented as 360MW, with some paranthetical explanation that this reflects redefined EV load or some such non-explanation. This number is really really important.
3. under the “glenarm as backup” on slide 22, the magic numbers of 363 MW solar and 173 battery storag are listed as needed.
But even with max load of 360, that is only 80 MW above the 280 available from Goodrich, why do we need 363 MW of internal solar plus good amoun† of storage to overcome this gap/
Maybe we do, but a narrative explaing this very
important number would be helpful. The number 363 just floats in from the sky…
4. on slide 20, utility grade solar is listed as $40/MWh. I went to the Bonanza contract to understand the difference between residential solar and utility grade solar.
Bonanza solar contract is listed on the PWP website as Expected Annual Production of 303,500 MWh
the Pasadena Now article reporting on Bonanza says $512 M for contract of 20 years… so
303,500 MWh per year expected
20 year contract, $512 M so $25.6 M per year
So $ per MWh for a year is 25.6M/303,500 MWh or 25,600,000/303,500 or
84.35$/MWh
E3 summary table lists Utility Scale Storage about 40$ per MWh, so that seems a significant difference…
Hope these issues can be addressed, thanks for working on this Felix Breden