McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cityclerk
Saturday, February 7, 2026 10:54 AM
Iraheta, Alba; Jomsky, Mark; Robles, Sandra; Sabha, Tamer; McMillan, Acquanette (Netta); Soo, Christine
FW: Electric Rate updates
From: Lars Dennert
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2026 10:53:03 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; cityclerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Electric Rate updates
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
[ I ] 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 DolT portal.
Dear City Council,
As a Pasadena home owner, General Contractor, Broker and representative of hundreds of tenants within the City who I rent to, I would like to submit what I believe is a public perspective.
In reviewing the proposed updates to the rate structure, please note the following. The goal of achieving zero carbon by implementing punitive rates on EV owners will simply drive people back to combustion vehicles. The revised structure scaling Distribution Charges over 750KW/mo usage to total per KW rates approaching $.60 will instantly signal that home charging is discouraged in a single family residence.
Moreover, multifamily properties where Level 2 EV chargers are shared among multiple vehicles will make homechargingfortenants a non-starter as the cost will exceed DC fast charging. The push from the City to implement electric only space and water heating, cooking and laundry only serves to drive residents further into these higher tiers. Saying you want more electric usage while making more electric usage punitive, doesn't serve a goal.
Additionally, the TOU off peak rates are statistically the same as flat rate and are a rounding error to each other. Automatically switching everyone to TOU rates with punitive on peak rates that erase even the smallest of off peak savings over flat rate is a deception and does not serve the community. If everyone is being issued smart meters, the rate plan should not be automatically amended to TOU. Additionally, those meters should be solar ready by default so that properties can at least have a chance of reasonable electric rates since the City can no longer offer them. Solar NEM where electricity must be bought at retail up to $.60 rates but returned to the City from Solar generation at $.02 would mean PWP is effectively not a provider. A home must effectively go off grid as the City does not value green power generation. Unless the trade is a KW for KW credit trade scheme where only excess generation over use is bought/sold, there is no incentive to install solar that contributes to the City's vision. 1 Tenants will hopelessly be Left behind in a zero carbon future since solar isn't an option for them either on their own accounts or on shared house meters. Increases of 50%-100% in electricity are the simple math you have provided. Policies are driven by the money component. The signal being sent is that Green Energy from PWP is not cost efficient; look elsewhere.
The 2.75% annual rent adjustment that the City deems as being more than reasonable for housing providers to cover an increase in costs is eclipsed by a sometimes 100% electric rate increase that the City somehow is considering as also reasonable. I propose you tie all City increases in rates/salaries/expenses to the same 2.25% annual rent increase that you consider so adequate.
Thank you,
LarsDennert,
President for Victory Homes, Inc.
Pasadena, CA 91117
2 Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Monday, February 9, 2026 12:26 PM
Jones, Justin; Rick Cole; Hampton, Tyron; Lyon, Jason
cityclerk; Gao, Beilei
MSC 02.10.2026 Item 1 - Electric Rate Increase
[ I ] 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 DolT portal.
Dear Members of the Municipal Services Committee,
Is Pasadena Power exempt from Prop 218 notice requirements? "Not less than 45 days after notices are mailed, the legislative body must hold a public hearing on the new or increased fee." [Cal.
Const. art. XIII D, Section 6(a)(2)]. All utility rate increases from 2024, Sewer, Solid Waste and Water, issued 45-day notices to ratepayers as required by Prop 21 8. Mailing of Public Hearing Notice was followed by customer outreach and education with two to three community meetings before the public hearing. A similar timeline was proposed in Table 6 of the Agenda Report for the December 9, 2025 MSC meeting:
December 2025 | Mail Public Hearing Notice
Dec-25-Feb-26Customer Outreach and Education
February 9, 2026 | Electric Rates Public Hearing
February 23, 2026 | First Reading, Updated Electric Rate Ordinance March 2, 2026Second Reading, Updated Electric Rate Ordinance The Agenda Report for the February 10th meeting of the Municipal Services Committee recommends "setting a date of March 2, 2026 to conduct a public hearing for the recommended electric rate adjustments, with changes to take effect on March 10, 2026..." The timeline proposes Narch 9, 2026 First and Second Reading of Updated Electric Rate Ordinance, only one week after setting a hearing date and with no time between the first and second readings. The report also states that after a public hearing is set, "the City Clerk's Office will notice in accordance with standard procedures".
Standard procedures require that not less than 45 days after the notices are mailed, City Council must hold a public hearing at which members may vote to adopt the fee. What justifies this highly compressed schedule before issuance of a Prop 218 Notice to Ratepayers? Compare this to PWP's 2024 process for final water rate adoption: Public Outreach, Report, Prop 218 Notice followed by Public Hearing. Pasadena Water's notification of Public Hearing on June 3, 2024 was provided in compliance with Prop 218 and included complete tables of both current and proposed water rates.
What is the credibility for rates proposed by NewGen on behalf of Pasadena Power? Table 1 of the Agenda Report proposes a three-phase increase (Mar-26, Oct-26, Mar-27) of 7% for all phases and for all customer classes with a compound increase of 22.5% in a 12-month period. No pricing and 1 impact schedules are provided. There is no explanation for the dramatic decrease from previous proposals where Residential rates were the highest of all customer classes in the four alternatives proposed (January 12, 2026):
Residential Rate Adjustments (Jan.12, 2026) | Phase 1 | Phase 2 | Phase 3 Alt 1. Immediate Full Cost Recovery (*)10.5% I 10.5% I 10.5% Alt 2. Gradual Full Cost Recovery (*)10.5% | 10.5% | 10.5% Alt 3. Gradual Full Cost Recovery w/options...(*) I 10.5% | 10.5% | 10.5% Alt 4. Gradual Full Cost Recovery Extended (*)8.7%8.7%8.7% February 10, 2026 MSC Agenda Report (*)7.0% I 7.0%7.0%
Note: (*) Total System Increase for Alternatives 1 -4 and February 10 MSC Agenda Report is 7% To date, NewGen has not provided full budget and cash flow tables with clearly stated assumptions to justify their rate increase alternatives. At the current meeting, February 10, 2026, MSC is being asked to recommend a new rate proposal to City Council without seeing rate tables and other key assumptions to support the proposal. How did residential rate increases go from three phases (Mar-26, Oct-26, Mar-27) ati 0.5% each for a compound one-year increase of 35% to a compound increase of
22.5% for the same period? Note that the Total System Increase for all scenarios is 7%. What adjustments were made to each customer class to produce this new outcome? What is the balance between fixed and variable rates for all customer classes? PLEASE REQUIRE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH PROP 218 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BEFORE SETTING A HEARING DATE.
Sincerely,
Genette Foster, CD2
2