Mcl\4illan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
William M. Paparian
Sunday, June 21, 2026 1:24 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; PWPcommunications; Reyes, David; cityclerk Bill Paparian
6/22/26 Agenda Item AR 5 - Glenarm Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project |[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content is safe. Report Iphish using the Phish Alert Button (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal. [o: Honorable Mayor Victor Gordo and Members of the Pasadena City Council| |Re: Agenda Item AR 5 - GIenarm Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project (June 22, Dear Mayor Gordo and Council Members,
>026)|
^\s a longtime Pasadena resident and former Mayor committed to both our city's clean energy] Igoals and public safety, I respectfully request that the City Council direct staff to prepare] |additional environmental and fiscal analysis before awarding the construction contract orl proceeding further with the Glenarm BESS project.
^/Vhile I support Pasadena's 100% carbon-free electricity target by 2030, the current Mitigatedl Negative Declaration (MND) leaves important gaps. Substantial evidence supports a "faii\ argument" under CEQA that the project may result in significant environmental effects, Warranting a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or supplemental review.Key Areas] [Needing Further Studyl. Thermal Runaway, Fire, and Toxic Emissions Risks] |Even with LFP chemistry and NFPA 855 compliance, thermal runaway events remain possible. 'he 2025 Moss Landing incident demonstrated rapid escalation and toxic plumes. Deferrin r |critical details to a post-approval Emergency Response Plan (MM HAZ-1) is inadequate fo Iproper CEQA analysis.
|2. Proximity to Sensitive Receptors]
HThe facility is only ~455 feet from Blair High School and Middle School and adjacent to the SR^ 110 freeway. Detailed toxic plume modeling, school district coordination protocols, and [emergency response capacity for a chemical fire have not been fully evaluated. ]3. Lifecycle and End-of-Life Impacts)
fThe review under-analyzes battery replacement, decommissioning, and recycling. Utility-scaleJ LFP systems can generate significant hazardous waste burdens, with recycling often resulting in| net costs rather than credits. Fiscal Concerns for RatepayersThe project carriesl substantial long-term financial obligations that desen/e full transparency:
A ~$55.3 million contract for design, construction, ownership, and operation. •
•
Ongoing capacity payments over 15 years.
A City purchase option of approximately $47.1 million.
^\ $9.66 million state grant that offsets only a portion of costs, Industry analyses indicate decommissioning and recycling costsfor similar systems can equal|
5.9% of capital costs or $8,000-$15,000 per MWh. For this 100 MWh project, that could mean] millions in future liabilities. These costs are not fully quantified or reserved for in current documents. Ratepayers could face higher bills if these obligations are not planned fotj |now. Requested Actions! urge the Council to:6/22/2026
Items
1. 2.
3. 4.
Direct preparation of a full EIR (or focused supplemental analysis) addressing fire risk] modeling, emergency planning with Pasadena Unified School District, lifecycle impacts, and cumulative effects.
Commission an independent third-party lifecycle cost and safety review.
Delay final contract award until the above analyses are completed and publicly presented.
Ensure full transparency of all long-term ratepayer costs.
Pasadena's reputation for responsible governance is one of our greatest assets. Taking the time| for thorough review now will protect public safety, safeguard ratepayers, and build strongerl community support for our energy transition.
fThank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
William Paparian
|Former Mayor of Pasadena]