^ Outlook
Comment on MSC agenda items 1 and 2 72826
From Cynthia Cannady
Date Tue 7/28/2026 8:14 AM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>; PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]>
Cc Jones, Justin <[email protected]>,· Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Cole, Rick <[email protected]> I 1 attachment (33 KB)
LT MSC O72826.docx;
[A] 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 (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB001 1474" on the DolT portal.
Please accept this letter comment for today's MSC agenda items 1 and 2.
July 28, 2026 Re: Agenda items 1 and 2
Dear Council members Jones, Hampton, Lyon and Cole:
We write to address several concerns with the Progress Report (PR) for the Optimized Strategic Plan (OSP).
1. First, lack of OS P metrics
The whole point of the OSP and its main deliverable, which was commissioned by this Council and which cost ratepayers at least $1.3 million in consulting fees, was the precise modeling of how many MWs would be needed for each resource category in order to achieve the city's carbon free goal.
These are the mission critical targets. If you don't achieve these MW targets, you don't achieve the goal. Unfortunately, the PR is silent or vague on these critical issues. It's like PWP is reporting on their own plan, not the OSP. The Table below contrasts the specific MW targets in the OSP with the PR.
Resource categoryOSP specifics vs. Progress Report
Power Purchase
Agreements Already Under
Contract at Time of OSP*
290 MW290 MW
**
Imported renewable
electricity generation
325 MW?
Imported storage100MW?
Local solar-Municipal20 MW11.8 MW***
Local solar-lnstitutional
Local solar-Commercial
Local solar-Residential
50 MW?
7 1.14MW
'****
Local storage75 MW25 MW
Demand Response15 MW?
Managed EV Charging | 20 MW?
* Resources required in OSP are in addition to resources already under contract (See Page 10 of OSP Final)
Resources are under contract but not yet operational
Only approximately 6.5MW is funded
**** As of June 2026
**
***
Further, many of the items in the "OSP Progress Summary Table-June 2026" on p. 27 are vague or say "ongoing" or'TBD". There are 23 "TBDs"! Some of the items on this 1 table are not action items (e.g. "Reassess cost impacts to continue procurement above 100% annual matching", referring to the political arguments for making the OSP less ambitious than "carbon free").
We respect the hard work of PWP staff and acknowledge that change is difficult.
However, it is essential to respect the Council's mandate and priorities, which includes the OSP's resource targets.
Without updates on the metrics, the progress report is just PR.
We encourage that PWP use the Resource Chart in the table above in future reports so that the Council and the public can seethe progress and challenges we face in achieving the goal.
2. The PR is vague on power purchase agreements for imported electric power.
Since imported electricity is, and will remain, the source of most of our city's electricity, and since the OSP envisions a big increase, it is important for the PR to address this category of resources with accuracy. As can be seen in the table above, 325MW of external generation and 125MW of storage need to be procured and the PR does not even mention this.
The PR Power Point states that "great strides" have been made, but references resources that were already under contract at the time of the OSP (Slide 6). This is a confusing aspect of the PR: its cites contracts entered into before the OSP (see first box in the resource table above) and whose target MWs are not part of the OSP metrics as evidence of progress. Although these contracts and the work that went into them are commendable, the OSP resource targets are in addition to the pre-OSP contracts.
There is a vague reference to negotiations with respondents to the RFP that PWP issued in March. Why did PWP take so long to issue the RFP? And what about SCPPA, the entity that PWP has relied on for power purchase agreements in the past? The PR has no reference to potential contracts through SCPPA except to note in the Summary Table that procurement ("as needed") is "ongoing." Is SCPPA resource procurement inactive in this age of climate crisis? The silence and vagueness on this critically important part of the plan to achieve our goal is very concerning. It suggests that PWP has decided that it prefers the annual carbon neutral OSP plan over the hourly cariDon free plan. But that is a policy decision for the Council. And it is a policy decision that should not be forced by lack of resources at the 2028 waypoint.
2 3.Commercial Solar
The PR mentions a program branded as Clean Power Pasadena Pari:nership (CP3).
The program is similar to a feed-in-tariffthat provides market rates for energy generated. The RFP is still in development and expected to be released this month.
The PR states that the RFP will cap eligible solar at these entities to 5MW each. PUSD, the largest landowner in the city, is internally aiming to install 6.8MW of solar because this is a smart economic decision for the district. Why is PWP capping this program when we urgently need more local solar for supply and for resilience not to mention for OSP compliance?
There is no update on partnerships with large land-owners such as PCC, PUSD, RBOC, Huntington or other key customers, other than a vague reference. A lot of time has passed since the OSP and even more since it was evident that we needed to increase local solar. Why is there no update on the status of these partnerships? Why do we still not have specific and concrete commitments?
4.Residential Solar and Storage
Slide 17 addresses the solar and storage rebate and incentive program which is excellent. This work is to be commended.
However, most Pasadena property owners still do not know about the program. We believe that more can be done to get the word out and explain why this program is finally beneficial and why the City's goal is important. The mayor and Councilmembers can do more to get useful information on incentives out to their constituents.
The PR contains a brief reference to a low interest loan program for solar and storage which is excellent in theory. However, it is only or primarily for low-income property owners, although this is not clear. PWP had previously agreed to extend this program to all ratepayers who own real estate. There are 4 reasons for not limiting this program.
First, the number of qualified low- income property owners in Pasadena is probably limited and PWP has made no effort to quantify this group. Second, of this small group, many are probably retired and have less interest in a long-term loan for a benefit that will materialize in 7-10 years. Third, banks are more likely to lend to mid to upper income property owners. Finally, middle income ratepayers who own property need low interest loans because they are often suffering from the burdens of high mortgage, property tax, children's expenses like college tuition, and increasing utility bills. This group may see the long-term financial benefit of solar/storage but find themselves short on cash.
Also, why has it taken so long to get this program started? It has been discussed for more than a year.
3 The PR talks about issues that have been discussed and resolved for some time as if they are part of the OSP, for example, streamlining the permitting process and removing the cap. IF the streamlining is not complete after 3 years of complaints, that is a huge problem and should be clearly stated and corrected.
5.Funding missing from the CIP budget for Municipal Solar and Storage.
PWP is now identifying 20 MW of Municipal Solar as priority 5 on the latest CIP budget.
In th efirstC IP version itwastheverylastof60 priohties and we were told th at the priority on the list didn't mean anything and was just a part of the heading. This change is disingenuously described as a "Great Leap Forward."
Further, most of the costs for the Priority 5 projects (in 4 successive phases) are still unfunded. If this isa high priority,why is it not funded? Adopted FY 2027-31 CIPTab 14 Electric Systems
Priority _Total Cost Notes
#5i Install 2 MWMu ni8olar(3290) $ 9.0M
Benefit Charge (PBC)
#5 ii Install 5 MW Muni Solar (3290) $22.5 M
partially unfunded
#5 iii Install 9 MW Muni Solar (3290) $40.5 M
unfunded
#5iv In stall 4MW Muni Solar (3290) $18.0 M
unfunded
pdfp. 9-5 sites; Public
pdf p. 10 - undisclosed sites;
pdfp.11 -undisclosed sites;
pdfp. 12 -undisclosed sites;
20 MW$90.0Munfunded =$63M
Compare th is with funding for the ongoing and seemingly endless Glenarm gas plant repairs and upgrades for which funding is assigned from the Power Fund, on top of multiple 2025-2026 expensive repairs.
PWP promised P100a Funding Strategy update for municipal solar. But it was not delivered. These investments can be paid for in a number of ways: revenue bond, reprioritization of other projects, reserves. What is the plan? The CIP budget does not match the Municipal Solar presentation: the CIP budget funds approximately 6.5MW of solar, butthe Municipal Solar presentation is planning for
11.8MW. The CIP breaks up solar into 4 installations; 2MW, 5MW, 9MW, and 4MW - totaling 20MW.The Municipal Solar presentation breaks up solar into 3.1 MW, 2.6MW, and 6.1MW-totaling 11.8MW. The CIP should reflect the planned solar installations.
6. Magnolia
4 The PR says nothing about the importation of gas generated electricity from the Magnolia plant in Burbank, which is a significant part of Pasadena's carbon diet.
7. The False Equity Narrative Returns
The PR (p. 25) and the Power Point (Slide 20) introduce a new, previously unknown study with an unnamed "graduate research team" in Michigan about rate equity. As with the Rate Study there is no transparency about the terms of this study, who is conducting it and who is funding it. We are concerned that it may be another effort to undermine the city's carbon free goal with false narratives that equate renewable resources with lack of equity. The description at the bottom of page 25 says that it will be "comprehensive," but the following sentences are full of jargon. For example, "semi - structured interviews with PWP staff, community organizations, and environmental justice advocates" are supposed to be carried out but about what? We have asked for the terms of reference for the study and how it is funded. 8, The Continued Conflation of Infrastructure Improvements with the Transition to Cari3on Free Electric Power.
Slides 24-26 continue to assume that projects to strengthen Pasadena's electric power infrastructure are part of the transition to carbon free electric power. This is very misleading.
As has been pointed out many times before in the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) and elsewhere, cable replacement, repair of sub-transmission lines and Goodrich transmission are all necessary regardless of what kind of electric power resource is being used to generate electricity. These are not expenses of the transition to carbon free resources.
This is no mere oversight. This padding makes it look like Pasadena's goal is more expensive that it is and adds to the "equity" and "affordability" arguments of gradualists and climate deniers.
9. Broadway BESS
Slide 25 has a brief mention of the Broadway BESS storage project. We are glad to see that PWP is "targeting" for it to be in service by December 2030. We would like to see more information as this a critical element of the OSP plan.
Also, the cost estimate for Broadway BESS appears to have increased ten fold. The PR should explain this.
10. Towards Better Reporting of Progress in OSP Implementation 5 We hope that PWP will make future progress reports more focused, accurate and informative.
The staff memo and Power Point characterize PWP's decision to change its plan from only 2 MWs of municipal solar on 5 sites to the current plan to install sites with unspecified MWs on 27 sites as a "great leap forward."
As we all know, the initial PWP budget proposal for only 2 MW was a shocking departure from the 20 MW specified by the OSP that was approved and prioritized by the Council. It was because of objections to this by the community and Council members that PWP changed its plan.
We hope that future reports will avoid fluff and cheerleading. For example, slide 3 informs on how many "desktop approvals" were undergone. This seems unnecessary information.
This PR also seems to show lack of urgency in implementation of the municipal solar element of the OSP.
Slide 14 suggest th at PWP does not intend to complete 20 MWs of municipal solar by 2030. There is no reason given for staging municipal solar projects so that by summer 2029 only the first two categories of projects will be completed totaling little more than 11 MWs.
Th is is un acceptable.
Slides 9-11 raise vague questions about community acceptance, tree canopy, loss of parking space, historic features, and other concerns without any explanation or factual support. PWP and public works have known for months and years how many sites were available, the state of their roofs, tree canopy and other relevant information.
across municipal facilities. There is also a reference in the CIP budget to a solar feasibility study sometime after Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the installations. What is the reason for a feasibility study for installation of solar, an established technology? By this time, PWP should be well on the way to assess whether specific problems exist on identifiedsites.
Finally, this PR itself was late. The OSP calls for quarterly updates. These should be clearly linked to OSP metrics, factual, respectful of Council priorities, coordinated with budget and timely.
Yours truly,
Steering Committee, PASADENA 100 Coalition
6 ^ Outlook
7/28 MSC Public Comment - PWP Progress Report Review, Pasadena's 2030 Goal Cannot Wait From Wesley Reutimann
Date Tue 7/28/2026 8:51 AM
To Gordo, Victor <[email protected]>,· Hawkesworth, Matthew <[email protected]>,· Bagneris, Michele <[email protected]>; Cole, Rick <[email protected]>,· Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>,· Madison, Steve <[email protected]>,· PublicComment- AutoResponse <[email protected]>,· DerBoghossian, Megheti <[email protected]>
®) 1 attachment (2 MB)
IMG_8116.HEIC;
[A] 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 (PAB). For more information about the PAB view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Mayor, Council, and staff,
Today's MSC meeting provides a timely opportunity to improve the structure and process for implementing the City's carefully-developed OSP.
The first OSP Progress Report misses the mark insofar as transparently documenting the key benchmarks within the plan. Future Progress Reports should begin with a simple table outlining the OSP goal for each of the below-listed deliverables, and the City's progress to date. Doing so will help ensure decision-makers, staff, and the general public can easily discern how far we've come, and how far we still need to go.
•Imported renewable electricity generation
• Imported storage
• Local solar-Municipal
• Local solar-lnstitutional
Local solar-Commercial
Local solar-Residential
• Local storage
• Demand Response
• Managed EV Charging
Accelerating Pasadena's transition from fossil fuels will save taxpayers in the long-run, improve local air quality, and provide greater insulation from a volatile fossil fuel market.
Thank you for your leadership on this critical issue,
Wes Reutimann
Pasadena 91103
P.S. Attached is a photo of the City of Glendale's latest municipal solar facility, located at the Glendale Sports Complex, which is nearing completion. In addition to generating local clean power, the facility will provide critical shading for park users. Pasadena would do well to emulate this project at some of our larger park facilities such as around the Rose Bowl stadium.
F
^
Sj?; s/
S-: ?'
) !)'i;l
i.31
^
ij
?-^
'1!•» ^
\ ^r^^ t- ^&^- i^;(./ .I3*
^
?.
^
^ m/
wII^ ^"'s
i ^
s ^
m ji/y^^^c :i
I
;iiJ\ ?i ^I SWFTS r»»i-&<Arf »
^:I&.5< ^
w
'i
?^/ fii! ^^^^i '^ If^ '^w.
iIt
^ r?%^A- 'i^;i
I
4^^;? ^^ •^ •• % • rf.
'itMM
5'^ V
f\ li
.s t;
^. ^1t>
^ mK ^
-y
^
^ ,?.;,'.» y^S " '< '•):/.
»
^lrl
if /.^^» ';',
-s^
f[
^ B
^n18^ ' m.*
I*.y>)^•^^i r^, m
^ ^
^ I! Ifi
K-
*'
t
3' i?ri
^^ ^^
IT
:i.^ ^^
f
•«
y
5 /^ m•^
I':3K "^^al'
IllSVf PI^1 t
mliI;c-ns
mtfMn m^;
\
wst-s »'
I^^»'
^A -;-.I »
» •<
IS ^ ,'-••»
^ sm ( yil -: ;'
^
K-,>
Iz'^i
^ ttS *
t
,-JB 1»
'^
I
-I
m /"! ^.•&1^
^^ i
I
^ 183,!• n
It.*"m, '..:•i-.,- •<1^
•^H
r
^ A
^
"I
^f^
ya..
8;:^ B^•^ff- :,('» ?js'"£ <<^e>'•*
5'w m-fl
ftf •/»•»>•••••:
%:I
t.1?
Iffil^ ^r
'e ;« ilt