3t Outlook
Agenda #1,2
From Donna Sider
Date Man 7/27/2026 9:13 PM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>; Cole, Rick <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>
[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.
Members,
The whole point of the OSP and its main deliverable, 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.
Why does The PR omit and/or obfuscate this fundamental information? 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 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").
It's not really a progress report if it doesn't address the fundamental issue of how PWP is progressing in procuring the carbon free resources identified by the OSP.
Without updates on the metrics, the progress report is just PR.
Lack of urgency in implementation of the municipal solar element of the OSP.
Slide 14 shows clearly that 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.
This is unacceptable. By this time, PWP should be well on the way to assess whether specific problems exist on identified sites.
Donna
^ Outlook
Public Comment for 7/28 Municipal Services Committee
From p brown
Date Man 7/27/2026 10:02 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> [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 Council Members of the Municipal Services Committee, I appreciate that the Committee is receiving an update on PWP's efforts to achieve the City's policy of 100% carbon free electric power by 2030. As a participant in Pasadena 100, I remain very concerned about the pace of progress.
This is not tomorrow's problem. It's here and now. You've been briefed on the impact of the climate crisis on the water supplies from the Colorado River.
Climate change means more extreme weather. We're getting a taste of it, but worse is coming if we don't take action. And we have a Federal administration that not only denies there is a problem, but in fact is making it worse.
We've got to do everything we can, and quickly, to move to 100 percent carbon free power.
Sadly, Pasadena is not in the vanguard on deployment of municipal solar and battery storage.
Last Friday I rode the 267 Metro bus to El Monte, through Temple City. We passed Temple City High School and its existing canopy solar arrays covering the school's parking lot. This is a city of 35,000.
Then there are our neighbors in Glendale, which has deployed and is deploying municipal solar.
Pasadena has none. Yet we have acres of parking at the Rose Bowl where canopy solar could be deployed, and large flat roofs at the Pasadena Convention Center, to name just two possible large city controlled sites.
Pasadena is blessed with more than its share of rocket scientists, but this is not rocket science. Municipal solar is mature tech. But we need clear benchmarks and budgeted resources.
We've got to move quickly.
To quote Yoda from Star Wars, "Do or do not, there is no try".
Thank you for your leadership.
Respectfully,
P.A. Brown
District 6
Member of Pasadena 100
8f Outlook
MSC meeting public comment
From Jessica Richards
Date Man 7/27/2026 11:17 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email fromi. Learn why this is important [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 distribute to committee members.
Agenda item #1 The Optimized Strategic
Plan (OSP) Progress Report
Our city's response to the climate emergency
is a priority for me. I want our city to achieve
the goal set by the Council of 100% carbon
free electric power by 2030.
The single most effective way to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions that are the
cause of the climate crisis is to transition to
carbon free electric power.
We appreciate the City Council for setting
this clean energy mandate and we urge you
to stay resolved to ACHIEVE THE GOAL that
you have set.
1. The Progress Report (PR) omits
information about mission critical
resources
The PR should report on the metrics that are
necessary for the Council and the public to
understand how PWP is advancing the City's
goal.
The whole point of the OSP and its main
deliverable, 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.
Why does The PR omit and/or obfuscate this
fundamental information?
It's not really a progress report if it doesn't
address the fundamental issue of how PWP
is progressing in procuring the carbon free
resources identified by the OSP.
Without updates on the metrics, the progress
report is just PR.
The PR confuses the resources under
contract at the time of the publishing of the
OSP with the number of additional resources
that need to be contracted. 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). 325MW of external generation and
125MW of storage need to be procured in
addition to these prior resource contracts and
the PR does not even mention this.
1. Commercial Solar
The PR mentions a program called Clean
Power Pasadena Partnership (CP3). The
program is similar to a feed-in-tariff that
provides market rates for energy generated.
The RFP is still in development and expected
to be released this month.
The PR says that the RFP will cap eligible
solar at these entities to 5MW each. PUSD is
internally aiming to install 6.8MW of solar.
Why is PWP capping this program when we
urgently need more local solar for supply and
for resilience?
There is no update on partnerships with large
land owners such as PCC, PUSD,RBOC,
Huntington or other key customers. PUSD is
the largest landowner in the city. At 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?
1. Residential Solar and Storage
Slide 17 addresses the solar and storage
rebate program which is, in theory, excellent.
However, most Pasadena property owners
do not know about the program. Not enough
is being done to get the word out and explain
why this program is finally beneficial and why
the City's goal is important. Because 60% of
Pasadena residents are renters, what can be
done to promote landlords installing solar?
There is a brief reference to a low interest
loan program for solar and storage which is
also excellent in theory. However, it is only or
primarily for low income property owners (not
clear). PWP had previously agreed to extend
this program to all ratepayers who own real
estate.
Also, why has it taken so long to get this
program started? It has been discussed for
more than a year.
We call on the Mayor and all City
Councilmembers to provide information to
resident property owners about why the City
is promoting local solar and the role they can
play in achieving the goal.
The PR talks about issues that have been
resolved for some time as if they are part of
the OSP, for example, streamlining the
permitting process and removing the cap.
1. 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 the first version it was the very last of 60
priorities. But most of the costs for the
Priority 5 projects (in 4 successive phases)
are still unfunded. If this is a high priority, why
is it not funded?
PWP promised P100 a Funding Strategy
presentation. But it was not delivered. These
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, but the
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 3.1MW,
2.6MW, and 6.1MW-totaling 11.8MW. The
CIP should reflect the planned solar
installations.
1. Magnolia
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.
1. The False Equity Narrative Returns
The PR (p. 25) and the Power Point (Slide
20) introduce a new, previously unknown
study with a "graduate research team" in
Michigan about rate equity. As with the Rate
Study there is no transparency about the
terms of this study, and who is conducting 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.
1. The Continued Conflation of Infrastructure
Improvements with the Transition to
Carbon 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 Advisor Panel 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. Even if Pasadena
continued to use COAL as a resource these
infrastructure, the electricity has to go
through these elements of the infrastructure.
Agenda item #2 Municipal Solar
A. The information in the staff memo and
Power Point about plans and funding for
Municipal Solar are unclear
Municipal Solar must be placed on rooftops
or other areas that don't require the removal
of trees. Solar is needed as are trees.
The OSP plan that the Council approves is
based on 20 MW of solar installations in
Pasadena. Power Point slide #2 refers to 27
sites but doesn't say how many MW this
represents. In fact, we know from the
Progress Report and the CIP budget that this
is less than 11 MW.
The CIP budget is clear that most of the
installations that are planned in theory have
not been proposed for funding.
We appreciate that PWP is now stating that
alt 20 MW under priority 5, but the CIP
budget doesn't support this.
Slide 14 shows clearly that 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.
This is unacceptable.
C. Questioning Council Policy?
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 identified sites.
Jessica Richards
91104