3J^ Outlook
Ahead of Tomorrow's PWP Progress Report Review, Pasadena's 2030 Goal Cannot Wait From Ana Soulriver
Date Man 7/27/2026 7:47 PM
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]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromLearn 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 "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing as a supporter of PASADENA 100 ahead of tomorrow's Municipal Services Committee review of PWP's Progress Report on the transition to carbon free electricity by 2030.
This year the climate warnings are not abstract. El Niho has strengthened through the summer, and Europe just endured its most severe heatwave on record, with excess deaths passing 1,300 since late June. Scientists are calling this pattern the new normal, not the exception. As you review this Progress Report, I hope you will hold it to the urgency this moment demands. 2030 cannot be treated as a distant deadline when climate events like these keep arriving faster than predicted.
This is also why the circular economy matters more than ever. Reusing what we already have, whether that is a building, a resource, or the sun overhead, is not a side project. It is the foundation of the green city Pasadena needs to become for the 21st century. Solar energy is the clearest expression of that principle: it is abundant, local, and already proven. We do not need to wait for new technology.
We need the political will to keep moving.
In 2023, this Council unanimously adopted the carbon free goal and unanimously approved the plan to achieve it. Tomorrow is your first opportunity to measure progress against that commitment. I hope the Committee will use this review to reaffirm the goal, ask hard questions where the report falls short, and resist any pressure to soften the timeline.
Thank you for the leadership this requires, and for the work ahead tomorrow.
Respectfully,
Ana Soulriver
Commercial Real Estate Broker
St Outlook
Tonight's Municipal Meeting
From Lisa Zeigel
Date Tue 7/28/2026 10:50 AM
To Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]> Some people who received this message don't often get email fromi-earn 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 "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Mr. Lyon,
As resident of Pasadena, my home being in your district, I want to plainly and clearly state that our city's response to the climate emergency is a top priority for me. I want our city to achieve the goal set by the Council of 100% carbon free electric power by 2030. As we witness increasing heat, with thousands dying in Europe, with fires destroying homes and habitat all over the world, we must stop burning fossil fuels.
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 cannot wait until 2045.
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. • For our quality of life and for the survival of our children, we must stop burning fossil fuels.
• Pasadena 100 has identified omissions in the Progress Report and there are questions as to why.
• The information in the staff memo and Power Point about plans and funding for Municipal Solar are confusing.
We need clear information about how The City will proceed with the plan. We must not make compromises. We are in a crisis emergency situation. We are facing devastation -- as we are witnessing in other parts of the world.
We are not safe or immune from it
Thank you for listening to your citizen's concerns.
Lisa Zeigel
Lisa G. Zeigel
9^ Outlook
Urgent Action Needed to Achieve Pasadena's 100% Carbon-Free Electricity Goal by 2030 From Suzanne York
Date Tue 7/28/2026 1:37 PM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>; Reyes, David <[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.
July 28, 2026
Dear Members of the Municipal Services Committee,
I urge you to treat implementation of Pasadena Water and Power's Optimized Strategic Plan (OSP) with the urgency that the climate crisis demands. The City Council made a bold commitment to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030, and I respectfully ask that every decision before the Committee be measured against that goal.
Around the world we are witnessing record-breaking heat, devastating wildfires, and worsening climate impacts. We cannot afford to drift toward 2045 when our City has akeady committed to 2030. The fastest and most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to replace fossil-fuel-generated electricity with carbon-free power, and Pasadena has already charted that course.
While I appreciate the work reflected in the Progress Report, it does not provide the information necessary for the Council or the public to evaluate whether Pasadena is actually on track. The report lacks clear metrics showing progress toward procuring the renewable generation, storage, demand response, managed EV charging, and local solar resources identified in the OSP. Without measurable progress toward those targets, it is impossible to determine whether we are moving fast enough to meet the City's commitaiient.
Several issues deserve immediate attention:
• Procurement of renewable power: The report provides little information about acquiring the additional renewable generation and storage identified in the OSP. Since imported renewable electricity will remain the largest source of Pasadena's power, this omission is significant. • Local solar: The OSP calls for 20 MW of municipal solar, yet current plans and funding fall far short. Most of the municipal solar projects remain unfunded in the Capital Iniprovement Program, despite being identified as a high priority. If this is fa-uly a priority, fanding should reflect that commitment.
• Commercial and institutional partnerships: Pasadena should be aggressively pursuing partnerships with major property owners, mcluding PUSD, Pasadena City College, the Huntington, Huntington Hospital, Caltech, and other large institutions, to maximize local solar generation. We should not be limiting programs that could significantly expand local clean energy. • Residential solar and storage: The City's rebate and financing programs are promising but remain poorly publicized and slow to implement. Pasadena residents should be actively informed about the fmancial incentives available and the important role they can play in helping the City achieve its climate goals.
• Continued reliance on fossil fuels: The report is notably silent regarding Pasadena's dependence on electi'icity generated by the Magnolia gas plant. If we are serious about reaching 100% carbon- free electricity, we need a transparent strategy for reducing this dependence.
Finally, I am concerned that the municipal solar implementation schedule does not complete the full 20 MW by 2030. Delaying projects without clear justification undermines the City's adopted policy and sends the wrong message about our coinmitment to climate action.
The Council has ab-eady established the goal. The question before us is no longer whether Pasadena should achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030, but how quickly we are moving toward it. Every year of delay means additional greenhouse gas emissions, greater climate impacts, and lost opportunities to strengthen our local energy resilience.
I respectfully ask the Committee to require clearer performance metrics, fully fund the municipal solar program, accelerate renewable procurement, expand local solar opportunities, and hold PWP accountable for delivering the carbon-free future that Pasadena has already promised its residents.
Thank you for your leadership and your commitment to Pasadena's future.
Sincerely,
Suzanne York
(St Outlook
PWP Progress Report Review
From Mark Rutkowski
Date Tue 7/28/2026 2:48 PM
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]>
Cc Cynthia Cannady ; Wesley Reutimann
Some people who received this message don't often get email from important
Ii. Learn why this is
[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.
Dear Pasadena Leaders,
I second Wes Reutimann's excellent letter that was sent to you today in preparation for the MSC meeting. We need clear documentation of how we are progressing to a carbon-free electrical grid for Pasadena. And he enunciates so clearly the key reasons why you should reinvigorate your resolve to see the Optimal Strategic Plan to fruition: "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."
I encourage you to ask yourself why we are floundering. We can all cite the usual suspects such as indifference, disagreement, misunderstanding, bureaucratic inertia, and competing priorities for a limited economic pie. But I think an underlying failure of imagination may be the root cause. Do you really see the possibility that we can strategically use solar and batteries to replace an entire power plant, save money, and pollute less? One example comes from Oxnard, California in 2017 in which the need for a proposed power plant was entirely prevented by solar and batteries.
Please read this article and inform your imagination about what is possible with the technology that has only improved and become more cost-effective since 2017:
https://earthj ustice.org/feature/oxnard-puente-g as-plant-battery-storag e Thank you for your dedicated service to our city,
Mark
Mark Rutkowski, MD
Member PASADENA 100
pasadena100.org
)
9^ Outlook
7/28 MSC Public Comment - Agenda Item 1 - OSP Progress Report From Sam Berndt
Date Tue 7/28/2026 3:08 PM
To PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]>; Jones, Justin <[email protected]>; Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>,· Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc Masuda, Gene <[email protected]>; Rivas, Jessica <[email protected]>; Madison, Steve <[email protected]>; Gordo, Victor <[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.
Today, between France and Spain, nearly 300,000 people have been evacuated from their homes due to massive wildfires. This comes after record breaking heatwaves in June killed over 10,000 people across Western Europe. And of course, we must not forget the struggles our community continues to go through following the Eaton Fire last year. We are in a climate emergency and we must act now.
That is why I am proud of our City for taking the bold action of declaring this emergency, committing to 100% carbon free electricity by 2030 and creating the optimized strategic plan to realize this vision. I must also applaud PWP's efforts to stay on top of the Action Plan defined in Table 4 of the OSP and the variety of programs they have initiated to achieve the goal.
However, I remain concerned.
While PWP has done well to enter into contracts since the adoption of the resolution, the fact remains that these resources do not count toward the resources the OSP details as required in Table 1 of the OSP, which shows the need for 325MW of additional external generation and 125MW of additional external storage. PWP reports that 2 solar/storage projects are under negotiation and many more are under evaluation and we look forward to progress on this front. The resources contracts entered last year have a completion date of 2029; this implies we must enter the remaining contracts this year if we are to achieve our goal.
The Residential Solar component is also concerning. In 2025, the OSP required 3 additional MW of residential solar; only 2.4MW were acquired. Now in 2026, the goal is +4MW and we are on track to reach 2.3MW. While the new local incentives, public outreach, and development of a Feed-in-tariff program are great steps in the right direction, we do not yet see the needed results and more work needs to be done to make up the lost ground. In 2027, the infrastructure and incentives need to be in place to install 8 additional MW of solar on residential buildings - over 3 times the projected amount for this year.
Finally, it is concerning that this is the first time we are hearing about an equity study on the transition.
After so many attempts at undermining the council's clear direction, it is hard for me to trust that this is not yet another such attempt to backdoor excuses to backtrack the decision - or to justify offsetting the costs of the transition off of businesses and onto residential ratepayers.
Sam Berndt
8^ Outlook
Fwd: Pasadena's goal to be carbon-free by 2030
From Harman Smith •
Date Tue 7/28/2026 3:22 PM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fromLearn 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 "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
To whom this may concern,
I'm writing to you in sincere support of Pasadena's stated and partially-enacted goal to become carbon-free in the power it uses for its grid by 2030. The City Council unanimously adopted that goal back in 2023 and unanimously voted to approve the specific plan to achieve the goal — but it is continuously under attack from gradualists and climate deniers.
The terrible, unpresidented Altadena fires — the result of record heat (here and across the country — and globally) — are all sad proof of the manmade effects of ever-worsening carbon emissions. But in Pasadena, we can act positively by supporting the city's goal very proactively.
Please do all you can to aid in this very important continued work.
Most sincerely,
-Harman Smith
(resident of District 5)
Outlook
Support for 100% carbon free electricity
From Mark Branson
Date Tue 7/28/2026 4:16 PM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
You don't often get email fromLearn 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 "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
To: Municipal Services Committee
I am very supportive of the position of Pasadena 100 and their promotion of Pasadena's goal of reaching 100% carbon-free electricity. We have installed a roof-top system and will soon upgrade it— at our own expense. Please commit to expediting this goal.
Mark Lau Branson
Pasadena, CAD 1104
I tend to be sporadic or absent on email
after 4pm on weekdays and all weekend
St 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 fenowthe 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.
)
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
(.:)
u
^ Outlook
MSC meeting public comment
From Jessica Richards
Date Mon 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 "KB0011474" 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.
I
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.
hlowever, 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 roof tops
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
all 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
^ 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 072826-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 "KB0011474" 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
DearCouncilmembers 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 OSP 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 cariDon 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 MW9
Imported storage100MW7
Local solar-Municipal20 MW11.8MW
***
Local solar-lnstitutional
Local solar-Commercial
Local solar-Residential
50 MW7
7 1.14MW
****
Local storage75 MW25 MW
Demand Response15 MW7
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 th an "cartoon 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 th at PWP use the Resource Chart in the table above in future reports so that the Council and the public can see the progress and challenges we face in achieving the goal.
2. The PR is vaaue on power purchase acireements 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 th at 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 houriy carbon 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 0
u
3. Commercial Solar
The PR mentions a program branded as 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 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 landowners 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 jh^Cl^bydget 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 CIP version itwastheverylastof60 priorities 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 CIP Tab 14 Electric Systems
Priority _Total CostNotes
#5i In stall 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
#5 iv Install 4 MW Muni Solar (3290) $18.0 M
unfunded
pdfp. 9-5 sites; Public
pdf p. 10 - undisclosed sites;
pdf p. 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 Solarpresentation 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.
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 cari3on 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 Imeroyements 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 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 Reportina of Proaress 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 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.
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 studyfor 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.
Finally, this PR itself was late. The OSP calls for quarteriy 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]>
I 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-Municipat
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. u
••••}
.1^
it
^^ B'mi-5 •/fi
St
-•/k .1
^..J
MS Ill i,•<!
y:
i
'^MSi'f ('
Ii^
•^••<•<>
'^"i '^, m^.:i;;
fc
ta:
^^'m wy^
»»is"
t
ni
."£w
^
:.
m'i
^T .<"-
'/
^e
w K";<t-1•s Vfs-
;i
^
^?^^"<^
:!llfe^.^fi^^
Wl
^••S5';i
1.:.*m r.
rf:^ :^IU/iT1^2M#i^ ^% ;.E-^
»E
It
^-
i*^'m^k E
t.
s? ya
^•mI
's
'?J&'» m^^v
I.-, »;iff1^fi<
m^ :^^
i?I.
'n
f- ..
r
^
?"-€'-
H'(^^ ^y<i
*i^^
K•r?
^i:M
:ll'..ilF -m-
^
K;
'/^
w
^..'
,31 !< M
^,i,s'
^^^
^
-*-.
^••'V-it
^^tf
I,!'} m IHSEI
^
^
^
^ '•
A.;s
<
I ^
;';T-
'»fi.)r
*,
?^:.
I
<tr~ „ „••^I!M
*
IKB.'^L'VJ ^8'-
»t'
•«•tV,
? ;i^^
1-•^»f
yI •> -^^t
'!- J
?..
8 ^
mill 7•J'^f-
^i
,1
5» Cf
;(-a
^
«1SiK >
n,
«v^-
I
/81
?.
-t;
•*. <:M
»y•>;< i!Briia
M ^^. ^
t
»'
^;// (.
»Vs ^
;•»^ iw</ ^
m ii .••"•
<
^
m•f.>!'.v
t
•«-:
y Jos
.<
^ ^
r,'/';
.1
w
'•'•s j
f m's^WJ
^
.'^'a
s:
,-*L
I.^
v
.0
»
'..: ^
SMs;
m?(^^ ;*
i
?
^M^% ^:i»""*•I: £.&
»
!f
^y
ISi-R
v fIj
L^
•s
ytf Outlook
MSC 07.28.2026 Items 1 & 2 OSP Progress Report and Implementation Update From
Date Tue 7/28/2026 1:19 PM
To Jones, Justin <[email protected]>,· Rick Cole <[email protected]>; Cole, Rick <[email protected]>,· Hampton, Tyron <[email protected]>; Lyon, Jason <[email protected]>
Cc Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>; 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 "KB001 1474" on the DolT portal.
Dear MSC Members Jones, Cole, hlampton, and Lyon,
Talk is cheap. Implementation requires committed funding for Pasadena's "Clean Power Brand".
The Optimized Specific Plan (OSP) approved by City Council provided a blueprint for the number of megawatts (MW) required from each energy resource category to achieve 100% Carbon Free Electric Power by the end of 2030. Based on extensively documented research, OSP Tab/e 19 Action Plan to Accelerate Local Solar and Storage Adoption included Total Annual Resource Additions with the number of megawatts (MW) required for each resource category as well as a generalized timeline:
• Customer Solar & Storage Adoption
• Large-Scale Energy Storage at City-Owned Properties
• Solar at City-Owned Properties
• Microgrids at City. Commercial and Institutional Sites • Other Opportunities
Power Department staff members have worked diligently to design and implement a So/ar & Battery Rebate Program to assist and encourage homeowners to install solar panels and battery storage. However, the department failed to fund the required 20 MW of Municipal Solar at City-Owned Properties in its FY2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget. PWP's initial funding request included only 2 MW of Municipal Solar which was funded exclusively by the Public Benefit Charge, a surcharge on ratepayer electric bills. As a result of City Council's amendment to the "Recommended" FY2027-31 CIP, PWP increased its plan to include 11.8 MW of Municipal Solar, mostly unfunded, with expected completion by June 2029. This will provide only 60% of the required 20 MW of Municipal Solar.
The current Optimized Strategic Plan Progress Report (June 2026) is largely a self- congratulating public relations document. Authors of the report chose to ignore the clearly stated goals of OSP Table 19 and instead, organized their commentary around the more nebulous "Pillars of the Optimized Plan". The report does include numbers, but they refer to different categories making comparison difficult. It is notable that Municipal Solar will be installed on 27 small sites rather than a few large sites as planned for the City of Glendale.
Only three of the 27 sites would generate close to 1000 kW or more: Rose Bowl/ Brookside Golf Course (1063 kw), City Maintenance Yards (2500 kW) and Convention/Civic Center (967 kW).
Contrast Total Estimated Costs for other projects in the FY 2027-31 Adopted CIP to the lack of funding for Municipal Solar:
• $51 million for upgrades and repair of Gas Turbines at Glenarm • $33 million for PWP Office Consolidation
• $324 million for Broadway BESS (original request was $38 M for storage alone); the current budget apparently includes redevelopment of the entire site.
Implementation of Municipal Solar and Battery Storage to fulfill requirements for Resolution 9977's goal, 100% carbon free electric power by the end of 2030, will require the focus and dedication of the entire Power Department.
We must demand real accountability and transparency
from our City Departments.
Sincerely,
Genette Foster, CD2
Outlook
MSC public comment
From Michael Robertson
Date Tue 7/28/2026 4:41 PM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
[A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnowthe 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.
Hello, my name is Michael Robertson, I am a Pasadena Resident and Eaton Fire survivor. We need renewable power for the people of Pasadena. Please ensure Pasadena Water and Power, our publicly owned utility follows the city council's guidance and aggressively pursues 100% renewable power.
Future Pasadenans will be proud to be on this side of history making a difference for the planet and making a difference for the long term environmental and financial sustainability of the city and its publicly owned utility.
Thank you!
^ Outlook
I support 100% Carbon free electricity
From Lissette Rodriguez
Date Tue 7/28/2026 4:54 PM
To Gao, Beilei <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from2arn why this is i m porta nt [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.
Hi,
As a Pasadena homeowner, I fully support the plan for 100% carbon free electricity by 2030 in Pasadena. It's the least we can do to combat climate change, so it's worth making the effort to make this a reality. Thank you.
Lissette Rodriguez
Zip code:91106
.,-s»
^ Outlook
Support Pasadena's Zero Carbon Goal
From Joe Feinblatt <
Date Tue 7/28/2026 5:06 PM
To Gao,Beilei <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from;arn 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.
The headlines describing the current disastrous effects of global warming on life on our earth emphasize the importance of Pasadena's zero carbon electricity goal.
Pasadena's City Council must continue to lead by providing the resources necessary to reach that goal by 2030.
Last year's unprecedented fires in our neighborhoods have brought the warning to our doors.
Do not back down.
Joe and Pepi Feinblatt
gf€ Outlook
MSC Meeting comment
From Angelina "Spikie" Ricardo
Date Tue 7/28/2026 5:08 PM
To Gao, Beilei <[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 "KB001 1474" on the DolT portal.
Hello,
I hope you're doing well. I am a Pasadena resident whose not able to make the MSC meeting tonight, but wanted to email my hope that our City will stick to the previously set goal of 100% carbon free electric power by 2030. It has never been clearer than it is now how vital it is that we do everything we can to transition to carbon free electric power as soon as possible. Disaster after disaster have proven it, and the future is unfortunately not looking any easier, and so we must change course or suffer the consequences. We need to be seriously making way on this goal now, not postponing or diluting it. I fully stand in support with Pasadena 100 and my neighbors within who are working hard to keep the city accountable in doing what is necessary for the future.
Best,
Angelina "Spikie" Ricardo
Angelina "Spikie" Ricardo