1 From: Kevi
n Dawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Hemenway, Steve <[email protected]>; Perry, Jim <[email protected]>; Plascencia, Gaby <[email protected]>; Cervantes, Clarissa <[email protected]>; Fierro, Ronaldo <[email protected]>; Edwards, Erin <[email protected]>; Conder, Chuck <[email protected]>; Zelinka, Al <[email protected]>; 2Mayor <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Mark Acosta <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] ELECTREK: Tesla Megapack project with 730 MWh of capacity is now up and running on PG&E's network
CAUTION: This email is originated from OUTSIDE of City of Riverside and was not sent by any City Officials or City Staff. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are expecting the email and know that the content is safe. If you suspect this is a phishing or malicious email, please contact the helpdesk.
Dear Council,
The latest article on the Moss Landing battery storage facility. They’ve just turned on the latest batch of batteries, bring the total capacity to 730 MWh and are on tra ck to 1.1 GWh. This project was conceived, planned, approved by CPUC, and built, in stages, over just 4 years. RTRP has been in works for 19 years. In the latest EIR project alternatives study, SCE dismissed battery storage out of hand because the 489 MWh amount of sto rage they said they need exceed the total amount installed national wide. (They used outdated data from 2016) Just four years now after that report, Moss Landing alone is running a system vastly exceeding SCE’s stated need for Riverside.
The cost of batteries has plummeted and the capability has climbed. Any reports or studies ov er three years old are outdated. Alternative battery designs are just on the cusp of coming to market, which will be more environmentally viable and further reduce price, freeing up the higher density to weight lithium batteries to be used exclusively for EVs.
As I’ve said before, the $600m RT RP will not generate or store 1 watt of energy. It will not protect Riverside from rolling blackouts caused by problems elsewhere on the grid.
If we want resiliency, we should apply and lobby the CPUC to fund battery storage instead of transmission lines. We should restructure city fi nances to do away with the electrical GFT, so The city’s need for GFT revenue doesn’t get in the way of promoting roof to solar. We need people and businesses to invest and install roof top solar. We are already limited by how many hours we can run our gas powered pea ker plants. We are already having maintenance challenges in finding spare parts for those plants. Every watt generated by roof top solar and stored in batteries, is instantaneous power we don’t have to generate by burning gas. It’s win, win, win, all around.
The latest reports on climate change show we need to ge t off gas by 2030. That’s only 7 years away! Replacing RTRP with batteries doesn’t have to purchased all at once. As with Moss Landing, we can buy in phases to take advantage of continuous price drops and technical improvements. We have over 95 warehouses with over 1 m square foot. With the current 20% effici
ency, solar provides 20 watts/ sq. ft., so each warehouse could generate 20 Anticipated CC
Date: 5-10-22
2 MWh. So, with just those 95 structures we could get 200 MWh, and without using up existing undeveloped open space.
We should explore floating solar on Lake Matthew, which would reduce water loss due to evaporation and have an added benefit of cooling the solar panels, maximizing their efficiency and lengthening their li fe expectancy.
If we are the city of innovation, then we need to think more broadly and creatively when faced with the existential threat of climate change and the estimated time line within which we need to adopt change.
If the CPUC gave us $600m, is RTRP the project we should spend it on? I say the evidence is a resoundin g NO.
We need to put a hold on RTRP, and conduct a thoughtful re evaluation.
I can think of two properties next to RPU transformer farms, that are so contaminated they should never be used for human activity, which would be perfe ct for battery storage.
We need to change our thinking, and quickly.
I’m disappointed in UCR. Their Long Range Development Plan shows they will not address the state required Green House Gas requirements. They just say they will buy carbon credits and use biogas (pixie dust). As a pre mier research and education center, I expect them to set the example of practicing what they teach, and they are falling short. Or maybe it’s an example of the magnitude of the problems global warming is presenting. Regardless, business as usual is not an option.
Respectfully,
Kevin Dawson
Tesla Megapack pr oject with 730 MWh of capacity is now up and running on PG&E's network PG&E announced that they have turned on their giant Tesla Megapack project with 730 MWh of capacity, and the electric grid company expects that it will “enhance the overall reliability of California’s ever‐changing energy supply.” Read in Electr
ek: https://apple.news/Adg84XwyHT5643X02NIYH‐Q
Shared from Apple News
Sent from my iPad cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
PU General Manager
1 From: Sh
aron Mateja <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:33:20 PM
To: Plascencia, Gaby <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Sharon Mateja' <[email protected]>; 'Sharon Mateja' <[email protected]>; 'Chair NBT' <[email protected]>; 'Aurora Chavez' <[email protected]>; 'Tom Donahue' <[email protected]>; 'Barbara Croonquist' <[email protected]>; 'Christine Duran' <[email protected]>; 'Diana Ruiz' <[email protected]>; 'Don Morris' <[email protected]>; 'Jane Block' <[email protected]>; 'Kevin Dawson' <[email protected]>; 'Gurumantra Khalsa' <[email protected]>; 'Michele Wise (Simpson' <[email protected]>; 'Sean Mill' <[email protected]>; 'Susan Fahrney' <[email protected]>; Peter Wohlgemuth <[email protected]>; 'April Glatzel' <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; 'Donna Stephenson' <[email protected]>; CityClerkMbx <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; 'Tinka Friend' <[email protected]>; 'Janice Bielman' <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; 'Duffy Atkinson' <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Media‐monrowmabon <[email protected]>; 'Linda Baker' <[email protected]>; 'Chair NBT' <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] RTRP
CAUTION: This email is originated from OUTSIDE of City of Riverside and was not sent by any City Officials or City Staff. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are expecting the email and know that the content is safe. If you suspect this is a phishing or malicious email, please contact the helpdesk.
Hi Gabby,
Thank you for attending the NBT meeting Sunday April 24, 2022; as you know, the majority of wards are represented by this group of community leaders.
I hope that your takeaway message from the group regarding the RTRP, is that it is time to not throw good money towards a poorly designed project. Many in our group have done extensive research on this project, along with other council persons, and recognize it is time to pause this project as written and look into curr ent technology and plan for a better Riverside and a better project.
As written, this is an antiquated project developed about 18 years ago with old technology. I recently read in the newspaper that SCE is planning 10,000 miles of undergrounding for transmission lines as it is recognized this is the superior way to place transmission lines. If Riverside puts “its money where its mouth is”, our money will be used to develop an updated plan for the transmission lines and live up to its slogan of “The City of Arts and Innovations”…this project does not fit the slogan. We are kn own as the “Emerald City”, (according
to Ron Loveridge)…this IS NOT A GREEN project, it is the opposite; it will destroy th e open space and Wildlife Preserve in Ward 7. On the City website, Hidden Valley was described as the “gem of the city”; are you willing to destroy our “gem”?
2 This project is coming back to the city council, my hope is that you support the residents of Riverside in asking for a pause of the current project and the development of a project that fulfills our energy needs, protects residents and protects our open space. We are asking that you support the request of Councilman Steven Hem
enway when he asks for your vote in pausing this project.
Respectfully,
Dr. Sharon B Mateja cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
PU General Manager