Inconvenient truths about Pasadena Water and Power’s climate plans - The Whittier Daily News

Inconvenient truths about Pasadena Water and Power’s climate plans - Pasadena Star News

Pasadena Water and Power recently released good news showing how we will meet our energy needs in 2030 and beyond while beating our goals for fighting climate change by over double! That document, called an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), explained that Pasadena is ahead of schedule in meeting the state’s ambitious climate goals of Assembly Bill 32, the ground-breaking 2006 climate law that set clear goals and deadlines for utilities and others across California to help in the fight against climate change.

Unfortunately, some insist that we abandon the reasonable approach that PWP has set forth, refuse to abide by the limits of reliable electricity, and insist upon an extreme course of 100% carbon-free power by 2030 at any cost! Such a plan will leave us spending over three times as much for our electric bills in a few short years despite the paper-shuffling exercise of allegedly 100% carbon-free electricity is beyond Pasadena’s control.

PWP still needs to release the full results of the IRP. However, from what is publicly available, we already know that the IRP shows that the “Extreme Case” advocated for by some will cost at least $1.35 billion (with a B) more than the reasonable approach of staying the course.

Some will say that means “only” a 76% price increase. But a few key things are being left out — like “Stranded investments costs are not included,” and, per the PWP presentation at its April 27 meeting, the Extreme Case requires Pasadenans to adopt solar and buy industrial-grade home batteries (like Tesla Power Walls) at double the rate PWP estimates they can do so!

Once we account for these unreasonable assumptions and add in the costs of stranded investments wasted in the name of the Extreme Case, the actual costs of the 100% by 2030 proposal come into focus.

And don’t forget that our fellow PWP customers are over $8 million in arrears for our already high electric bills that community members can’t pay as it is. Further, keep in mind that this is all happening while utility customers across California are raising their voices to complain about sky-high rate proposals from Edison and PG&E.

What I find most shocking is that we’re already doing very well in battling climate change here in Pasadena. State law requires PWP to be 40% below 1990’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. But PWP is on track to be a full 90% below those 1990 levels!

So what are we fighting about? Will we pay what we have to for electric rates that are already increasing dramatically (like everything else) to reach the very good 90%, or will we insist on paying three times as much for that last 10%?

Finally, whether or not Pasadena can even achieve the 100% carbon-free electricity of the Extreme Case is out of Pasadena’s control.

This is because the Glenarm Power Plant that Pasadenans own and PWP operates must be maintained and operated so long as the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) tells us we must. Under California law, we may not simply decide to turn it off or shut it down because we want to achieve the Extreme Case.

Instead, the CAISO gets to dictate whether Glenarm stays on and keeps generating electricity and will likely do so despite how high Pasadena decides to raise its electric rates. So long as others across California are dependent upon the power from Glenarm, we will be operating Glenarm — despite what the activists may hope or dream.

Given how well we’re already doing, how expensive it will be to adopt the Extreme Case, and what a bad idea it would be, please get in touch with your City Council member to let them know that Pasadenans cannot afford it.

David Coher is a former chair of the Pasadena Planning Commission.