City Council

>> good evening, everyone, and welcome to the July 23, 2019 meeting of the glendale city council. May we have the rollcall? >> [Rollcall] >> councilmember, would you please lead us in the flag salute? >> it would be my honor. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> please remained standing for today' s indication by reverend kurt poland, first german united methodist church of glendale. >> at the he was not able to make it, so I will do it myself. We pray for safe neighborhoods and prosperity and ask that we work together to make glendale a wonderful place for everyone who lives and works here. We ask that you look after all those who serve in our military and pray that they return home safe. We ask all this in your name, amen. >> Mr. Clerk, May we have your report? >> the agenda for the July 20 3, 2019 glendale city council was posted on the bulletin board outside city hall. >> thank you. What is the next item? >> agenda preview for the meeting of tuesday, July 30, 2019. >> there are no items on the housing authority agenda, but there will be a special meeting of city council commencing at 3:00 P.M. two items on the agenda from director of community development followed by revision to the municipal code noise control ordinance related to the use of amplified sound equipment. That evening, the city council meeting commencing at 6:00 P.M., there are a number of consent items. First two from director of public works regarding glendale beeline maintenance facility project. Services and secondly, sub regional traffic management center relocation project wallowed by three items from director of community center and parks, first one regarding acceptance of english language learner pilot grant to the workforce the bulletin board followed by acceptance of measure h bonds and thirdly, acceptance of disability employment accelerated grant to provide employment services for people with disabilities followed by two items from general manager of glendale water and power. Request for proposal' s for the design and build of the pipeline management program followed by professional services agreement to provide divine -- design services for fiber-optic expansion. Under action items, there are three items. General manager regarding authorization for repair and parts supply contract followed by director of public works regarding san fernando rotary rehabilitation phase three and adjacent street improvements project and leslie director of public works regarding amending the glendale municipal code regarding demolition debris. That concludes my report. >> thank you very much. >> I would like to nominate tonight for the community services and parks commission kate everly. >> thank you. [Applause] >> and what is the next item please? >> consent item. The following are routine and May be acted upon by one motion. Any member of council or an audience requesting a separate motion May do so by making such request before motion is proposed. >> with someone like to move the consent calendar? >> so moved. >> second. >> [Rollcall] >> next item, please. >> site a would be city council and staff comments. >> we start to my left. >> I have so many comments to make, but in the interest of everyone out there waiting tonight, I will resist. >> you really went up in my view. >> thank you. That' s what I was going for. >> I guess I' m going down. I have two announcements -- one announcement. I don' t know how many people are aware of the theater here in glendale, but they have the most marvelous productions. It is theater on broadway. $35 a ticket, very small theater, intimate, and every one of their productions is noteworthy. I' m just mentioning that because it' s here in our entertainment and arts district, and it' s fabulous and you should all experience it. My second is a request from our city manager, and there' s some concern in the community, especially among the shopping park association about sb 946, and that' s the vending senate bill, which is kind of like a free-for-all for vendors, and I' m wondering. I think we need to get out in front of this and developed a draft an ordinance so we can regulate the sale of oranges and food on our street corners so that we preserve the health and safety of our community. >> Mr. Mayor, nervous of the city council, councilmember devine, -- members of the city council, staff is already looking at sb 946 and will be evaluating and looking at options to see what we can bring to the city council. The conversation continues. >> thank you very much. The next item please. >> the next item would be community event announcements. >> I do have a card from michael morgan. >> good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council. Welcome back. Madame City manager, staff, glendale residents, my name is michael morgan. I' m President Of the historical society. I would like to invite everyone this saturday, July 27 at 8:00 P.M. Where having our annual silent movies at to strike park. Local celebrity joe renudo with his hand crank will be showing some of his favorite silent movies under the stars. If you don' t know joe r inaudo, it' s like watching movies under the stars. Humor is universal. They do all the silent programs for the american motion picture academy. That' s where the academy awards are. Bring a blanket or launcher, picnic or snacks, and a flashlight to help light your way out when the program is over. Step back 100 years in time when traveling projectionists brought movies to towns too small to have theaters. Again, this program is under the summer stars and is free and brought to you by the historical society and L.A. County parts this saturday, July 20 78:00 P.M., 5107 rosemont at to strike park, and as the beatles said, a good time will be had by all. Thank you very much. >> thank you. [Applause] I' m taking you a little bit out of order. I should have done you during the last segment. >> I stand before you a little embarrassed now. You did a lot of great work and adopted some standards and policies in the downtown specific plan area to enhance and implement your vision of the downtown. The work really was unique and it created some new concepts. The american planning association saw fit to recognize you for that, and we wanted to present you with a plaque. My plaque bearer have left. -- my plaque their verse -- my plaque bearers have left. So will do that later. >> that' s on me. I told him because it is such a pact evening, we would come back. >> we would not want to receive our awards in front of such a large audience. [Laughter] The next group of speakers I have is for the general public comments. >> good evening, mayor, and city councilmembers. Thank you for your time today. Because I have to leave earlier than most of these folks, I' m going to speak at this time about the current pressing topic, agenda item eight a -- agenda item 8a. >> we have a procedural rule that says if you are going to speak on an agenda item, you cannot make those comments during general public comment. >> ok. >> especially since I' m not going to beginning everyone else a three-minute time period. I' m going to modify this and give you one minute. Will reset the clock for you. >> thank you. >> as we all know, the concern about the climate crisis has presented itself as an issue right here in glendale. The ipc seek provided an objective report that states that we have a limited amount of time to make the crucial shift from natural gas to renewable energy. The expansion of the powerplant is a step backward rather than a step into the future. The repowering of the plant would likely make lindale the last city in california to approve a gas power plant. My future depends on many conversations just like this one and around the world. The shift of energy sources will happen because of state-mandated we don' t want glendale residents and glendale workers to be left behind. The plan does not just represent a local energy source. It represents melted glaciers, dying species, and much more. All we ask is to research all possible options before moving forward with any fossil fuels. Because of technological development, I can guarantee you you will find sustainable energy options our generation will continue to fight for the future and I' m not just fighting for the future but for my six-year-old sister. She is amazed by the solar system, and at what point in my life door have to explain to her that the reason she can no longer look at them is due to air pollution? Because our leaders made the choice to [Indiscernible] So please keep in mind the younger generations that will suffer the consequences and live on after you all. Thank you. [Applause] >> ok. [Applause] >> I hope everyone got that out of their system. Because I am not going to permit any applause from any side on any topic during this meeting. If you do so, I' m going to remind you, maybe once, the second time May result in us asking you to leave the room. This is not a sporting event. We are here to take information from the public and hear from our consultants, and we can best focus on those remarks if we do not have applause after the speakers. [Reading names] >> high. -- hi. You might have to give me only a minute as well. Is that ok? I' m going to speak to L.A. As a whole, even though we are in glendale, but we are also dodgers fans, some of us, I think we are, right? For 19 of the last 20 years, L.A. Has beat out every other american city for something. We beat chicago, boston, miami, houston, new york city -- we beat new york city -- at being the smoggiest city in the U.S. l.A. Averaged 111 days per year when the air was not healthy to breathe. That' s about, like, every monday, tuesday, wednesday, and sometimes friday. You wake up, brush her teeth, drive to work, and then breathe poison air. Ok. I' m here because I think we have an opportunity right now for change and growth to be leaders in the movement toward a sustainable carbon neutral world . I don' t want us to be the winners of the pollution game, you know? I want us to be the winners of the sustainable game and renewable energy, and I think this is the future, and I think this is where money is and where opportunity is, and I think we can save ourselves money in the long run if we invest now in mental energy. Cool. Thank you. >> I don' t have any other speaker cards for this portion of public comment. Let' s move to the next item please. >> action items, item eight a, integrated resource planning report upgrade -- update regarding glendale water and power request for proposals for local and regional vanilla below carbon and zero carbon resource options to save these -- serve the city of glendale rfp. Resolution adopting the glendale water and power 2019 integrated resourc plan. 2, resolution authorizing gwp' s continued participation in intermountain power project and timing such action is exempt from the california environmental quality act. 3, resolution dispensing with competitive bidding for the clean energy rfp and clean energy proposals and authorizing the general manager of glendale water and power to pursue further negotiations of potential distributed energy resources contracts with the following firms -- franklin energy, line energy services company, permit city construction corp., and sun run incorporated. 4, resolution authorizing the general manager and to utilize the alternative project delivery method for the engineer procurement and construction of the battery energy storage system, an internal combustion engines at grace and power plant and the long-term performance and service agreements for them. 5, motion over warning professional service agreement to tesla incorporated for a limited notice to proceed with professional services related to permitting, design, and environmental review of the proposed development of a better g -- battery energy storage system at the grace and power plant and an amount not to exceed 100 $14,000 and authorizing the city manager to execute said agreement. 6, motion awarding psa to wa rtsila north america incorporated for a limited notice to proceed with professional services relating to permitting, design, and environmental review of the proposed development of a for internal combustion internet the grace and power plant in an amount not to exceed $955,000 and authorizing the city manager to execute said agreement. 7, molded -- motion authorizing an amendment to psa number 800-0053 with stantec consulting services incorporated to increase the contract amount by 240 thousand dollars, plus a 10% contingency for professional consulting services under the california environmental quality act pertaining to the proposed modernization of the grace and power plant. 8, resolution declaring the intention to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of a proposed tax-exempt financing for the proposed modernization of the grace and power plant and the world nine, resolution appropriating $1,921,100. >> before we get started, I want to give everyone a road map of where we are going this evening procedurally. We will shortly be turning this over to gwp staff and any other consultants that will be making the primary presentation am to us and then will be going to council for questions only on the presentation. We will not be making arguments or any discussion. I will then go to the public can call the public up, those who have submitted cards will be given a chance to speak. I still have not determined how many minutes each person will be allotted. I do want to keep this discussion and interaction fresh. I don' t want to have either babies falling asleep or councilmembers falling asleep through an extended discussion period. I' ve been going to go back to counsel for the discussion analysis and positions on the item. Those of you who have not yet turned in a speaker card, now is the time to do so. Those in the police community overflow room, those downstairs and those in the audience here in chambers who wish to speak but who have not yet turned in a card, please do so at some point perhaps in the next 10 or 15 minutes, I' m going to instruct the clerk not to accept any more cards. You' ve got a little bit of a warning in advance. That' s how I' m going to determine how long we will give each person to speak. I believe we have assistance both in the community room downstairs and also in the chambers to assist with transmitting your card. That being said, I will turn to our city manager. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, thank you and good evening. As you know, we were before the city council in April of 20 18 with an E.I.R. For a natural gas power generation repowering project and a battery option to replace the aging generators at grayson. City council at the time quite aptly directed the staff, us, to go back and find cleaner alternatives. That was very clear from the city council in April of 2018, for us to go and seek cleaner alternatives. We took a pause, and we have we have done. We are now here before you to present the results of the clean energy rfp and the 2019 integrated resource planning report, which is a planning document, a road map, if you will, as it relates to the irp itself for the next five years. Again, because of your direction, we can be both reliable, and we can be green here in the city of glendale. A repowered grayson is an integral part of glendale' s plan to move to 100% green energy future, and there is no practical way for us to skip forward to deal with this gap we have in place without some sort of a project. We are moving ever so slowly in this very important decision you all had to make, and tonight is only one step in that process. I repeat -- tonight is one step in that process. I think that is really important in that decision-making process, that first step. There will be multiple more opportunities where we will be before the city council for you to continue to give us feedback and to give us a direction in terms of what you are looking for for glendale' s future energy needs. At this time, I will keep it short. I will pass it on to Mr. Zurn who will be giving I think a brief overview and inviting Dr. Gary to our stall. >> I think she kicked this off aptly. Here we are. We are back and we are back with what we think, and to just echo her words, a much better plan as a result of your foresight in having us look into this a little bit further. And without further ado because of going to turn this over to Dr. Doris, who is the cofounder and ceo of ascend analytics, who assisted us both in the irp process and the clean energy review process from the analytical and modeling standpoint. I' m going to ask him to come up. He has quite a detailed presentation. That will be followed up -- I will make some summary comments and go over the couple of important items, and then we will turn it over to Ms. Cadena' s, who will try to go to the long list that was ready you at the beginning and try to decipher it or put it into words that are more understandable. At the same time during my summary comments, I would be happy to go over what next steps are. There are several future steps we will need to consider before we finalize this project. i will be happy to go through those with you to give you an idea what those are and some general timeline of when we expect to be back. With that, Dr. Doris. >> good evening, counsel. It is a pleasure to be back here again, this time with some real results. Then looking forward to sharing them with you. We are going to go over the activities of the last -- let' say, year -- where we have been actively pursuing and analyzing new resource options for the city of glendale with respect to repowering the grayson station. Without further ado, I' m going to move through these slides. First, a little bit of historic context. My presentation will go on for about 25 minutes, I expect. Feel free to interrupt at any point with questions. That would be fine. How did we get here? In March 2018, there was an original repowering plan of 262 megawatts of natural gas from siemens to repowered grayson station. With some wisdom, this council said let' s take a pot and look at what has happened in the last several years and maybe take advantage of some new technologies and resource options. That proved to be quite prudent because we are here today having gone through the steps of an rfp, soliciting responses, evaluated those responses carefully, developed and finalized and integrated resource plan and are at the point now where we have some critical decisions to make because we can it looks like make significant inroads in addressing climate issues, the environment, and be very cost-effective as well. This is a wonderful plan. It makes a big, bold statement in terms of addressing critical issues that concern everybody here. Glendale starts from a leadership position with respect to environmental stewardship. It' s a good place to be, particularly when you are making a bold move forward. With respect to the regional electricity mix, an article in "the l a times" from this past sunday has glendale leading its peer group in the L.A. Basin. New the cleanest in terms of carbon emissions. That' s a good thing, something to stand proud of. This is something this plan will carry forward and continue to have the strong leadership you have exhibited in the past. When we undertake a power plan, something that economists like me get into in terms of both reliability, keeping the lights on, focusing on some of the values, clean and reliable, making sure we interact and integrate some of the community. We have done this with multiple meetings with the community in soliciting their participation and involved rocky mountain institute as well as experts to solicit community anticipation. We have analyzed things carefully all on the way and tried to achieve the highest level of standards in terms of integrating all the available information that is out there today to arrive at what we have come to for the resource plan. This is not done with an absence of looking at cost. Obviously, today, you are facing some critical decisions about how to allocate public capital towards the decision to improve the underlying reliability of the grid here as well as make a statement about improving the environment. We want to do this in mind that there are people who do have budget limits and we cannot just spend. We don' t think money grows on trees, but maybe that would solve climate change. All right, well, the recommended resources for the grayson replacement, we' re looking at solar, local, some tesla batteries. Some energy efficiency as well and demand response. Finally, backup generation from some wartsila engines that burn natural gas today and I envisioned in the future summer new fuel. How did we get here, other than the fact that you directed us to reevaluate? And what are we looking at? We' re looking at a situation where the city of glendale generation in contingency conditions, but generally, the supply of energy comes externally to the city. There' s 100 megawatts of interconnection. Locally, we have about 210 megawatts of replacement portfolio for the grayson stations one through eight that and we have grayson nine, which we plan on keeping, as well as magnolia just down the road in burbank, each tallying 48 megawatts. Peak load has been 344 megawatts. Thank you for attending to that. What we are dealing with in terms of a decision is how do we shore up the supply ability? We need dependable local generation. The reason glendale needs dependable local generation is simple -- we' re dependent on external supply, and that could be renewable energy coming from the east over the inner ties. If the pacific tide goes down or the southwest tie goes down, the city when it is in peak load is in the tough spot and it needs backup generation. In addition, the magnolia powerplant has shown a great aptitude to have great outages during extreme peaks. That makes the system a little more precarious. With high unforced outages on magnolia and grayson and the fact that there are and have been curtailment' s to the transmission digitized -- inner ties leads to what we' re calling a reliability requirement. You cannot lose the pacific inner tie, which is the most frequent line to go out or magnolia or grayson. we keep the lights on without some significant firming to the local power supply. That is why we are replacing grayson. I think it is pretty understood and the math adds up to me to do something. The question is -- what do we do? Well, we know how much we wanted to obtain in terms of power supply. That' s easy. That' s a math calculation. Then it comes to sorting through what is the best resource mix. We received 34 vendor solicitations, and we want to take the best of those, so we went through some screening process and some feasibility analysis. We scored all the proposals and attributes of everybody who could provide. We did vendor interviews with a final shortlist. Today, we are going to be looking at what are the results and relative options that we decided not to pursue. Here are the alternatives summarized that reach that feasible shortlist, ok? And how could they be combined in different portfolios in ways that would achieve the reliability concerns, and then what is the economic environmental impact? What we found was the existing portfolio obviously needed to be repowered. Doing that with natural gas, that' s portfolio b, the siemens-type plan. that was about $130 million more than what was picked, and it was a dirtier, so that' s easy to move on rom. Then we have portfolio c. Just with noble resources, plus some storage and 100 megawatts of I ceo' s. Then portfolio d, which adds in clean and local distributed resources as well as maintaining the solar and wind, plus 112 megawatts of ice. The chosen portfolio is 93 megawatts of ice or five ice' s, internal combustion engines, plus the balance of distributed resources, but noble wind and solar, and 75 megawatts of batteries. It' s real simple. We' re going from d to f -- or c two f, all have internal combustion engines and batteries. F ratchets down from 523 but increases the batteries by 25 megawatts and only has three ice ' s or 56 megawatts. Portfolio g is 100% clean. And has no internal combustion engines. But it has 150 megawatts of batteries and was put up there as a point of comparison. It does not meet the reliability standards by any means. If I was to quantify the forced outages in dollar value in 20 years, it would be 2200 $21 million, so portfolio g is woefully short. Make the green, but does not meet reliability. -- May be green but does not meet reliability. Portfolio and has $221 million in outages. Portfolios e, c, d, and b do meet the criteria, but e, although it May not be the least cost as you will see in a minute furthers the objective of making a bold move toward the environment. >> May I ask you to compare e and f one more time? >> sure, and we will be going over this in more detail. The real difference between e and f is there' s 75 megawatts of batteries in e and 100 megawatts of that ariz in f, and I have five ice' s in e and three in f. S is infeasible -- f is infeasible under standards. We will go of this decision. I' m really trying to frame this problem in an economic construct where you have all information you can to make the right decision. I' m trying to make this as easy as possible given the complexity of the problem. I know the objectives -- keep the lights on and make a big, bold statement about the environment, show your leadership, and I think we have a framework where you will have all the data you need to make a good decision. I presented here the value of cost between the different portfolios. This goes through least cost to highest cost. The highest cost is on the right. that' s natural gas power, the old plan you directed us away from. Actually, it is a slightly updated plan. A $704 million. The selected portfolio is second in terms of cost at $570 million. That' s portfolio e. Obviously, just going with portfolio c would be the least cost, and it satisfies reliability as well. We thought it was consistent with the city' s objectives, keeping the lights on, meeting reliability requirements as portfolio c does, making a little bit more bold statement about the environment, spending extra, close to $90 million extra, so this is a real commitment by the city -- excuse me, it' s not $90 million. It' s $82 million more. There are major reductions from adopting this plan. If we look at where we were just a little over a year ago, we were at the siemens repower. This had emissions in terms of thousands of metric tons of carbon. We are today at 329. We would go down to 280. Not only have you lowered emissions 40% after the clean rfp but you have also reduced cost by about 20%. That is a real move in the right direction, both cost and for the environment. This is the way to go. We believe collectively, my company and our expertise in conjunction with the utility, is portfolio e. It is the preferred plan on every metric you can think of, and I' m going to show you that. First, let' s talk about air quality. It drops from 25 to about 10. Clearly, repowering is going to be powerful for improving air quality. More excitingly, I think, is what glendale does in terms of a statement with this plan about improving co2 emissions. In one decade, you are looking at a city that will have net emissions reductions that goes negative when you factor in the transportation sector. What is happening in this chart is simple. You look at the yellow -- that' s ipp. It is a cold plant that retires in 2025, and the portfolio becomes a little cleaner after that. Furthermore, in 2026, with the repowering and additional nobles, we end up in a continuous action towards making a cleaner -- repowering and additional renewables. Not just reducing the upper bar but the lower bar. That' s wonderful. Dwp exceeds what carbon has stated in roughly half the time for its goals for carbon reduction. And it does so profoundly by the time 2030 is around. New negative -- near negative in terms of net carbon emissions. the problems have become more complex because now we have trade-offs. It was always the power sector on its own. Now we are looking at an integrated set of emissions. We need to begin factoring in how decisions today can be traded off for decisions made in the transportation sector. How can decisions in power maybe program decisions made in the transportation sector? What you see here is they are inextricably linked. We need to set up -- we need to look at the power sector and transportation sector as both under your dominion and deserve your attention in terms of improvements in co2 reductions. Want to get to this detailed comparison. The slide, I understand, is slightly wonky by my colleagues, but I like it because it frames the problem in an economic context for the decisions you are facing. You understand we have recommended portfolio that are e. I know you are looking closely at portfolio f and portfolio g. F is 100 megawatts of batteries, three sce' s, g is 100% clean. If I take the nameplate capacities that are shown up top , if we look at the cost metrics, we look at an pv -- m pv of the cost. Remember, portfolio f is inadequate and portfolio g is severely inadequate. Portfolio g is really unattainable, but it is there as a point of reference. What we want to do is look at do we accoun for the reliability metric, $10,000 a megawatt hour, and look at what is the marginal cost difference in terms of dollars and co2 reductions, how do these portfolios ferry? It cost us $1264 per time of carbon to go from portfolio e to portfolio f and then go from portfolio e to portfolio g, it is $2000 a ton. Let' s frame this a little more carefully. You could spend your money a lot more wisely if you were trying to preserve the environment and going to portfolio f or g, but this is about making a bold statement about the environment, going with f or g would not be that. It would be irresponsible. That is shown here. Overall, the state is 10% of carbon emissions from the electricity sector. You want to tackle climate change, a big slice of the pie by far in california is the transportation sector. This means electrifying the transportation sector. It is the link between the power, the electricity company, and cleanup the environment, through transportation today in terms of being effective, good stewardship toward the environment. We look at these programs I have here in costs of carbon reductions, dollars per metric ton to start with energy efficiency, these are small programs. And we hit big ones. Renewable electric vehicles, electric buses, charging infrastructure. they have in norma co2 reduction potential. If we compare that to the blue charts on the right, you could see a adopting portfolio f is $1200 a ton. Their cleaner, just irrationally cleaner from any economic perspective. You can buy a town of paper today for about $10 a ton, put it in the ground. It' s a little extreme, but the point is there are other programs out there in other sectors that deserve your attention. Go for the low marginal cost reductions, not the high marginal cost reduction when making a decision. We are recommending you go for the low marginal cost. There is a savings between portfolio e and f. That money could be spent much more wisely elsewhere. Furthermore, there' s a $220 million difference in reliability. That needs to be factored in. That could be spent as well if you factor that in, but don' t spend it trying to chase these high marginal cost reductions. That' s just ports -- poor stewardship in terms of economic resources to obtain environmental goals. Finally, we do look at portfolio g. There are times when it is wonderful and we could have normal operating ranges, everything is great, the lights are on, and it could be days like today where it is steaming hot outside, and the batteries just don' t have enough electricity to charge them. A line goes out. This happened in kawai just yesterday where their thermal generator went down and this clouds and they cannot charge the batteries adequately, so they have rolling blackouts. Tough thing to have on a hot day like today. Simple thing to avoid, though. In terms of making the right decision and allocating public capital towards a common goal environmental injectors -- objectives, I think portfolio e does it and any other portfolio, while well intended, does not realize the broader goals. I' m open for questions from the commission. Counsel -- council, excuse me. >> ok, questions. Before we get to questions, I would like to point out that it is about 26 minutes after I gave a 10-minute warning to turn in cards. At this point, if cards are not turned in by 7:00 P.M., we will not accept them. It is 6:56. Seven: -- 7:00 P.M. Is the deadline for card submission. All right, questions. >> what would you say to the person that would criticize you, that you are using scare tactics ? >> I don' t know what kind of scare tactics I would be invoking here. >> you just said if you don' t have the gas -- >> oh, scare tactics about reliability. Look, all we' re trying to do is do simple math with respect to understanding the probability of an outage, looking at those outages occurring and saying, what would happen, how often, and it is simple -- you have already demonstrated a precarious system today. We talked about this, I think, last December. December 21, I believe it was. The system is vulnerable, and we have multiple case studies last year and the year before where there were blackouts in neighborhoods during peak load. There were different incidents that had caused it, but if those incidents had not occurred, the would have been. So there were multiple factors. The system needs this. That' s not the question. I' m not trying to scare everybody. -- I' m not try to scare anybody. I' m not trying to overstate the needs because that would be at your capital and would be a waste of funds. There' s better places to spend your money than power that is going to sit on a cement block. You have wrought objectives I know with housing and other issues you want to address. We want to do this lean and economically efficient. I have tried to do that. >> page three, there' s a comparison between six cities. It shows the portfolio basically that every city has. Our coal is very, very, very small, basically. Compared to anaheim or even pasadena or riverside. Our 1 is as good as pasadena and better than riverside, burbank, anaheim, and L.A. My question is the yellow lines, that indicates the natural gas, right? Is this the natural gas that we currently use, or this is projected for the >> this is our current use. >> so, 2017, right there. Councilmember gharpetian: sorry, I am trying to get the answer again. So it is a current use. With the new grayson, what would happen to that natural gas usage? >> so, if I could get the additional information, because that is an excellent question. I want to frame it in a way like this and it is just a touch on a few things. When we started the process, there was a lot of folks saying we were expanding the plan, adding new gas. Even then at our preferred recommendation in 2018, that wasn' t the case. Today, it is significant different. New gas or expansion is not occurring. We are reducing both the size of the plant and the gas we used at the plant. There is no new gas. We are reducing the exact -- existing amount of gas and we are contracting. We are reducing the size of the plant from its current 250 to 93. As a comparison, and I hope to answer your question, if we look at this graph on the left is the comparison of the recommended, tonight' s recommended, thermal units to 93 megawatts. On the blue, you see what is the capacity percentage that we are predicting this will be used. We use for our modeling purposes, 14%. You can see the amount of gas. That is the blue. On the right in the salmon-colored box is the hypothetical if you were to run those units 100% of the time which we know is both physically impossible and certainly never necessary, but that is the amount of gas -- whoops. Councilmember gharpetian: can you go back? >> on the right is current grayson. In the same comparison. In the blue box is a 14% capacity factor. You see it burning 6.8 billion btu. So, you compare the blue boxes. 6.8 million gas today out of 14% capacity versus 958,000 for the proposed plant. If you look at the salmon colored box, it is 19 million, if you rent it at 100%. The hypothetical 100%. Councilmember gharpetian: the next question is that, even if both projects use the same amount of gas, which they don' t because the new one would use a lot less, the efficiency of those gases, the emissions they generate is way different than the old and new one. >> absolutely. It is much more efficient. If you look at something as simple as the heat rate -- factoring in at near 14,000 with a heat rate factor. The proposed is under 9000. You look at that alone, that comparison and just the gross decrease in the gas usage, absolutely, that equipment will run more effectively and omissions will be significantly less. That is what Dr. Doris was showing in his comparisons. Councilmember gharpetian: thank you. Mayor najarian: let me go to others who May have questions. >> back to the same chart, page three. Ok. We know glendale and los angeles get electricity from utah, right? What now used to be coal which is now gas, right? >> it is still coal today. >> I want to see in your calculation, did you consider the gas you are using to generate electricity, is that considered in this chart or not? >> yes. >> it is 2017 assessment from eia data. The percent electricity makes. It is all publicly available data that a los angeles times reporter took to make this chart. Real straightforward. Glendale stacks up pretty well. I think with portfolio e, it is going to be ahead of its peers. Councilmember agajanian: in this calculation, this graph -- >> that is 2017. If you look at that far box on the right, the coal. The only coal we get is a small percentage of ipp. Most of those other participants get a pretty sizable amount. But also get coal from other sources as well. That is ipp today and that is what our share was the end of 2017. >> I have a few questions. And maybe it is more Mr. Zern' s alley. What is the total peak load we are looking at in terms of the future demand? >> for us we, have a current peak load of 350 megawatts. Dr. Doris has probably more handy the figures we are projected to go by 2030. I believe we modeled 2038. >> slide 29. >> the other one? >> yes. >> no, the other presentation. >> yes. >> yup. 29. >> there we go. There is the people of. Let' s look at the expected value. 338 in 2018. And, we are going to 377 by 2038. That is the mean. The 95th is 432. 333 is the fifth. >> are we factoring in the increase in electronic vehicles, ev' s? >> yes, that is factored in. >> how about electricity use for transit buses? Are we factoring that in also? >> yes. Hold on, I have a slide on this. Give me a second. If you go back to slide 28, I think that will cover it. There we go, slide 26 would be great. There we go. So, here' s the total demand. This is in gigawatt hours. And, as we look forward into the future, we are looking at rooftop solar. >> I' m talking about the assumption for the ev load, is that for personal vehicles? >> yes. >> the teslas, bolts, volts. Are we factoring in electric buses? >> I believe there is an electric bus program included as well. >> so, how about -- did you hear the city of berkeley passed a law banning all natural gas in homes by the year 2020 for new installations? >> yes, I' m very familiar. >> is the home usage of natural gas a contributor to our total carbon footprint? >> of course, it is a contributor. >> what percent? 10%, isn' t it? Or 7%? >> it is around that. We have the state residential use. I showed that on slide 14. 15. >> if we were to ban natural gas in homes and go to electric, is that in assumption you have? >> no. >> that would increase -- >> it would. 7% is associated with residential natural gas. It is currently assessed by cc., >> let me see if I can help you, Mr. Mayor. We have this statistic from the gas company. This is 2016 final data. 26,888,000 used in residential. 3,700,000 in commercial. 12 million in grayson. Mayor najarian: the projections that you have do not include a possible legislation be it at the municipal level or state level two ban natural gas in the use of homes. If such a legilation were to pass, it would significant increase our electric demand. Is that a fair statement? >> very fair. Mayor najarian: I' m surprised that shows up to 7% of our total carbon emissions are from residential. >> so am I. Mayor najarian: I' m not. A year ago, I showed some slides and part of my slides indicated natural gas burners, natural gas hot water heaters. There was some sort of chuckles going around but it is a significant issue. >> it is. Mayor najarian: I will leave it at that. I want to save this for questions. Earlier on, you were talking about the internal combustion engines. You said in the future, they may be using some other renewable fuel. What are you talking about? >> well, it could be -- landfill gas, hydrogen. It could be a mixture of fuels. Mayor najarian: it could be adaptable to the other renewables? >> that is an important component because I don' t think you will be able to pipe in enough energy to deal with the changes you are talking about in the residential/commercial sector with natural gas being more electrified and transportation being more electrified. You cannot store it for certain critical periods. Through the existing transmission network, high-voltage transition network. You are going to be relying on these units in the future. They will just be burning renewable fuels, that' s all. Mayor najarian: on slide 13, you are talking about negative net emissions. What are you talking about, negative net emissions? That means we are taking emissions away? We are not at zero, we are at negative? What do you mean by that and how is that -- >> ok. Just using carbs metrics. The california resource port is saying, you can credit reductions in the transportation sector effectively towards the electric sector on a municipal level. Taking credit for programs that the city or state could initiate in the transportation sector as a positively impacts co2. Those credits, we are accounting for here. Mayor najarian: under which plan? >> the existing plan. Plan e. Mayor najarian: the recommended plan. >> yes. Mayor najarian: I don' t have any other questions. Ms. Devine? Councilmember devine: mine are more academic and probably more for staff, because they concern the staff report and items that are in the staff report. First of all, on page 11 of the staff report -- sorry. Right, 11. Initially, we are going to put in a 50 megawatt battery. >> correct. Councilmember devine: and then somewhere along the line, we are going to be putting in a 25 megawatt battery at a later date. Somehow, I heard the date 2030. Is there a possibility that 25 megawatts could come in earlier? >> yes. 3 2030 is the estimate a date but it could come in earlier. We are not tied to that date. Councilmember devine: what I am trying to do is, this is a plan. It is not carved in stone. Some of it can be changed, tweak and redone. The irp is going to be updated every year, is that correct? >> it is required to be updated every five years. I have no problem bringing it to you for a review each year. We have to bring you the power content label every year and review it with you. At the same time, I can review that. Councilmember devine: in 2021, the -- it appears that the renewables flatline. It appears there is no rise in renewables. Is that the plan or are we flexible as far as 2021? We could find, have more renewables? >> no, we can find more. We have two different charts. One shows capacity. Another chart later on where you clearly see the increased in three things. Ev' s. You see it in pv and storage. You see it in energy efficiency. Councilmember devine: another thing -- here' s what I wanted to bring up. On page 13, in the first paragraph, the last sentence of the first paragraph, I asked for a change here. It says gwp must return to city council for approval before the proposed units could be installed. I' d like to have that changed to purchased, to make sure -- if we say installed, that means we have already purchased. I think we need to say it' s got to come back to counsel before they are purchased and not installed. >> that was the intent, we just did not spell it out right. Councilmember devine: my final question, very briefly. The der program, I don' t know how many people read this, it is going to cost $15.5 million a year estimated. Can you ask plane now that -- explain how that cost comes about? That would be kind of put on the ratepayers, the $15.5 million. >> right. If we can go back -- sorry. I had a cost breakdown for you. It is -- it is the last graph. The pie charts. The first one -- that is the first one. This is a breakdown of the bond. This is the bondable capital. It' s set at $281 million, which includes the 50 megawatt and battery. The additional 25 would be paid out of the capital program. This is the amount we are recommending tonight. We' ve got 127 in thermal. 73.7 for the battery storage. The bos is the demolition and construction. We have a contingency for all of those, including air permitting costs. That is the bondable amount. Those of the items that can be bonded. The next pie chart shows the der program. These cannot be included. Energy resources. For us, that includes with battery storage, energy efficiency. It includes an energy efficiency involved, temperature control, lighting upgrades. As proposed, these are as the firm' s proposed, we are recommending that we continue to negotiate with. You can see the total amount is 145 million. It is rather frontloaded in totality. You can see $60.2 million would be in the first four years. This again goes into our mno costing. This is something we have to look at, deferring with rates or a combination of reserves and rates. At some point in time, reserves go down and requires rates to rebuild. This is something our recommendation to you, we like these firms. We think the prices May be a little steep and we are seeking your permission to continue to talk and negotiate with them. What are those rate impacts? We put into the report because of the frontloaded nature of it with the potential was for a first-year impact could be. Then we would have to model this in our cost of service analysis to see what would it be for that point forward. We have to find out what the absolute final price it would be and what it is comprehensively and how it fit into the model. Councilmember devine: it is still negotiable, but I think -- it' s something the public should know. That green isn' t cheap. Green is going to cost, but it seems like that is what they want and they will deal with it. Thank you. councilmember gharpetian: just a follow-up. When you say frontloaded, are you referring to the cost of the der programs? $62 million is based on that first four years? >> correct. Councilmember gharpetian: that will get transferred to the ratepayers? >> that is a big initial hit. That is the one we are looking at. > councilmember devine: I did my math and I divided by four. Councilmember gharpetian: ok. >> if you look at this chart, so that we are -- sorry. Councilmember gharpetian: on the same chart where you are saying the very first four years will be $62 million. That each year will be $15.6 million. 80,000 subscribers? >> 88,000 meters. Councilmember gharpetian: that will be like $180 per year per customer? >> all I can say, that is really straight math. Councilmember gharpetian: that is like $15 a month. >> when you assigned it across the ratepayers, we have to abide by certain regulations. It May not come out to exactly that but if you did straight math, that is the number. Councilmember gharpetian: the 80,000 subscribers -- meters. You are not going to divide -- we can' t divide that over the 88,000 because some of them will not be included, in my right? >> there is an issue with how we structure our rates across the service analysis and make sure per prop 26 that we have equity among the various rate paying quest -- classifications. We need to work with the city' s attorney' s office and outside legal counsel to confirm, but it could be that certain classes would have a bigger impact than others because that particular der program is dedicated to one particular rate class. For instance, one of those is just single-family homes. Councilmember gharpetian: 88,000 is only -- >> it is the entire city. I' m saying if we are looking at it, it is potential that one rate class, single-family homes, could absorb a higher than $15 you were saying because it May not necessarily be even math across all 88,000. That is something we need to review and something we will continue to talk with these firms about as we negotiate. Councilmember gharpetian: ok. It might be that it is more than $15 of. -- a month. >> you went across the board. It May be that some rate classes do not have any impact and others have a higher impact. Councilmember gharpetian: thank you. Mayor najarian: if there are no other questions, thank you, Dr. Doris. Stand by. I have over 30, 33 cards. I' m going to call the speakers up and get everyone -- give everyone -- I' m going to give everyone two minutes to speak, with the exception of a major stakeholder in this. And that is Mr. Brachtman from the glendale environmental coalition. Is there is a -- if there is another major stakeholder, perhaps on the other side of this issue, please identify yourself to me when I call your name and I will consider extending your time as well. So, let' s start with dan bachtma n. Five minutes. >> good evening, council members, mayor and city staff. We have very little time so I will cut to the chase. We commend glendale water and power for the movement and has made since it was last brought to counsel. A year ago, we were looking at an overly expensive 262 megawatt all gas project. Now it is 63 megawatts of gas, plus a sizable investment in clean energy. The new project according to the irp is not only cleaner and more flexible, but cheaper. To this question of the cost of green energy, that is a timing issue. The overall project on a per value basis is cheaper that $174 million from the portfolio that was presented a little over a year ago. That should be clear. I commend glendale water and power, but we need to remember how this change came about. It came about because the glendale environmental coalition pointed out the flaws in the original proposal. Had we not organized, and it was a great personal expense to all of us. We could have been doing much more interesting and fun things. We would phones we certainly staring down the barrel of an unnecessarily dirty and extensive project. If I May, a big thanks to the community that worked hard to get to where we are now is in order. I would like to ask all the gec members and their supporters to please stand up for one second. Thank you. Of course, we also owe a great debt of gratitude for city council for listening and making a wise decision so thank you. While we are happy with the direction gwp is going in, we believe they can do a lot better. Our position is outlined in the letter we submitted two weeks ago. We are not, despite what some are saying, calling for zero gas at grayson. We fully understand that unit 9 will be with us for some time, as will magnolia. The day we talk about retiring those units will come but it is not now. We are also not saying definitively that we can avoid any new gas. We believe that if the right steps are taken, as outlined in our letter, we will not need any new gas. That is our hope and our goal. In the meantime, we feel that gwp has not made a convincing case it has done everything it can to forgo the need for new gas. So we are calling for a common sense, balanced, and I believe, low risk approach for glendale. What we are saying is go full steam ahead on the clean energy projects. At the same time, we are ok proceeding with preliminary engineering, permitting and environmental review for the gas units. It is a major concession but we think it is sensible. We suggest gwp make arrangements that will allow it to retire units one through eight now and start environmental remediation of the grayson site without committing upfront to gas. Our preliminary conversations suggest this can be done in a way that does not limit our options should we end up needing to repower later. This is important because laying the groundwork will take time, two to three years probably, and we don' t want to end up two to three years out finding out we do need gas and have to start the whole process and it will take another two to three years. I don' t think any of us want that. What we are saying is get the ball rolling and we think it is possible. In the meantime, we are asking staff to work diligently on the three points we put out in our letter. One is to negotiate better resource sharing arrangements with L.A. Department of water and how are, from with our conversations with them, we know we welcome better resource sharing. It would allow glendale to operate comfortably without having to raise ratepayer money. Two, they should map out a plan to get additional transmission which is necessary for us to meet S.B. 100 goals. L.A. Wp is willing to bring glendale into the projects as long as we pay their fair share. Three, we need to identify more local distributive energy resources. Gwp has built 50 megawatts that could be implement it within the next three years. It left them. -- important pieces of the puzzle on site like solar or certain types of demand response. We need to work on these things and then, and then revisit the need for gas. The public has spoken. Despite the city' s recent attempts to dismiss our voices, glynn residents want the lights to stay on but they want this done without worsening the air for our children and elderly or contribute in further to the climate crisis. Thank you. Mayor najarian: I' m going to take -- no clapping. I' m going to take someone out of order. Laura dominguez, as a young child who is a little squirmy, and would like to perhaps -- ayo young boy or young girl. I' m going to jump ahead to laura dominguez. After Ms. Dominguez will be adrian griffin and then steve colton. >> good evening, mayor and council. My little four-year-old has been waiting anxiously to share something with you. Do you want to say something? Say it loud. >> I wanted to say, today, I wanted to say not to build the nasty gas plant because it makes it so hard for us to breathe. We shouldn' t make it. That' s why I need medicine, because I want nobody -- it makes it so hard for us to breathe. That' s what I wanted to tell you about that. That' s why I have a sign in the front so I can tell as many people do not build the nasty gas plant, because it makes it so hard to breathe. >> what she was trying to say is she has asthma and it is very difficult for us to go to the park. She' s playing in the playground, people -- I want to ask the mayor a question. Ii notice coming up the stairs where the pictures are -- at the time of the clean-air ordinance came around. My question is -- it seems like at that time, the health of your constituents was very important. It seems like now with all these ideas, it does not seem so. Mayor najarian: was there a question? >> has anything changed as far the constituents and the safety and health care of constituents? Mayor najarian: well -- that' s a little ambiguous, but no, nothing has changed. >> my question then -- I want to talk more about the smoke-free ordinance. Can you hear me? Mayor najarian: if you can move closer. We are giving two minutes to everyone. We are not on the five-minute clock. >> there' s a lot of things I would like to talk about, but really quickly, as a full-time parent an employee, glendale resident, homeowner, taxpayer, a lot of our time away from my children is time away at work, time away from my children. I would like to ask you consider looking into that. I would -- I had a whole speech we left at home, I would like you to consider. And listen to the professionals about the clean-air and all the complications of our children. Mayor najarian: thank you. Next speaker is adrian griffin. Followed by steve colton. >> good evening, city council. Can you hear me? I' m adrian griffin and I live here in mantras. I' m one of your constituents. I' m in accounting. And two weeks ago, glendale environmental coalition came out here and was on your steps. They came into the chambers and i believe they spoke as well. And, one of the questions that has come up is how many people were actually here two weeks ago. And, I' ve had some conversation with you about that. I wanted to let you know that we had more than 400 people on the steps two weeks ago. It would appear that -- you know, there was a question in the glendale news press about that because of a public relations speaker from the city of glendale. And they said to the glendale news press that the numbers were a lot lower. The number that they used was actually a quarter of what was actually signed and. So, I wanted you to know that I just counted every single one of these people and there are 370 names here on this piece of paper. And, what that means is that there really were a percentage larger than 370 people because we know -- not everyone signs in. We just don' t. That is how it works. Not everyone realized there was a sign in sheet or they signed it on somebody else' s sheet for something else. We know that there were at least 410 or more people, so we will say 400. Mayor najarian: thank you. Steve colton, followed by david eisenberg. >> good evening, councilmembers, staff members, and mayor. My name is steve colton. i have lived in glendale for 38 years. I have been a ratepayer the entire time. What I want to do is deliver one message for the glendale environmental coalition of which I am a member and that is please, don' t oppose us. Work with us. I want to speak to the invocation where it says we will be a better city if we work together. We have been offering help to gwp to host events with vendors to work together as a coalition. As a member of this city and as a stakeholder that has not occurred. They have declined our offer. Repeatedly. We want to change that. We are here, we are ready to work together with the city. Some of our efforts included calling vendors to get them to participate and in fact, 50% of the finalists were contacted by us. We have been successful. We could be more successful. The process could have been more successful. We would have had a better one. We could have moved this process along a lot faster if we work together. I would like to show you one thing. We have contacted, over the year -- oh. Over 300 people who are willing to participate in the virtual power plant. Without much effort. We could do a lot better as a coalition with the city. and, they have given us their names, addresses and ready to sign on as soon as it gets implemented. Once again, I ask please work with us, be inclusive. Thank you. Mayor najarian: thank you. David eisenberg, followed by glenn webb. >> good evening, mayor, councilmembers. My name is