Recommendation to Receive and file a report on the feasibility of a Long Beach Community Choice Aggregation (CCA); Defer for two years any decision whether to participate in a CCA, or possibly sooner if new information becomes available solidifying benefits, to allow for increased stability in the California electricity market and reduce potential risk to residents and businesses; Direct City Manager to perform community outreach regarding the CCA concept along with potential benefits and risks to customers, as well as to gain feedback on how supportive the community might be of a Long Beach CCA; Direct City Manager to prepare a study that analyzes CCA governance options including forming a stand-alone City enterprise, creating a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA) with another interested public agency, or joining an existing JPA; Direct City Manager to continue to monitor the energy market and related regulations and report to the City Council annually or sooner if substantial market changes occur; and Direct City Manager to continue the City’s partnership with Southern
So we have brought on some energy experts that really know this field, and they provided about 130 page report. We also have our three department directors who have substantial experience in this area and have provided a recommendation. So we want to make sure that you really understand this issue. This is one of the more complex things that a local government can do. You know, for example, you'll hear in the presentation, if we go down this path, we would be purchasing power up to about $150 million a year, and you do that in long term contracts. So this would be over $1,000,000,000 over a ten year period that we would be getting into a new market that we're not currently in. So we do want you to really understand the pros and the cons and the risks and all the timelines. And with that, I will be turning it over to John GROSS, who will be walking us through the presentation. And you should have the slides available to you as well. In Long Beach, you're about 5050 between electricity, commodity costs and transmission costs. We wanted to point out as we get into the overall presentation that is the city manager pointed out we're talking about creating a utility, whether it's a JPA or whether it's our own, where the amount of commodity being purchased is is very large compared to our typical natural gas and water utilities. And because of that, there's more than normal risk involved. We were asked by City Council to do a feasibility study and we hired an independent consultant to do that. When that study was done in a draft form, we did a peer review of that study by another independent consultant who confirmed the study and recommendations. And then when the study was moved from 2019 to 2020, we did an update in 2020 with with the same consultant to determine if there were any significant changes. And there and there were not the three department heads presenting have energy and utility experience decades of it. And and then we have me with the finance background and we reviewed the entire 138 page study. The study has a lot of content. The staff presentation you're hearing today and the recommendations are consistent with that feasibility study. And those recommendations have in fact, been. And what you're seeing today has in fact, been reviewed by our consultant. When we talk about a CCAR typically and you heard it from the Clean Power Alliance, you're looking at what's the impact on greenhouse gas emissions. What's the impact on the electric bill? Does it create jobs? We're going to talk about each of those a little bit. Kate Brown. The GHG from the the greenhouse gas emission. I just want to make sure that someone's not on mute in the council. This is Kirsten. So we've got please go on mute with. Sorry, I thought. I think we seem clear now on the first item, what's the greenhouse gas emission? Based on the study, we think that greenhouse gas emission reduction is relatively minor. In part, that's because the CCR and SC have the same requirements for the state in terms of renewable and carbon free targets. The CS energy is already 51% greenhouse gas free and then it's 35% renewable. And in accordance with the state, it's going to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2045. As was pointed out, Long Beach customers can opt to have C provide either 50 or 100% renewable electricity, but in fact, few do. And that was one of the things that the Clean Power Alliance talked about. We thought it was useful to look at some rate experiences and we looked at three clean energy, three cars, and this is not in the study, this is just current information. And in general, the cars do usually charge a premium as they've moved and transitioned. And you can see that with the lowest cost option. The only one that we looked at that was lower was the Clean Power Alliance. And with the 100% renewable compared to other options available from investor owned, we're a generally higher priced firm. A car. This next chart looks at what would happen if we selected 100% renewable or if different CCAS did 100% renewable compared with FCA's base rate, which is certainly not 100% renewable. To get to that 100% renewable. You're basically talking about 3.2% to almost 8% higher, including the Clean Power Alliance to get to that 100% renewable. So in summary, with a lower electric bills and the answer is yes, it's possible that the price could be lower, but you could also see an 8% cost increase if you went to 100% renewable. And if you looked at the lowest priced option, you'd be talking about a 1%, maybe a 2% savings compared to the current SCC bills. The Long Beach rates would not be competitive for large industrial users, including the city, so those customers could remain with AC if the city did opt in with the 100% renewable option with Clean Power Alliance, we would expect that our costs in our budget would need to increase by about $1.7 million a year. We wanted to very briefly and I'll go over these price costs and comparisons quickly. Look at the options that Ted talked about with the CPA lean option. It's the lowest price compared to what you currently would be paying with AC in general, you'd save about 1%. Large businesses would see a cost increase of about 9%. Renewable energy would look better, but not by much. We'd go from 35% renewable to 36, and greenhouse gas emissions would be much higher. And that has to do with the fact that there's a lot of hydro and nuclear in this portfolio. If you went to a clean option from CPR and compared it to the SCA base rate, they would be generally at the moment, no cost difference. Large businesses would see a price increase, but there would be benefits in terms of renewable energy content and greenhouse gas emissions. If you compared the clean energy option to the CC alternative, which is 50% clean energy, you would still save about 1.6%. But SC does better than CPA in terms of renewable knowable energy, and SC does better than greenhouse gas, better than CPA and greenhouse gas emissions with the most green option of CPA called the green option again compared to the SC SC base. I Going back to what I said earlier, you'd see resident bills about 8 to 9% higher. Large businesses would see an increase of about 17%. But you'd get much better renewable energy content and your greenhouse gas emissions would go down to zero if you compared that CPA green energy option to the SC e's green option, the 100% option CPA is higher. All the other factors would I'm sorry, the residents bills would be higher for CPA, but all the other factors would be just about equal. So moving on to job creation, job creation, another key item, we think that the study shows that job creation would be very modest at best if we did a standalone city, C K, meaning we created one from scratch. It would be like that of any small company. It would have the economic benefits of a small company, 10 to 27 jobs. If we talked about joining a Joint Powers Authority such as the CPA, a Clean Power Alliance, there would be no economic impact because there would be no jobs created in Long Beach. Overall, there may be economic impact if the prices to our residents and businesses are higher or lower, but we don't have enough information on that to say whether if the prices are higher, you'd have a negative economic impact. If prices are lower, you'd have a positive impact. And what we're saying is it's going to be a very uncertain situation. Governance. And we've heard about governance and we've talked about that there needs to be a decision as to the governance method. The key ones being a standalone CCE where the city created one, are joining a Joint Powers Authority like Clean Power Alliance. You could also form one. That's probably not as likely. Each one of those has their positive and negative aspects having to do with what's the level of local control, what's the level of risk, what's the startup costs there? There are a number of factors. We recommend a detailed analysis be done before that decision is made. We also think that there's a lack of public awareness. Most residents don't know what a CCAR is or they've heard nothing. But it's going to lower costs or it's going to make major greenhouse gas inroads. That may or may not be the case. And we think that residents really should be informed about that before council makes a decision so they can hear from residents. I've talked a lot about risks and uncertainties. We wanted to go over some of the key ones, and I'm going to quickly go through them where you see in the bottom right, a key uncertainty that is evolving. You will see that that particular risk is something that we think deserves where we think that council would be important to consider, whether it's appropriate to make a decision now or wait till these risks and uncertainties stabilize. The first one is about resource adequacy. This is a technical requirement that all suppliers of electricity have to have adequate power resources available. This is a changing field and we believe that there are potential significant cost implications for CCAR as these regulations continue to develop and we expect significant changes there and we don't know how that's going to come out. That's key area one. The next one is the exit fee. This has to do with the fact that when a customer leaves Southern, California, Edison, Southern or any investor owned utility, they in Southern California, Edison has invested in long term contracts. There is a cost to break that contract for that customer. Those costs are charged to the CCJ. And again, that methodology is evolving as we speak. We expect significant changes and we don't know how that's going to impact CA's ability to provide services and costs in the future. Rates charged higher than AC rates that those are risks we've talked about that it's it's just they risk a lack of public engagement. We've talked about that that we're concerned that the customers, if they pay seven or 8% higher rates, may not be happy with that. And as was pointed out, most customers do not opt out and they could be some significant unhappiness. That is an uncertainty. The volatile electric market is very volatile. That's that's not that's just a fact. And there are risks associated with that. Customers opting out of the car and returning to Southern California Edison, which Clean Power Alliance talked about. There are enough of those there are risks associated with that, associated with the costs that could be charged unfavorable legislative and regulatory changes. We think that's a key uncertainty. Again, that's evolving. We there is constant legislation. There's constant regulatory issues in the electric market. We think that it would be best to wait until there's some stability there. Increased costs for the city's own electricity costs, we think that's maybe not so much a risk, but more of a fact. But nonetheless, we've listed that as a risk. Withdrawal from the Clean Power Alliance is a risk. We we as far as we know, if we went started to go with CPA and for some reason, before they started providing electricity, got out, there might be some costs potentially in the millions of dollars there that needs to be explored more. A nonperformance of counterparties. You buy electricity, you create buy something from a contractor who puts in a new solar system or a new wind farm someplace. And there's a failure. There are risks associated with that. Increased opportunity to direct access. Direct access is legislation which allows big customers to purchase their electricity from a third party supplier of their choice. That legislation is potentially changing. It is a risk. We don't think it's as great. I haven't marked as a key uncertainty, but we don't believe that major customers are likely to join the a k anyway, so probably not that big of an item. Changes to operation of a statewide electrical grid. Obviously there are problems with the California's electricity electrical transmission grid. It needs to evolve. That also is a key uncertainty because it's evolving and could change control and competitiveness. To wrap things up on risk, we thought it was important to quote the Public Utility Commission and their view that it is an uncertain market and this is their comments and quotes from them on November 19th saying there is uncertainty in the California electrical market and there are regulations that are are changing. So what our point of this is and part of our recommendations is that we have an uncertain and evolving market and regulatory environment. It could well affect the rates, whether it's savings or costs. It could affect the level of greenhouse gas emissions or the weather. It's clean. And that is a key reason why we're recommending caution. Let's talk to the mechanics, general timeline. And this timeline is, in fact, driven by legislative requirements. But by the end of a calendar year, it doesn't have to be this year. But by the end of any calendar year, that's when you look at what's the public support. You make major decisions and you file with the state and intent to form 8-K the following year. Assuming everything goes right, you begin the process of ramping up that organization or if it's an existing JPA entering into contracts. So you spend the next year setting things up and then the year after that, after final verifications, you begin operations. If we in fact join the CPA Clean Power Alliance in 2020, the time frame is more or less the same, except we're now near the end of the year. But we would file a letter of interest with Clean Power Alliance. We would pay a fee so that they could study whether it's appropriate, in their opinion, for that Long Beach to join. By the end of the year, we would make a decision as to whether to do that or not. And then CPA would submit the implementation plan to the state by the end of the calendar year. But they would do it as opposed to us having done it in 2021, CPA would enter into contracts and in 2022 we'd begin operations. Our conclusions are and the conclusion of the study, as you might imagine, is that this is in fact feasible and but it is so uncertain that desired benefits would be achieved. And it brings economic risk to our residents and businesses. They could see higher bills. The greenhouse gas emissions may not be that much different than remaining with SC, SC and the financial projections are uncertain, and we think that making a decision at a later date would serve the city well and allow a decision with less uncertainty as to benefit, benefit and costs, and would also provide a better opportunity to inform the public and gauge their level of support that gets to our recommended actions, which is deferred to defer consideration of creation of a CCE because it's a major financial and operational decision in an uncertain market for up to two years. B less than that of stability occurs. We think that we would monitor the California energy market and regulatory environment and report back to council if there is a material change. This recommendation is not that there's something wrong with the CCE or that we shouldn't do it. It's just that the risk of of things not working out as expected is too high at this point. So studying it and reporting back is our recommendation. We think that we need to look at the pros and cons of the governance model and provide a recommendation to council. Is it better to form our own CCR? Is it better to join an existing JPA? And that study can be done independent of whether we should do either. On finally conducting a balanced community outreach to reach to increase care where awareness and get input back from the residents and businesses. And finally, we think it's really important. To. Partner with CCE to provide. They are providing a lot of green energy options. It is not as well known as it should be. And we think if we partner with SCC, we might be able to make significant inroads in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and becoming more renewable with the options that he has. That in essence is a summary of the study and our recommendation. We do have Mark Fulmer on the phone. He's going to cue individuals to come in so that. He is available to speak with us, if you would like, on the study. And we also have Mike, Mary Ali from Southern California Edison, who can talk about the options that Southern California Edison has, if you're interested. And with that, we conclude the study and we're available for questions. And thank you. Mr. GROSS. This is Tom Modica, city manager again. So I just wanted to sum up, had you heard a lot of information very quickly, we can stand by and answer questions. I kind of wanted to give a little perspective from my chair, city manager. There clearly are some benefits. I think we're all in favor of, you know, improving our climate and looking for ways to get additional green power. And a lot of that is happening in California. But in terms of ACA, there's some benefits. There's also some substantial risk that we went through with you today. We do believe that there are going to be cost impacts not only to the city of Long Beach of about 1.7 million, but also to our residents in a pandemic. And the council has been really focused on trying to to keep costs as low as possible. This is a highly complex area, and it is going to require a substantial diversion of staff. If we go down this route, we would want to make sure we do this right and that we really dedicate key people to making sure we know how this is going to play out. We're also going to need some financial resources as we move in this area. If we go this route and we're in the middle of a $30 million shortfall while we're also trying to address the pandemic, and we also just approved 26 furlough days for our management team, and we'll be doing that for other employees as well. All this while the market continues to change. And so that really is the basis of our recommendation to you is given the magnitude of a decision like this could very well might be in our future at some point. What we're asking you is, you know, given the totality of the of the circumstances that we're faced with, that we really spend some time to better understand this, to further look at some of the governance models and and not to enter into kind of an agreement by the end of the year. So with that, I will turn it back to the Council for questions. Thank you, Mr. America. Let me go ahead and go to the council. Councilman Price. Clay, can you talk? Q Mr. Mayor, and I really appreciate the city manager's comments. I think he summarized what some of us were thinking during the presentation pretty well. I think words like risk and significant impact are very relevant right now, and so I really appreciate that. I would like to hear from see if that's possible. Hi. Good afternoon. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the council. I'm Mike Morelli, the vice president of the business customer division for Southern California Edison. So I really appreciate you spending the time to digest these issues, and I'm certainly here to answer any questions. I do not have a prepared presentation. I do have to let you know that for customer community choice aggregation, we do operate under a code of conduct where Southern California Edison has the obligation to remain neutral. But I am certainly able to answer any questions you may have on the mechanics and, you know, the what what role we do or don't do, whether you choose. C.K. But I think Ted did a really good job kind of summarizing those aspects of it. But please let me know if there's any specific questions you'd have out for us. Well, sure. So, I mean, I don't know how many of my council colleagues have the opportunity to have a briefing with your team. I know I did. And they provided me an overview of some of the current efforts in regards to clean energy. Perhaps you can touch on those. Yes. So as the staff presentation outlined, we are currently at 35% renewable and about 50% carbon free. And, you know, it's state law. So all providers are working down to the ultimate 2045 carbon free power. I think the the other information that we have available is that and I think even Ted summarized it in his presentation, you know, quite frankly, we're we're pretty aligned on where we want to work, what we're trying to do at Southern California Edison around greenhouse gas reductions. And so we've put out a white paper about a year ago called Pathway 2045. And that pathway basically says, you know, we need to get to a carbon free grid and then we need to use that grid to electrify additional end to end uses such as transportation, electrification, space and water heating to really support the state's goals for for GHG significant GHG reductions. And so we are we are committed to that. We recognize that our customers need to be part of that journey. And so we have a lot of programs that we're putting in place to support that pathway vision, if you will. So electric transportation, we have we have we've had a ton of success working with the city and various departments around energy efficiency for many, many years. The port we work with extensively on electrification efforts as well as some training opportunities with the college and all those programs. Those are those are all outside of the power procurement role, if you will, of a community choice aggregation situation. We have been talking with Mr. Gardiner about maybe a more formal way of of aligning our partnership with the with the city of Long Beach. And so we have a, you know, a proposed framework that we were we are certainly interested in trying to put in place again around how we can both go down this this pathway, if you will, to 2045 and significant carbon reductions. Right. Thank you. I know I've probably exceeded my time, so I'm going to turn it back to the mayor to have my other colleagues talk as well. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, that was a different presentation than was queued up in December. Obviously a lot of talk about risk and I want to get to that. But I also want to recognize that we're here today for a couple of reasons. We're here today because this council unanimously decided to do this study to see if it was feasible to go down the pathway of community choice energy. We're also here today because we know that we've got state mandates and we are also here because in our climate adaptation action plan as a draft form right now, we do not have a path to reach those goals. It's important not just to have goals at the state level, but to have a method to be able to reach those goals quickly. And I think that the presentation that was presented by TED demonstrates that I can do that. I also want to recognize that we are in a critical moment in history as this Council has been tackling with COVID. We've also been tackling the structural racism that exists in the city and across the US. So when I consider the vote that needs to be taken tonight, I consider the questions of what risk is worth human life, what risk is worth making sure that we are providing clean energy as quick as possible in a responsible, financially feasible way. And so I just want to ground us in some of those comments. I know that our mayor has signed the Compact of Mayors in 2015 to join the largest coalition of city governments to address climate change. We remain committed to the Paris Agreement, and we know that there are a lot of efforts going on in our city. I want to recognize that our cap plan, while it's not on the agenda tonight, I did do community outreach from 2018 to the current moment, and they received over 10,000 attendees in the CAP plan. They have talked about the opportunity of a community choice energy. The CAP plan also demonstrates that in the city of Long Beach, 44% of our energy is from stationary energy. This is where residents, small businesses and large businesses will have the opportunity to really reduce their greenhouse gases. The reason that that is so critically important is because of a recent study that came out by Harvard that said that one unit lower a greenhouse gases can calculate to 248 fewer people who have died in the city of New York of Koven. And so I say that because it's important to recognize that there are some differences in the in the study, and I would like to dove deeper into that. So I'm glad we have our additional staff here to help us with that. But I really want to ground the rest of the conversation and the fact that we have a health crisis on our hands. And part of it is because we have not taken risk to be able to move to clean energy faster. And that that is what we are talking about today. I also want to recognize that. The city itself has had a big interest in in oil. And I believe that this is one of those moments that we as a city have to really address, nor are we in business for are we in business for the residents that pay taxes that we care for, that we are responsible to? Are we in business for a certain entity? So no disrespect to Edison at all, but recognizing that the city of Long Beach doesn't have a seat on the board of Edison, the city of Long Beach shouldn't have a financial interest in Edison, although we might have one . And being able to allow our our residents to have a real choice is really important. So I'd like to first ask Mike, since you're here, how many people have opted in with 100% renewable energy with Edison from Long Beach? Oh, it's very few. I don't have the specific number, but it's it's it's very few. I think the number that was told to me by staff was around 130. That's probably about that seems right. So I say that for my council colleagues to recognize that while Edison is here saying that they will provide us with a pathway and a partnership. Right now, we've already been doing this for two years, and that number hasn't changed. And there's reasons why that number hasn't changed. Right. Edison has been in operation for a very long time. And they have things that they're responsible for that are on their books that they need to take care of. I think first, probably the question is you mentioned that you're trying to put together a package for the city of Long Beach. Is that a package that you would offer any other city and any other ratepayers? The the framework that we're looking at is around how how to make sure we understand the city's goals and our goals and where that intersection is. We work with different communities in different ways. We do not have this framework agreement with any other city. You know, quite frankly, we're we're looking at seeing how how it works with potentially works with Long Beach. And then we may look to move that to other communities every year. And we've we've had other efforts. And quite frankly, I think where we're closer aligned with our communities than sometimes it may appear. But I think we're missing that overall view of how we're aligned. That's what we're attempting to address. I think, again, we've done a lot of great things with the with the city. And, you know, I hear your goals. I know our goals, and there's a lot of commonality there. But, you know, sometimes it's a matter of of putting that into a document and understanding it and quite frankly, then working those issues where we are aligned. I should be clear in and you know, we want to work with the city regardless of if you choose to form a CCJ or not. That's not going to. That's not going to change whether or not we have this framework agreement. There may be different elements. If you're procuring the energy, then obviously the energy components probably wouldn't be of interest to you. I should also mention that, yes, we have an existing green energy program. We have we're working on Evolve. We have some of that that's coming through that's going to be new programs very soon that will be in the market. And then we're continuing to work on other programs again for all our bundled service customers that are that may be eligible to select that. The green energy program we have is an opt in. So there was a discussion about opt out, opt in. So our customers are served under our, you know, our base product, if you will, of the 35% renewable. And they have to affirmatively opt in to select the green program. So that that is a distinction on the CCR approach. Thank you for that, Mike. And I definitely. Saw 5 minutes are up. Okay. Thank you. I'll call you back up. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and do I do have a couple other councilmembers cued up. Let's go and do public comment and then we'll come back to the council. Now that we had the the first and Councilmember Price was at a motion to receive and filed. Initially, Mr. Mayor. Yes. And then Councilmember appears that a second to receive and file. Well, I actually have a motion that I had prepared. Councilmember Price, if you wouldn't mind, I tried to queue up first, but you beat me to it and let me read my motion and see if it's something that, as we call here, friendly receive in filed a report. See, I'd like to ask some of these questions first, but receive and receive and follow the report file a letter of interest with Clean Power Alliance. Direct the city manager to prepare a study that analyzes government options, including forming a standalone the enterprise, creating new joint powers, JPA with other interested public agencies or joining an existing JPA include the team that is compiling the cap, along with the CPA team with our oil and gas department and direct staff to do monthly updates. Okay. So I think that's that's that's a very significant friendly. So I'm just going to go ahead and stick with my motion to receive and file and then it probably would be best or if you want to make the motion and include everything that that you want because I'm not prepared to make or support the motion that you just made, because you're right, there's a lot of things in there that probably haven't been asked about yet. Well, the. Council here is claiming a success. And also I means that maybe I misunderstood, but I if this is a report, but I know that next item is item eight, which would be the request to create or join. And I think I don't know is that the, the, the appropriate place to build a motion or did you intend it should be on the on the report on the staff report. To be on the staff report. And I checked with the city attorney on it. The only thing that's substantive, it's different from what the staff report is. It's a letter of interest, which I'd like to be able to talk a little bit more before making that motion. So it's. Okay. Well. So then we have a we have a motion by councilmember. Our price. And then councilman Councilman Mongo is at a second or a receiving pile. No. I'm sorry. Maybe, but I'm happy the second. Okay. Okay. So who will second? Who's who is the second? Since the 80 seconds that I just have a lot of questions. Okay, well, why don't we do this? Let's go to public comment and I might come back to the Q. We actually have a lot of councilmembers. I want to speak also, and maybe they will answer some of the questions. And Councilor Pearce, you can chew up again, too, and go to those questions. So why don't we go and go to a public comment and then we'll go back to the council publicly. Our first speaker is L.Z. Tongue. Your time starts now. Yes. Hi. Good afternoon. Honorable Mayor and council member is Ailsa Chang, the program manager at Long Beach for language for the mission is to create a healthy language with low income communities of color by building community knowledge leaders and Parliament. Mr. Record We are in strong support of community choice aggregation as a climate justice solution. It's no secret that Long Beach is low income. Communities of color are black, brown and indigenous neighbors in central, west and north Long Beach live with environmental racism, pollution burden and health and life expectancy impacts every day. These environmental justice communities are impacted first and worst by climate change, especially during these summer heat waves. Urban heat islands can be deadly. CCR is a climate justice solution by giving residents and ratepayers choice in the energy we by shifting our city's energy sourcing into clean, renewable energy. City also has standards for workforce development. Including local jobs and. Local disadvantage workers. And it enables residents who are most impacted by pollution burden to be a. Part of. The solution. We ask the Council to take swift action today on two fronts. One, direct the city manager to prepare a study that analyzes 58 governance options, including forming a standalone enterprise, creating a new JPA or joining existing JPA and two directing staff to provide monthly updates on progress. Working with the Clean Power Alliance. Results of a study on governance options and steps to file and implementation by year end. We urge your support. On. These two fronts so that Long Beach can address climate injustice and give residents and ratepayers a real choice in the energy we purchase. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Maryanne Buchanan. Your time starts. Now. Hi. Hi. This is Maryanne Buchanan. I'm in District three. I urge you to be very careful when you say you are going to direct the city manager to raise awareness of Edison's existing programs and renewable options. The law is clear that Edison is prohibited from doing that. So my city council shouldn't either. Edison knows there is a code of conduct law, S.B. 790, that limits their participation in the process of Long Beach, studying whether or not to form the CCR or maybe join another one like Clean Power Alliance. On those discussions, Edison has to stay out of it. I don't even know why they're on the call today. They know that, and I hope they are complying. What I'm not sure of is why on earth you would direct city staff to use our tax dollars to be Edison's. Let. And do their advertising for them. Please don't do that. We need Edison on our side when we form a CC because they will be our partner. We don't want to get off on the wrong foot with our future partner, so let's have everything out in the open, fair and square from the get go. Go ahead with all the city outreach and studying and monitoring. Just no delaying and certainly no advertising for Edison. However, I realize this might be falling on deaf ears because the feasibility study report you just heard. Sure sounds like an Edison commercial. I'm very disappointed. I yield my time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ron Gastelum. Your time starts now. Thank. Members. My name is Rhonda Salem. I reside at 236 Bennett Avenue. I'd like to urge support of Agenda Item ten and recommend rejection of Agenda Item seven and eight. I'm a principal in Water Conservation Partners, a water supply company. I am also a former CEO of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, where I managed MWD extensive water and electrical energy facilities. I serve on the board of the Nature Conservancy. I do not work for a retail electric energy supply company or agency. There are three reasons for my recommendations. First, like water. Electrical energy is an essential public service. A reliable and affordable supply of these essential services is foundational to the health and prosperity of our community, like our guaranteed fundamental constitutional rights. Proposed material changes and impacts should be strictly scrutinized and held to the highest standard of care. Second, while we must work diligently to meet the challenge of climate change and pervasive inequities in our society, we must do it smartly. Changes in the city's electrical energy service are ongoing and will continue to be required to keep pace with the needs, including doing our part to meet the global challenge of climate change. However, it's vital that proposed changes and solutions be relatable in specific, measurable terms potential costs and benefits to the city's residents and benefit businesses. There's no room for guessing or pursuing aspirational goals with unknown consequences in the very serious business of providing essential services to the public. Third, the cost and reliability of electrical energy service is of paramount interest to our residents and small businesses least able to afford rate increases or take risks that could affect reliability. We owe them as well as everyone in the city, a steady process that airs on the site of more transparency and public information. In this process, the public should be informed. In plain language, our proposed changes could affect their electrical rates and service and the environmental conditions in their neighborhoods where they live. They should also be given multiple opportunities to ask questions and offer their own opinions. The proponents of CCR are to be commended for looking for new ways to deal with today's environmental challenges. Although the promise is no longer to produce lower rates, which was the original premise, the movement has spurred regulated utilities to look at themselves more critically and try harder to compete for our business. We're actually in a good position to take our time to study the facts and opportunities because of our size and capabilities. We can develop a smart strategy to pursue the course that will work best to meet our particular circumstances and needs. It's way too early to really know what our energy end is, much less to show it. With the great uncertainty facing cities in today's economy, including from the pandemic. The best course is a cautious one. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sonya Coffey. Your time starts now. Thank you. This is Donna Coffey. I'm a resident of the third district and a chair of the Sustainable City Commission here in town. Following years of review and advocacy for Community Choice Energy in Long Beach. I urge the City Council to move forward on the next steps in the process and not wait another two years to look . At additional options. That will benefit the city. I'm concerned that the city is not receiving a balanced representation of this program, and while there are risks, there are other opportunities that need to be presented, clean power lines presented that no subsidies from city funds are needed to update the program. While energy. Procurement is. Complex, operations are fully funded through the program revenues. So concerns over expenditures of $1,000,000,000 over the life of the program need to be clear that these funds are not coming from the City General Fund. Further stated provided a long list of the risks that are involved with PCRs, such as resource out of the fire, exit, the legislation , lack of public engagement. But they offer no input on how to mitigate these risks to other providers. Servicing over 10 million customers have been able to navigate these risks and operate successfully. Cities such as San Diego are preparing to launch service as we speak, and Irvine, where I work, has explored the risks and determined they're manageable and is working with others in Orange County to form a JPA. This important to hear how EPA actually function from experts in the field. Since the energy staff we have on hand are not renewable energy or experts that are staff with expertize in the gas and oil fields and connection to AC was beneficial to hear from the Clean Power Alliance earlier to provide a better outlook on this. And I encourage the city to seek input from other sources. We have formed a dedicated group of residents in Long Beach that had expertize in the world of energy and care and understand that PPA and Long Beach is feasible and that the risks are manageable. I urge the city to consider the next steps to create or join the EPA now instead of deferring for two years and to examine the financial projections as part of the next steps moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tiffany Davey. Your time starts now. Tiffany Davey. Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Wonderful. Good afternoon. The City Council mayor and staff, thanks for presenting the report. We are still in a global pandemic. We just addressed systemic racism within the city. In my recommendations for the framework stated in particular on environmental, social justice and environmental racism, the city of Long Beach to conduct the considerable amount and costly stakeholder engagement for the land use element 2017 2018, as well as 2019. We await the outcome. The. Implementation of the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, as well as following through with truth and reconciliation. Moving forward with this process from the framework. It must be said that the city has to act boldly and take these opportunities to bridge those gaps. It's imperative to meet the. Many interlocking. Conditions to provide jobs and opportunities for front line communities, to live in unhealthy conditions for an industry that clearly disregards their wellbeing. Many of these problems locally originated and how the discovery of oil in California was initially managed in the 1920s, including Long Beach and Signal Hill strikes and resultant institutional arrangements with municipal oil and gas operations within the CRC, which is that California Resources Corporation, which recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. From the quick and. Easy development of fossil. Fuels. To what became the nation's state. From the 25 to 42, the expansion of extractive operations to where we are today, it is imperative to act boldly. The risk that continues to fall upon these communities has not been properly addressed for over a century. Please do the right thing as leaders during a pandemic and see also your 2015 emergency operations plan, which does face the responsibility of government to undertake ongoing, comprehensive approach to emergency management. We will need to manage this ahead of the climate challenges we know we will face. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Clay Sandwich. Clay. Your time starts now. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Honorable Mayor and City Council. Clay Sandwich. The chair of the Long Beach Community Choice Energy Working Group and a steering committee member of the California Alliance for Community Energy is a statewide advocate for Community Choice Energy. Climate change is here as we are witnessing devastating wildfires at a record pace in California and globally. Sea level rise, prolonged heat waves and heat intensity all induced by humans and carbon based power. We can no longer maintain the status quo or wait for a grand moment to change how we procure our energy. What we're doing now is not effective in mowing and lowering our greenhouse gas emissions. The moment is now whether Long Beach considers community choice by itself or as a member of the Clean Power Alliance. One thing is clear community choice is by far the most significant thing the city can do to address climate change. There's a straightforward reason for this community choice as the only real opportunity that has enormous greenhouse gas reductions, as presented in the city's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. If you care about the climate crisis, Community Choice Energy is the foundation for creating a carbon free economy. Accelerating the pace to renewable energy by taking carbon out of our energy supply. We've been working with the community for over four years, advocating to give ratepayers a real choice. Transparency and accountability. We believe now is the time to institute a resilient recovery that includes local jobs, community benefits, clean energy and ratepayer choice. We hope you read past the staff letter to the IMR feasibility report. Reading the feasibility report, there is nothing to deter Long Beach from filing a letter of interest with the Clean Power Alliance. This step would allow for the Clean Power Alliance to complete due diligence and explore if bringing Long Beach into the CPA would make economic sense. This would begin the process that would allow for them to file an implementation plan by the end of 20 to the end of this year. At the same time, the city staff should prepare a study that analyzes CCR governance options, including a formal form of forming a standalone city enterprise, creating a new JPA with another interested public agency, or joining an existing JPA like the CPA to do nothing and remain status quo as it is a disservice to the community of Long Beach. We, the Community Choice Energy Working Group of Long Beach, respectfully request your unanimous vote to direct city staff to file a letter of interest with the CPA, which will allow Long Beach to complete the implementation plan by the end of this year. And. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jim Stewart. Jim Stewart. Your time starts now. Yes, Stewart. Yes. Your time starts now. Oh, my time's now. Okay, great. So I just wanted to strongly. Well, first of all, I want to introduce myself as Jim Stewart. I'm a retired physicist, and I've done lots of energy analysis work and have been working on that community choice issue for over a decade. And I've been working with the. Play a and the other members of the. Community Choice Working Group in Long Beach for four years. And we're thrilled that we're finally ready to move forward and that we want to strongly support. Congress council members versus great resolution. And we want to ensure that the council realizes that it's just justice, this place in motion and progress. This is not a commitment, but to be able to file a letter of intent with the Community of Community Alliance, the Clean Power Alliance will give us that option. Plus, we can move forward with having the other members of the staff look at the other options that are presented in the consultant's report. And so therefore, we should definitely pass this motion and of course, reject item ten, which would just delay this thing another couple of years. And we need to move forward now. Thank you very much. That concludes public comment for this item. What the fuck I'm suspended for? I'm going to go now to Vice Mayor Andrews. How they conclude public comment. I was on the way. Thank you. You know, I think a lot of. What about maybe. Speaking up on the side, too, because I think it's very important because this report, you know, has been in the works for quite some time. And on the phone, I believe that, as you know, a forward thinking city like Long Beach, we are always looking to improve our operation and services to the community. You know, with the current pandemic and the uncertainty of our economic conditions, this is a conversation that's given us something to think about. But I do feel comfortable in making the choice to join or participate and to make a unit. We engage with the community at large and educate them on what this would mean for them and their pockets, because that something is very important. What would me to you know, the individuals in their package, you know, we must also engage with said you know said Edison, you know, because having a long standing relationship with them, you know, while the stabilization of our local economy, we must continue to take advantage of the green, you know, opportunity that already exists without creating a risk to the city. You know, as a full council, we must agree that we want to do everything in our power, quite literally, to be green and eco friendly and environmentally sound. But we need to defer this until we look at our relation from, you know, related regulations and our energy market within the context of what we have gone through with this aftermath and what it is, you know, what the aftermath that might be coming. So I think it's very important that we really look at all of this right now. I think this is the time for us to really look at this very seriously. Thank you very much. We have a lot to speak on this. I think it comes from a mongo. Something in mango. Not here. Councilman Mango. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. I had a couple of questions for the team really quickly, recognizing that stop has basically said that this is risky. I believe that any energy conversation is risky. You've done these reports for other cities. Oh, yes, I have. And is this report riskier? The same amount of risk, or how would you determine this moment right now? Right now, right now, there's a lot of a bit more risk than was being considered three or four years ago. And that's due to changes mainly at the Public Utilities Commission on how they're treating certain costs as highlighted in the presentation. The cost to meet resource adequacy is. How quick is that cost? Is that cost similar for Edison resource adequacy? It is different. Edison has a fair amount of resources already under contract to provide those services, while a as would not have to purchase those on the market so they would be incurring higher costs than Edison would be in the short term for those kind of resources. The second is the CIA, which is now at historic highs, but it's volatile and will eventually go down. But it's a it's a big uncertainty with respect to what the costs in the short term would be. And so we'd concluded that it was feasible that some savings could be achieved. And in the meantime, we adjusted some of the resource and some of the assumptions that looked a little bit closer to the high CIA case, as well as the high rate case. Those factors, it's close and be able to hear it on principle, be done. It just requires sharpening the pencil a bit more before you can say, you know. Great. So the bottom line is it's it's not a slam dunk, but it's not a sit on the bench either, which I I'm sure you would like me to come up with a more definitive answer. No, that's what you said is exactly what I what I had hoped, which is sharpen the pencil. Right. That there's another layer of information that needs to be had. And when I read your report and I read Chapter ten conclusions, it says the top one is potentially financially feasible. And then you say Long Beach is two primary options are forming with the city only or joining CPA. So I'm just I'm reading the report and I wanted to make sure that we were able to to kind of be clear on the report before we received and filed it. I also see that and scenario two, that it shows that the CPA mission rates is very different from Edison and a CPA rate. So I wanted to just bring that up. But with that, you know, I'm I'm fine receiving and filing this report and we'll have some comments on other items. So appreciate it. Okay. Let's go ahead and take a roll call vote, please. Mr. Mayor, I do want to make a correction or comment just to make sure we understand the motion. The motion is to receive and follow the report. But in the staff agenda, it has five different steps about continuing governance research, talking to SCC, going out and engaging the community. Is that included in the motion or is it just a receiving file of the presentation? Included in the motion. Okay. Thank you. Roll call. Vote, please. District one. I. District two. I'm. District three. II. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. High District nine, higher ocean carries. Okay. Thank you. Now we're going on to item number eight. Communication from Councilmember Pierce, Chair of Environmental Committee. Recommendation to request City Council to create a A or join the Clean Power Alliance and file an implementation plan by the end of the year.