Speaker 4: 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.
Speaker 0: Contacted Pearce. Had you queued up for a motion? Can we do public comment on this item and then I'll go to you? Or did you want to see if you can.
Speaker 2: Do a public comment first?
Speaker 0: Okay, let's go and get a cup of coffee. Madam Court.
Speaker 5: Our first speaker is Koby Sky. Kobe Sky. Jim Stewart. Jimmy Stewart. Your time starts now. Jim Stewart.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 5: I'm starts now.
Speaker 3: Agenda Item ten that we are very disappointed that the city staff wants to wait two more years. We can move ahead now. There's no reason for us to allow Edison to determine what kind of power we get. We can have the power of the community choice and Long Beach residents and city council, and we can decide how what kind of power we want. And I recommend that we move forward with the community choice item and reject that report.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker is. Gabriel weeks. Your time starts now. Gabrielle Weeks.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Your Kobe sky has been Kobe sky has been trying to speak. They called his name, but they wouldn't let him speak. Are you aware of this?
Speaker 5: We couldn't hear him. We'll try calling him back.
Speaker 2: He's. Yeah, he. Okay? He's right there. I'll call him back. He's standing by. Let me know when.
Speaker 3: You'd like me to begin.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Well, would you like to start your public comment?
Speaker 3: Yes, please.
Speaker 2: Hi, I'm Gabrielle Weeks. I think you guys know me. I'm an engineer. I live locally in Long Beach and have been following community choice energy for, gosh, over ten years.
Speaker 3: It was.
Speaker 2: Working very well in in.
Speaker 3: Massachusetts and.
Speaker 2: Ohio. Those areas have a lot of industry.
Speaker 3: I heard it said by somebody.
Speaker 2: That this wasn't good for industry.
Speaker 3: That they would opt out.
Speaker 2: You guys may remember on the city council and in the mayor's office.
Speaker 3: That we bought a bunch of booted electric busses from a.
Speaker 2: Company in Lancaster, California.
Speaker 3: They use this.
Speaker 2: Energy. There's a lot of industry in Lancaster.
Speaker 3: They spawned.
Speaker 2: A CCE there because although they have a lot fewer residents.
Speaker 3: Than.
Speaker 2: Our city and some other cities, they have huge industrial draw.
Speaker 3: So it made.
Speaker 2: Sense for them to start getting more environmentally responsible and.
Speaker 3: Financially responsible.
Speaker 2: Energy if.
Speaker 3: They.
Speaker 2: Wanted. And Lancaster, California can do it.
Speaker 3: For years now, I'm sure.
Speaker 2: We can figure it out. Also, there are 34 cities that have already joined the Clean Power Alliance. Some of those are somewhat industrial cities, Downey and some things like that. The notion that industrial areas will.
Speaker 3: Opt out.
Speaker 2: Is nonsense and.
Speaker 3: It's easy.
Speaker 2: To look it up.
Speaker 3: I hope.
Speaker 2: We will move forward with this and start dragging.
Speaker 3: Our feet. We we could be doing.
Speaker 2: More for the environment and we could be.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker. Is Clay sandwich. Clay sandwich? Your time starts now.
Speaker 3: Oh, yes. This is quite a sandwich. What? Chair? The longest Community Choice Energy Working Group. You've heard a lot of my remarks earlier, but what I would like to do is just repeat and reiterate that on this Community Choice Energy Working Group, respectfully request to you that you unanimous vote to direct city staff to file a letter of interest with the Clean Power Alliance, which will allow Long Beach to complete an implementation plan by the end of. Including forming a standalone city enterprise, creating a new JPA Joint Power Authority with another interested public agency, or joining an existing JPA and also request monthly staff reports back to City Council. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker is Frances Ying.
Speaker 3: I'm. This year. We've been following the movement for a long time and have partnered with the Community Choice Energy Working Group. To us, this is about climate justice, as everybody knows and is acutely aware. California is probably on fire every single year.
Speaker 1: We're breaking heat record, heat fire record. And on top of that, now we're confronting the systemic racism.
Speaker 3: That underplays all of the ways that these things manifest in our own environment and in our own communities. So to us, community choice isn't just about making sure that we do our part to clean up our pollution, but also to make sure that we stand by the communities most impacted frontline communities that live by the gas bans , gas stations and pipeline systems, as well as those who are underserved and unable to negotiate or have any bargaining power about what their community get. Unlike the Edison community, choice uniquely offers the community the ability to choose what kind of energy they have and to be able to fight for the values that they believe in. I think that was really clear in the CPA's presentation. It's not just about getting energy and cleaner energy. Of course we see it as a better than Edison, but simultaneously they get to opt in to a system that.
Speaker 1: Whose values reflect that.
Speaker 3: So again, two years postponing this for two years is actually an urgent matter. We don't have that much time to do this now, is to say that we're already late. So please, please, please follow the implementation.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kobe Sky. Kobe Sky.
Speaker 3: Yes. Hello, I'm Kobe Sky. I'm a resident of Long Beach in the second district and I am an environmental engineer and proud to serve on the Single City Commission for the City of Long Beach. Long Beach staff has been studying Community Choice Energy for several years now and seeing dozens of communities and cities in California joining other programs, including the 1980 programs that are functioning very effectively throughout the state. We have three really good options to move forward before to create our own program. Here's a template the way Lancaster has done, or to join the Clean Power Alliance, which is the largest and one of the most effective programs in California. It doesn't make sense to me that we're raising the same questions that have already been raised three years ago, two years ago and last year. I think we have more than enough information seeing the success that these other programs have shown and the fact that they're addressing the challenges that they have been subject to very effectively. I strongly recommend that the City Council move forward to sign a letter of intent with the Clean Power Alliance and see the kind of success that they have recognized in advancing renewable energy, creating local jobs and reducing greenhouse gas emission. This is an existential issue for the city, and it's very important for us to move forward.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kate Brown. Your time starts now. Kate Brown in.
Speaker 2: High. Your time, sir. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon. Austin City Council members. And there. Garcia. My name is Kate Brown. I am a senior in high school, my time constituent of District 30 and a member of the UN Climate Taskforce. I'm calling in today to request that Long Beach join the Clean Power Alliance. I, along with other members of the Climate Taskforce, have been working since the summer of 2019 to commit Long Beach to a renewable energy implementation plan. As members of Generation Z, we are acutely aware of the fragility of our relationship with the Earth and the existential threat of climate change. We are so truly lucky to have grown up in a progressive, forward thinking city like Long Beach, and we know that our city has the potential to leave the rest of the country and sustainability and environmental consciousness. That is why we believe it is time for our city to adopt a 100% renewable energy plan with an earlier deadline than that of the current current state guidelines. The most cost effective and simplest way to achieve 100% renewable energy in Long Beach will be switching our energy provider to clean power lines. This would provide all of the environmental benefits of establishing a community choice aggregator without the administrative burden or economic instability. The young people in the city are depending upon government leaders to protect our future, and we cannot afford to defer this decision any longer. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Dawn.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is. May you. In the past, I was an organizer with clergy in the City United for Economic Justice, also known as CREW, a network of more than 900 free theaters across L.A. County and also Orange County that are committed to accompanying low income families and immigrants in the struggle for a just economy and a secret society for all. And I was born and raised in Vietnam, and last year, the New York Times report that by 2015, my motherland would be submerged under the sea as a result of climate change. It means that in my lifetime, everything and means a livelihood in our community will be gone. So climate change is more than an environmental problem to me. My community and many communities of color. But it is a matter of life and death. And as I've been working alongside truck drivers at the ports of Long Beach in Los Angeles for the last few years, many of them have shared with me how their children and family members have asthma and other critical health conditions as a result of pollution in our city. So tonight, I want to ask how members they get here to create a city, a joy, the Clean Power Alliance to accelerate the transition of our city to renewable energy.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Our next speaker is Patricia Chen.
Speaker 2: Hi. Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Yes, we can hear you.
Speaker 2: Oh, great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Richard Chin. I'm speaking on behalf of the green team of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Long Beach. You use the. We are located in Council District five. The mission of the Green team is to educate members and friends of the CLP about the moral imperative imposed.
Speaker 3: By climate change.
Speaker 2: It inspires our congregation and the wider community to take actions that honor and sustain the Earth for future generations. Item eight is just such an action. We urge you to vote yes and commit to joining or creating a community choice aggregation as soon as possible.
Speaker 3: So that the city.
Speaker 2: Can accelerate the transition to renewable energy, create good green jobs here in Long Beach, and provide clean electricity for zero emission.
Speaker 3: Cars, trucks and busses so that everyone, and especially residents now.
Speaker 2: Living with air pollution can breathe easier. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And that concludes public comment for this item.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to go back to Councilmember Pearce.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All the great community members that have spoken today. Obviously, there's a lot of interest, a lot of people that have been working on this for a long time. There's clearly a lot of data and info that still needs to be had. And I'd like to just briefly talk about what what we could do to get that info. It's my understanding that not a letter of intent, but just saying that we are interested in getting some more of the data in working with CPA is something that doesn't tie our hands. It's not a vote for an implementation plan or an ordinance. It's a simple vote that makes it possible for us to move on to the next step. Is that your understanding? City manager.
Speaker 6: Yes. So what we understand is the motion that's that's here is it sounds like you're modifying that a little bit. So there is a process through CPA where you can ask to join them or to express an interest at which point they they do require you to pay them about $30,000 to go through a process where they do some further analysis and then ask their board if they would like to consider adding another city. And then there is a stopping point where you would know, you know, we would be able to to make a decision. So if that's the motion, that would not tie your hands to actually implement. Okay.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. That's what I was hoping. I know that there's been a lot of talk because we've got so many passionate people that have been working on this for a long time. I, for instance, I think that that is the motion that we'd like to make. I recognize that the Sustainability Commission and Environmental Committee have done a lot of work on this and had lots of conversations, and that that's what's in front of us today is their recommendation. But I'd like to just make the recommendation and take that next step of getting more data which was in the stock report on the previous item. So that would be my motion.
Speaker 0: Okay. So just to be clear, so the motion that we have in front of us is not what the the what was the risk just to go ahead and create the join, but for the city to essentially take the next step and work with work with to get more data and do some data sharing, which is smart , which is modified by councilmember member Pearce. Mm hmm. That's the motion. I have a second Councilmember Richardson.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a few comments. I think this is the first I didn't queue up on the last item because I knew this was the appropriate item to make to make motions and take a few things. I think I acknowledge the urgency and the merit that we need to be creative in the way that we address energy. I get that and I support that. And I think it's time that we sort of reevaluate all of our relationships, including the relationship with Edison. You know, Edison has been a partner in the city for a very long time. But I also think that, you know, that our standards need to improve in terms of how we've dealt with Edison. In North Palm Beach, we have we don't have a lot of open space, you know, something like 1.2 acres of open space for 10,000 residents and some of our most significant open space opportunities in the Edison rights of way. We've attempted to work with them over the years to be creative about green belts and other things, and we haven't had any real partnership. Most recently, we had a you know, we're moving forward with our citywide bridge housing facility, our citywide shelter, which is adjacent to five acres of open space. We've engaged with them over the years. We haven't gotten anywhere with it. And then they signed a lease for five years with a nursery completely in respect of our discussions with the city. So I'm saying all this to say is the car is one piece, but we also need to just increase our standards for how we engage with all of our partners. So we're not our communities are not taking it for granted. Now, in terms of the CC, I understand the concerns. I think I think the motion in front of us acknowledges some of the concerns that were raised in terms of the readiness and the risk. I think there is know I'm a little uncomfortable with two years, I think. But but I understand that this is something that we want to sort of move forward with, with, you know, more than a split vote on Council of five four. This is something you want the public on board with. You want the council on board with it. So it takes it will take some time for us to do that. So I'm supportive. I've taken a little bit of time to do that. I'm also support of the motion that's here that says, let's sharpen that pencil. Let's not you know, let's not wait. Let's get more information, less engage and get more information and come back to this when we've sort of, you know, we're facing the crisis on multiple fronts when we get a little bit more stability. I heard the consultant say, you know, the risk is a little bit higher today than it was when some of these other groups joined the C CPI. Another thing is that I think that we should as a city, you know, when I heard that we get one vote out of numerous votes, that's concerning to me. I'd like to see just in the same way that that I'd like to reevaluate our relationship with others. And I'd also like, if we move forward this, to reevaluate how we have a say in how EPA or whatever apparatus of that, how the governance is structured. I think that's just, Mark, on behalf of our city and our residents expect us to cut the best deal in their interests, and that's something that I'd be interested in. So I think the motion in front of us, I think, allows us to do that, continue to kind of explore it, but does not tie our hands. So I'm supportive of that. I think that's what the city council. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Councilmember. Mango.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Can you hear me, Mia?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I received a couple of notes. Maybe if a Joel's were frustrated with the delivery of power and the blackouts. But I wanted to be clear and get staff's confirmation that the delivery of power, even if we joined us, would still maintain with Southern California. And that independent of us, we should be working hand in hand with them to facilitate a strong working relationship with our public works department, to ensure that they are upgrading those those lines and those cabinets underground so that we will not be in as vulnerable position as we were in several years ago during the three day blackout , and that we are in today with the continued rolling shortages of energy. Is that accurate? And are we working hand in hand with them as their biggest client? I think you had mentioned we make up 10% of their clients. Mommy presidents do. Are we working hand in hand with them to ensure that they are upgrading as quickly as possible, that we have no barriers in their path at City Hall and with public works and development services. Wonderful. It's my understanding that they make up 10% of Southern California's customer base. If we joined the Clean Power Alliance today, what percentage of their customer base would we be? Without opt outs if everyone joined. Or did you? Well, I was I guess there's 32 cities that joined. I think I heard that and to I'm sorry, 30 cities and two unincorporated areas. And so that would make up just the unincorporated areas or 250,000. We have 5000 residents, but not necessarily residents, residents, people, but not necessarily residents, consumers of power, if that makes sense. Or maybe a family of four on one bill. So I'm I'm not clear how many customers do we have of Edison that would be potentially moving over. So it can't be 50%, because if the county of Los Angeles alone is 250,000 and there's 30 other cities, including moderate size like Downey and Carson, I imagine we'd be smaller than that. Is that some information you could get back to me? Oh, by.
Speaker 3: Volume.
Speaker 1: And so we but we get back to you with the correct numbers on that.
Speaker 2: I see. By volume, not by customer number. Oh, that's interesting. So when we make up 10% of Southern California Edison's customers, it's not by number of customers. It's also by volume.
Speaker 1: That? I don't know. I'd have to check on that.
Speaker 2: Could we get an apples to apples comparison of those two different charts of what that looks like? I think that that's really. Important for us to know in terms of. Who we are in a in a perspective and in a relationship. And I think it's really important that we as a council are taking a closer look. I know that I also have had some issues come up, and I have to work hand in hand with Southern California Edison in my district on bridge repair and other things when they are fixing bolts and the impact to our neighbors. And I think that we really need to work on that relationship to be a bigger part of that discussion and decision base. Also, a member of the community talked about the number of industrial customers that opted out in any of the other 30 cities that have joined and that it has been much lower. It would be great to know what that number or volume is and then what are the costs in staff hours that would be necessary to continue on in this process.
Speaker 1: I would have to venture that certainly would involve both John GROSS, Bob Dole and myself and then our staff. So it is quite a bit working with a CPA and with Southern covering Edison to get the data across and work on a final report.
Speaker 2: And then my last question is for Southern California Edison. The CCI option provides residents the alternative to opt into a 35%, 50% or 100% renewable energy. What options do you have available today and what options do you project? We will have available two years from now.
Speaker 3: So Mike Morelli from Southern California, Edison. So we have our base product, which is 35% and climbing as the regulations increase. We have what we call our 50%, but it's kind of a mislabel because it's 50% of the base product and 50%, 100% renewable. So it's like 67% renewable. And then we have the 100% renewable option. And then as far as products going forward, we're working on community solar and on renewable access for disadvantaged communities. And those in our low income programs predominantly are the programs that are the near term that are that are coming out.
Speaker 2: Excellent. And so on. The last item that we voted on, it sounds as though you will be moving forward on a plan with our staff and bringing that back to us to better understand the renewable sources of energy available.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, we're working on a framework that may include a lot of things. I hope it goes into some of the items you you mentioned as far as how to make sure if if there are priorities in the city, such as how we operate in that, then I'd like to get those on the table as well and figure out how we can be more efficient in in meeting those needs of the of the city as well. So it's not kind of just focus on, you know, the energy portion of it.
Speaker 2: Wonderful. Well, that answers a lot of my questions. I want to appreciate everyone I met with on this matter. There were letters from community members, both for and against. Even people that are pastors of churches. And I think that the further dialog and while I appreciate public comment where people can come forward and say something for 3 minutes, and when people write an email and engage with you in advance of an agenda item, you're really able to talk with them about the things that's important. And so the things that sound important to them are the renewable energy component. How we get there isn't as important, but we need to be moving in that direction. So I'm continuing to listen to the community and my colleagues. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Price.
Speaker 2: Mr. MAYOR. So I'm a little bit I'm feeling like this item is actually in conflict with item ten that we just approved. So maybe I can just ask some clarifying questions. I know we didn't go into them, but there were some included items in item ten that staff is to to do and complete to follow up on this possibility. And so can the city manager or someone from energy resources go through those staff action items.
Speaker 6: Yes. So let me start by kind of a summary of what what it is that the staff recommendation was. And then where I see this kind of taking that next step to help you make a decision, because it really is a policy choice. In our recommendation, we were recommending, given the volatility of the market, that we wait for about two years for making any type of decision. In the meantime, we would be doing additional community outreach. We would be doing a governance study and kind of understanding the CPA model versus going our own route versus forming another JPA with another city and a couple of other kind of steps and working with Southern California Edison. That's the basic summary. What the motion on the floor is, is kind of asking a policy direction. Do you want to take a little bit of a of another step towards a CCAR? You would be filing a letter of interest. We would call it that rather than a letter of intent. But it would essentially be a request and spending money with C pay to say give us more information about your model that would allow you and to see if they want to invite us to to participate or not. Typically, you file that letter of interest or intent when you are ready to move forward with the CPA or I'm sorry, with a K, and then you would have to come back to council and file an implementation plan and an ordinance and have two readings of the ordinance to move forward with that implementation plan. And so the timeline is, if you wanted to do that, you would have to do all those steps before December. That really is the part that has been removed from the motion is that direction to do it by December. This is an interim step to do it. Is the council asking us to modify the motion to say, take another step in this direction by doing the study and letter of intent and then reviewing that with all of your other governance options and returning to the council.
Speaker 2: Okay. So, so the in order for us to express interest in getting more information about their model and asking them to consider us, we have to pay them $30,000.
Speaker 1: This crossing in, what we were told was would be approximately $35,000.
Speaker 2: And that's for it's can we not get any information about their model without paying them $30,000?
Speaker 1: What that does is that pays them to do their own study, not not us. So they have to do their own due diligence and see if they want to invite Long Beach to the dance.
Speaker 2: Okay. So to me, that seems like a very premature step because we're not even sure that we want to dance with them yet. So why would we be paying them $35,000 to vet us to see if they want to be our partner when we haven't decided? We may very well decide that, but one of the things that came back in the staff report today, which I was I've met with everybody who's asked to meet with me on this, too. And I think there's a lot of, you know, opportunities for us to explore and really look at here. But one of the main parts of the staff recommendation is that we haven't done enough community outreach on this. So why would I pay someone $30,000 to decide if they liked me when I haven't even checked with my constituents that we want to participate in this? So I'm not in favor of this motion. I am in favor of shortening that two year window to a one year window. And I want to appreciate the and Councilmember Pearce has mentioned this several times, the number of people who have worked on this for many years. Absolutely. I'm incredibly indebted to the organizations that have worked on this for years. I'm not really sure what the goal post of getting some sort of a letter filed is. I know there's going to be a $35,000 transfer of money to another organization, but I'm not really sure what that goal post is. I'm very grateful for the community members who have participated. I'm also very grateful for the city staff who have participated in this, all of whom are people whose subject matter expertize I rely on to do my job every day. So the staff report that was delivered tonight was to me very eye opening. So I would like to make a substitute motion to. Not file a letter of interest, but to shorten the window of time that staff will bring this back to the council from two years to one year. And that would be my substitute motion.
Speaker 0: Is there a second on that? So a second on that. Okay. But no second. So that. That'll. That'll die.
Speaker 2: No second.
Speaker 0: Okay. Second by Councilmember one. Go. Moving on. It doesn't run. Mongo, did you have any comments on that or did you want to keep going?
Speaker 2: We might have more information. I also feel it's very important that we get that report back.
Speaker 0: Okay. Moving on to Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilman's and has. Councilman's in Dallas.
Speaker 2: You're sorry about that? Was trying to unmute. Yeah. This is a this is something that, you know, it's been a lot on my mind lately. I know that there has been a lot of work put into this for a very, very long time, you know? From my colleagues as well as from. You know, the community. I want to thank all the community members that have really stepped up and have really invested their time throughout the years in getting us to this point. I know that for me, something like this is very important because. It affects a lot of the people in my district having three elementary schools right here, but close to the 710. I can't help but think about the children that are affected that grow up with having all kinds of. Illnesses due to the quality of the pollution that we have here. And, you know, so this is very important to moving forward and, you know, creating some kind of solution now. You know, I'm very supportive of coming up with solutions, you know, and finding out more information on how we can make this happen. I know that, you know, we're still in the beginning stages of this to some sort. You know, to some people it might feel like that, even though to others that might feel like we've been at this for years and years. So I really look forward to to working together not only as as a council, but working together as a as a city, as a community to really bring forward these, you know, these these creative solutions that will help everyone at the end of the day. So with that being said, I would like to make a sub sub. And in that self-serve, I think I would want to include Kevin. Getting back some of the original message and also including on their letter of a letter the. Intent. So that we could move forward. But with that, I would also like to include working with with the city I'm sorry, a letter of intent and working with the city and having city staff work with development services on every step of the way and having six months check in. And also I would like to propose that I know that it is expensive but that. You know, but in the long run, I think that we owe it to our constituents, to our city, to our residents to move forward with this. And actually. So first of all, city staff are trying to break it up into pieces. But if you could tell me what your what you're following as of right now, please.
Speaker 6: This is Charlie Parker in Council Member. I'm not clear on your substitute substitute motion. The original motion was to prepare and send a letter of interest along with a contract to receive additional information. There's a substitute motion that would shorten the time period from the city of Long Beach from two years to one year. And then, as I understand what you mentioned, is that you wanted to make a substitute substitute motion to send a letter of intent or a letter of interest. And then I didn't know it was six month check in.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. It was a letter in intent, please. Not a letter of interest. I confused myself. A letter with a six month check in.
Speaker 6: And just to be clear, the letter of intent is.
Speaker 3: A more formal process that will.
Speaker 6: Move this forward. A letter of interest will allow us to collect data and analyze that data.
Speaker 2: Thank you for clearing that up for me. Yes. Letter of interest.
Speaker 6: Thank you. So as a as I understand it right now, there's not a substantive difference between your motion and the original motion as made by Council member Pierce.
Speaker 2: Yes. Except for the. I do want to include there's a six month check in and shorten the and shorten the time to one year as well. Kind of like would be a combination of both.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. So there is a sub sub for Don. I need a second on the sub sub, please. Second.
Speaker 1: I'll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's Councilmember Richardson. Okay. Still have I still have folks queued up council returns. Did you want to talk to me? Can I just go to the last.
Speaker 1: Call, Mr. Mayor?
Speaker 0: Go. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, spoke a bit earlier. I hear the concerns on both sides. I want to sort of simplify this. The concern, the readiness I heard was about making a decision or committing staff to do you know what Tom said? You know, he's going to have to take some of the best people and focus it. This motion that Councilwoman Sun has as it doesn't encumber staff to reprioritize projects. It's really about getting additional data and information. It doesn't fly the cities and allows us to get through a very difficult year that we have. You know, I've heard on I've heard a number of folks say, hey, two years is too long. This says, hey, let's give it a year. Come back to it. I think that's fair. I think that's fair enough. So I think this is a good compromise motion here. If folks are concerned about what the what the cost is, the 30, $35,000, I think city staff can come back with some options for us to consider. I'm sure there are some ways to look at paying for discretionary dollars, look at the budget process. I even think this may be something we look to see if there's $5 to help support. But I really don't see a downside with this motion. A lot of people are invested in in our climate, invest in our future. And so it's important to me that folks feel included and feel good about this process. As we understand and address our concerns, we should be able to express that this is something we're going to continue to take seriously and not just going to delay for two years. So I encourage I think this is a good compromise motion. I think the city council should adopt this. I'm going to support this motion. I strongly encourage the city council, adopt this and looking forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Count Councilor Ringa.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank my colleagues for the comments they've been making on this. I've been listening with a great amount of interest. I didn't say anything on the eight and ten because I thought that was just a stack of audio as we see the file. So I didn't really chime in too much. And now I'm feeling that this is where we need to really put our money, where our mouth is. And if we want to have an interest in creating a either as a separate JPA or a separate CTA or joint CPA doesn't matter to me. What matters is having the complete and full information that allows us to make a complete decision that is full of information and that makes us feel comfortable in whatever decision or whatever direction we take on this. So I am supportive of the subject to such a motion because it does it is a compromise that brings the two motions together to their interest, which would provide more information for us to evaluate and look at. And it also includes a when you can arrive closer to that would bring it that much sooner to us. You know, there was an analogy made about the 35,000 to go to dance. While you know what you're looking at going to the prom, you make a commitment, you pay for your tickets, you buy a dress where you get a title, you get the concert, you get whatever it is, and you get ready for the best. And then we present your ticket. They let you in. So this is pretty much along the same lines, literally. It's great to have somebody to dance. So the end of the day, it's how we react to the information we receive. And I'm really looking forward to serving this not further to getting all the information we need to make a real sound and a decision that will be best for not only our communities but regional as well, that we what I represent, which is an area that that is more important than a freeway and a river runs to it. And I got a lot of the last few weeks and said, I'm definitely interested in trying to lower our carbon footprint, looking at getting rid of our gas, our greenhouse gases, and moving forward with an electrical electrical energy plan that the Lord supports. So I have support with that subsidy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember over now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I actually queued up so long ago, I think we were just I think it was before the submission. So I guess I'd like to just comment on the last two comments. And that is, I believe the compromise was made when the length of time was changed from two years to one year, and that was in exchange for removing the $35,000 letter. So for that reason, I go back to the original point was our unanimous vote on item ten seems to be in conflict with what this sub sub is. So I.
Speaker 3: Will not be.
Speaker 1: Supporting the subs for that.
Speaker 3: Reason. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Austin.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to appreciate all of the comments from the public, from staff, also my colleagues on this very important issue. You know, I did have some came into this this evening on on the fence. And I'm still not exactly sure what we are seeking to accomplish with the substitute motions of the. And I agree with councilmember supernormal. Item ten seem to be pretty resolute. And in item ten it directs the city manager to prepare a study that does an analysis of governance options, including forming a standalone city enterprise, creating new joint powers authority with another interested public agency, or joining an existing JPA. There there are a number of directives in the the item previous to the one that we are here now that I really think accomplishes the same thing and shows that our city is very much interested in TCAS or looking at alternatives to what we have today in terms of energy. And so I'm a little perplexed with the urgency, particularly when we have discussed the the financial uncertainty that we face right now as a city. And I'm just saying everything is. Is related to timing here. Of course, it is feasible. And we've we've walked down that path already. We understand the feasibility of the question, I guess, to me is, is the most impractical and irresponsible for us to move in this direction right now? I'm not so certain of that, so I don't think I'll be supporting the motion on before us right now. And I certainly hope we can come together with the Council and understand that again, we voted 902 to receive a final report and give our city managers, our city manager, clear direction on how to move forward on this issue. I support that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Pearce.
Speaker 2: Thank you, everyone. I hope that we can.
Speaker 0: Do great mine. Do you mind if everyone goes? It hasn't gone first. And I go back to the people that are. Well, they're gone.
Speaker 2: There's some misunderstandings on the floor of the floor.
Speaker 0: Good.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate everyone's comments on this. And I think that this is not something that is in contradiction to the last item. Mainly, this is something that operationalize is the vote that we took before. And the money is not necessarily to give directly to CPA. It's money for the exact same consultants to do a deeper dove. And it was my understanding that we might have some money left over from our contract with IMR. W is that true? City Manager.
Speaker 6: I'm going to ask, um, Chris or Bob or John to answer that more specifically.
Speaker 1: If the question I understand is where the $35,000 goes, it goes to CPA to cover their costs for doing a study, whether they want us to join or to allow us to join CPA. Now, of course.
Speaker 2: The question is the money. It's my understanding and I know that we've got both the consultants on here and RW and CPA. It's my understanding that the money is used for M RW to do the deeper analysis along with CPA and that we would be billed later on for the balance that $35 is the cap, but we'd be billed for the balance. Not that it's something we would have to allocate today. So I'm not sure if one of them wants to clarify on that process. And then I'd like to to talk about resources for for funding that.
Speaker 1: It's certainly my understanding that and this is from CPA, that we would pay them directly $35,000.
Speaker 2: I am so CPA. I believe that that Ted is still on the call. It's sad.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, I'm. I'm. I'm here.
Speaker 2: Can you do this for me?
Speaker 3: Yeah. So the vast majority of the data that was in the feasibility study talked about the financial viability of of. Of China's Long Beach starting its own care. We have a different cost structure. We have a different rate structure than was studied in that in that in in the feasibility study. So we need to look at it from our perspective and our data to know if it's viable if it's a viable option that you would like to consider. That costs consulting dollars, and every penny that you would pay us would go to M. RW, who is already your consultant to undertake the study using our cost structure, our load profile, how you would fit in, in addition to the fact that we already have built reserves over time. So it's it would be a reimbursement to CPA that would for the charges that are w would would fill us. But there's no financial benefit to Clean Power Alliance in this arrangement.
Speaker 2: Thank you for that. And so I just wanted to make sure that we were clear that this is something just to extend us to be able to do that deeper dove and just operationalizing the task that we already voted on. And so I know what, Matt, I know that everybody's received a lot of calls on this. I know we've got a lot of community. I think there's a lot of knee jerk responses from some not the council per se, but other folks. Um, there's I am fine to put whatever resources I can use from my discretionary funds to move forward on this. I think that it is the right step. But I also believe that that we've identified that we need to spend resources for the CPA or not the CPA before the cap, and that these resources are in line with the goals that we've already identified as as a city. If we do not take this step, then we are. There's not resources there to make sure that we're getting the data and information that so many of the community members have asked us for. I'd also like to address that there aren't just costs associated with joining us. There's costs with not joining us. There's a ton of reports out there, and I know that we don't have this data in front of us, and I hope it comes forward with this with the CAP discussion. But we spend three we spend 200 and $224 billion a year based on climate health outcomes as a country. So there are a lot of costs, but I think that this is a middle road. I think respect for the fact that we've all been going through a lot of process. I was completely surprised by the fact that Edison was invited to participate today. I know that there are community members that have a lot of questions about the appearance of conflict of interest, because we as a city are a member of support and super does, you know, isn't somebody that technically would go and advocate for clean energy . I know that that we are part of five other associations that have to deal with the oil industry. We need to have that debate and that conversation down the road. I tried not to have it today, but I think that if we don't vote to help operationalize the previous vote that council took, that it will appear as such. And so I'm really asking as respectfully as I can for my colleagues to see that this is a pretty soft landing compared to where the community members have been advocating for and those that were supportive of it last week before they changed. Community members and organizations that decided to change their mind. It's a good process to go through and we just need to be able to have the resources to do it. So I don't know that I have 35. I probably do, but I do think that it is resources that we should all be spending together. So I'd like to hear counsel conversation just on those facts, please.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thanks. Mary Andrews. Oh, no, no. I'm sorry. Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Pearce, I really appreciate your comments. I came into the day with a very open mind and I still have a very open mind. I think that the challenge I have is that some of the statements being made are in conflict with what I'm hearing. So I want to make sure that I'm hearing correctly because I don't think that we're in the same place. You're saying that we are going to look at more information, but the information that the $35,000 pays for is not information for us. It is actually information for them. It doesn't concern us what their rate loads are. That's for them to know if they want to invite us. It's it's still unsure if we want to be invited. And as a kind of a single mom who was barely able to afford to go to prom, I didn't get to buy a ticket. I didn't put forward the money until I knew I could afford to go. And right now we are in some very uncertain times. And it sounds to me like you don't even know if your budget has the 35,000. I think 35,000 is a small investment. We've already spent over 200,000. So I'm not as conflicted about just the amount. But here we're talking about. When else to do the study of their organization on whether or not they want to invite us to the party. When we're not sure we want to go to the party. And so I actually thought I would be in a different place now than I was before. And it happened to me a few times over the last week. I think that's part of the process of really listening to that and kind of waiting it out. I want to know, quite frankly, if we can get to this clean energy point without taking the risks. But I do want Southern California Edison to take us seriously and want to have that timeline condense to one year, because I don't want to be sitting around twiddling their thumbs if they don't come to the table with an offer that is exceeding what their current performances. And so I think that we are in a really great position with what was passed in item. And so I really appreciate Mary's efforts to create a soft landing. I think item ten can already accomplish that. So I'll be supporting the substitute motion, not the item on the floor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrews.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you, Mayor. I've been listening to everyone who tries to speak on this, but we're going to do a, you know, potentially raise rate for prices, you know, for players prices. I think we need to do more outreach. And that's why I'm going to support, you know, council members prices, price, emotions that we can so we can, you know, study this for one more year instead of two and come back with a recommendation on the CTA when we are hopefully recovering from this pandemic. Everything else is going on in and, you know, economy. And thank you very much, Mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you, vice mayor. Next up is councilwoman. Pierce.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. I do have 35 and I'm committed to raise that money. I guess the question that I. I would ask one more time is the fact, you know, I know that the staff's presentation had a lot of conversation about risk. I read the full report. It is feasible. And I do think that we are at a place where we deserve to get more info. It is info about what it would look like if Long Beach joined EPA. They might come back and say it's not feasible. And I think that that is a very solid next step that doesn't require staff time. So I respectfully would ask council members in De Haas to amend or accept my friendly to pay for the 35 K out of my own divide by nine and and include that in your motion and see if possibly taking that off the table will allow us to vote today instead of having a split vote. Council members and de Haas. Do you accept my friendly. I do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilor Pearce. Anything else?
Speaker 2: No, I have lots of comments, but I think that the the the view of the conflict of interest, for one, and I just hope that we can move forward today and and get to a place where we can clean up our environment and take the appropriate next steps. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. That concludes the we do public comment on this. I think we did have a comment already, correct? Correct.
Speaker 4: Yes. We completed public comment on this item.
Speaker 0: Okay. That that concludes council comments on this item. Please talk about.
Speaker 4: District one.
Speaker 2: I can clarify that this is a substitute. Substitute.
Speaker 6: That's correct. You're voting on council members in the House. Substitute. Substitute motion.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: District three.
Speaker 2: They?
Speaker 4: District four.
Speaker 1: Nay.
Speaker 2: District five.
Speaker 4: May District six.
Speaker 5: Lake.
Speaker 4: District seven.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: District eight.
Speaker 3: May.
Speaker 4: District nine.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: Motion does not pass.
Speaker 0: See now. Now we're moving on to the substitute motion.
Speaker 6: And again, the substitute motion is a motion by Councilmember Price, second by Councilmember Mongo to shorten the two year period to a one year period.
Speaker 4: District one. I district to.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: District three.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: District four.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 4: District five.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: District six.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: District seven. District eight. District nine. I motion carries.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Next up is item number seven.
Speaker 4: Communication from Council Member Pearce, Chair of Environmental Committee. Recommendation to request City Council to endorse the Climate Action Adaptation Plan. Consider the Community Choice Aggregation Initiative and include a construction career policy with the Climate Action Adaptation Plan.
Recommendation to request City Council to create a CCA or join the Clean Power Alliance, and file an implementation plan by the end of the year.