Pasadena Water & Power 2009 Integrated Resource Plan Advisory Group Meeting #5 December 17, 2008

Pasadena Water & Power 2009 Integrated Resource Plan

Advisory Group Meeting #5

December 17, 2008

- 2 -The Power of Integration

Agenda

• Status Update and Summary of Findings

• Results of Phase 2 Analysis

– Phase 2 Portfolios and Evaluation Criteria

– Portfolio Screening and Hybrid Portfolio Development

– Reliability and Regulatory Risk Evaluations

– Comprehensive Portfolio Ranking

• Recommendations and Consensus Building

– Pace Recommendations

– Key Decision Points

– Near-Term Implementation Steps

• Planning for Tonight’s Public Meeting

• Next Steps


Phase 2 – Evaluating Tradeoffs (environment, cost, risk)

Develop Assumptions

Configure AlternatePortfolios

DevelopReference Case

Perform Portfolio & Risk

AnalysisPrepare Report

Stakeholder Advisory Group Stakeholder Advisory Group

Final Set of Data Inputs

PortfolioRisk

AnalysisRecommendedresource plan

Portfolioanalysis

(best guessassumptions)

Final set of portfolios


Status Update

• Tentative Schedule for Remaining IRP Process

– December 17: AG and Public Meetings to present Phase 2 conclusions and recommendations

– January 12: Draft IRP Report Released

– January 23: Advisory Group Meeting #6

– January 24 (Saturday): Public Meeting #4

– Late January/Early February: Presentations to EAC and MSC

– Early February: Written Comments due on Final Report

– Mid-late February: Request EAC Support

– Early March: Request City Council Approval


Summary of Findings

• Phase 2 analysis is complete

• Key conclusions and recommendations are:– Carbon reduction and renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requirements are

uncertain, but PWP could meet a 33% RPS and at least a 25% carbon reduction without significant changes to the existing portfolio

– A 33+% RPS and about a 25% carbon reduction is achievable at little or no additional cost from the current portfolio by pursuing economical energy efficiency and demand response programs (31 MW), solar PV and other local renewables (24 MW), landfill gas (15 MW), geothermal (15 MW), solar thermal (10 MW), and wind (10 MW) by 2020

– Opportunities to achieve higher carbon reductions and RPS levels appear feasible, in exchange for higher costs and risk exposure

– Higher levels of carbon reductions may be achievable at about a $2.50/MWh (levelized NPV) increase for every 10% increase in carbon reductions, if IPP power can be sold off under carbon accounting rules at a reasonable price

– PWP needs to invest in local infrastructure, which could include new local gas-fired generation or transmission system upgrades (or both), in order to mitigate exposure to reliability risks in the existing portfolio


Emissions Reduction

RPS 2020 Cost Reliability Price RiskIPP Sale

Feasibility

% Reduction from 2008

% of NELLevelized $/MWh

Added cost for 95% $/MWh

Added Cost Levelized $/MWh

1a: Low Diverse 29% 40% 89 16 0

5b: Med CC Renew 38% 50% 92 23 5

6: Med CC 60% 33% 104 26 24

8: High Diverse 74% 74% 105 26 24

Portfolio

Recommended Portfolios

Portfolio NameLocal

RenewablesRemote

RenewablesDSM/Eff.

Natural Gas

Coal Total

1a: Low Diverse 24 50 31 1055b: Med CC Renew 29 70 31 - 65 + 65 -35 956: Med CC 14 30 26 65 -108 278: High Diverse 50 70 59 -108 71

Pace recommends four specific alternatives for final consideration

Incremental Changes to Existing Portfolio (MW)

Performance Across Key IRP Objectives and Considerations


Recommended Portfolios (cont.)

• Pace recommends four specific alternatives for final consideration

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 30% by 2020 through modest additions of renewable energy and other clean resources. This option seeks to minimize the upward pressure on PWP’s costs, but may not address reliability concerns and PWP’s ability to satisfy emerging environmental obligations.

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 40% by 2020 through a diverse mix of renewable energy, other clean resources, and efficient new natural gas-fired generation inside Pasadena. This option attempts to balance environmental, cost and reliability objectives without subjecting PWP to extreme risks.

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 60% by 2020 through completely displacing existing coal resources and replacing them with efficient new natural gas-fired generation and modest additions of renewable energy and other clean resources. This option addresses reliability risks, but at higher cost and the risk that full coal displacement is infeasible.

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 75% by 2020 through completely displacing existing coal resources and replacing them with a diverse mix of renewable energy and other clean resources. This option provides the highest GHG emissions reductions, but is the most expensive of the four options and may not adequately address reliability concerns associated with continued reliance on the aging local generating units.


Summary of Key Decision Points

• Minimum Environmental Performance: Portfolio options break down into low, medium, and high emission reduction targets

– If the low reduction is considered a “non-starter” because it is deemed insufficient for likely carbon limits, then Portfolio 1a can be eliminated

– What additional cost to move to higher emission reduction targets is palatable to customers?

• IPP Sale Feasibility: Uncertainties regarding the sale of IPP power may dictate how much is removed from the portfolio, and the level of emission reductions that is achievable

– If no more than a 35 MW displacement is considered feasible, then Portfolios 6 and 8 can be eliminated

• Reliability: What local infrastructure investments provide acceptable reliability?

– If new local gas-fired generation is considered essential to providing an acceptable assurance of reliability (rather than extending the life of existing local units plus potential transmission system upgrades), then Portfolio 8 can be eliminated


Action Items and Final Portfolio Selection

• A final selection among these alternatives requires specific decisions about the preferred balance between greater GHG emissions reductions, higher costs, and infrastructure improvements to reduce reliability risks

• Several key Action Items are recommended to select the best portfolio

– An evaluation of PWP customers’ appetite for paying premiums for environmental stewardship

– An evaluation of the potential sales, GHG accounting treatment, and price for power sales from IPP

– An evaluation of whether new local gas-fired generation or transmission system enhancements (or both) is the preferred approach for ensuring reliability

– An evaluation of the availability of low cost geothermal and landfill gas renewable energy projects to achieve potential cost reductions


Near-Term Implementation Steps

• Regardless of the long-term GHG emissions reduction that is chosen, PWP should immediately commence with the following short-term implementation steps that are common among all of the long-term strategies:

– Continue securing contracts for power from a diverse mix of new renewable energy sources, balanced among landfill gas, geothermal, wind and solar projects

– Expand PWP’s already aggressive energy efficiency programs

– Develop demand response programs and rates to provide customers with economic incentives to reduce their peak electricity consumption

– Develop a new “feed-in tariff” program in which PWP will offer to purchase power, at a fixed price, to any qualifying renewable energy project within the City in order to facilitate the development of local renewable energy sources

– Evaluate innovative new financing approaches and electric rate structures in order to spur more PWP customers to install solar photovoltaic projects inside Pasadena


Results of Phase 2 Analysis

Results of Phase 2 Analysis


Ranking IRP Objectives—PWP Stakeholder Surveys

IRP Advisory Group Rankings

Public Questionnaire 1 Rankings

Public Questionnaire 2 Rankings

Provide Reliable Service 1 1 4

Strive for Environmental Leadership 2 2 1 **

Maintain Stable Rates 3 3

Preserve Competitive Rates 5 2

Allow for Flexibility 4 5

Manage Market Risks 6 5

Maintain Fiscal Health 7 7

** High rankings for "Energy Efficiency and Conservation", Environmental Protection" and "Building a Renewable Energy Portfolio" also incorporated from Public Questionnaire responses

3


PWP Customers’ Opinions on Climate Change Issues

PWP Residential Customers PWP Business Customers

"Very Familiar" with climate change issues 58% 60%

"Very Concerned" with climate change issues 61% 49%

"Reasonable" rate increase to fund climate change solutions

20% 24% 9%

15% 29% 15%

10% 49% 34%

5% 71% 56%

3% 78% 79%

"Reasonable" rate increase to do more than climate change law requires

20% 10% 13%

15% 14% 15%

10% 21% 25%

5% 29% 33%

3% 29% 37%

Source: RKS Consulting Surveys, November 2008


Projected Impacts on Residential Customer Bills

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Change in Levelized Monthly Residential Bill 2009-2030

Car

bo

n R

edu

ctio

n b

y 20

20

Status Quo

Portfolio 5

Portfolio 6

Portfolio 8

Portfolio 5a

Portfolio 5b

Portfolio 1a

Action ItemAction Item


Projected Impacts on Commercial Customer Bills

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Change in Levelized Monthly Commercial Bill 2009-2030

Car

bo

n R

edu

ctio

n b

y 20

20

Status Quo

Portfolio 5

Portfolio 6

Portfolio 8

Portfolio 5a

Portfolio 5b

Portfolio 1a



How We Have Addressed Shortcomings in the 2007 IRP

Shortcoming Resolution in 2009 IRP

Inadequate weighing of environmental impacts

• GHG emissions costs incorporated into all price projections and cost metrics

• Explicit consideration of the environmental and cost trade-offs across options

Opportunity costs of fossil fuel vs. local renewable investments; opportunities for fossil-fuel reductions

• Evaluation of local fossil-fuel and renewable options throughout portfolios

• Evaluation of cost and environmental effects of reducing IPP generation as well as consideration of gas-fired vs. renewable-focused portfolios

Inadequate RPS goals and consideration of local renewable resources

• Evaluation of significant expansion of RPS and GHG policies beyond expected State requirements (including both RPS and GHG policies)

• Specific evaluation of local renewable options vs. remote renewable options

Expanded energy efficiency efforts and balance between residential & commercial

• Evaluation of significantly expanded energy efficiency programs consistent with AB 2021 targets; evaluation of even more aggressive targets; explicit selection of most cost-effective mix of commercial and residential options

Partnership opportunities to pursue green and clean power opportunities

• Final IRP report will discuss options for meaningful partnership opportunities with business and research organizations to pursue clean and green opportunities consistent with preferred portfolio options and recommendations


10810810810810847IPP Replacement

901311019515056404030Total MW Added

10987654321

1 2 3 5 6 910

87

LFG GEO Wind Solar T. Solar PV Feedin Tariff Gas CC RA DR

4

250

Phase 2 Portfolios: Capacity Additions (MW)

*All capacities are incremental over existing portfolio

Carbon Reduction

TargetPortfolio # Landfill

Geo thermal

WindSolar

ThermalSolar PV (Existing)

Solar PV (Expand)

Feed-In Tariff

Energy Efficiency

DR & RA Local Gas Coal

1: LFG/Geo 15 15 14 26 70

2: Wind 10 10 20 14 26 80

3: Solar 10 10 20 14 26 80

4: Local 10 10 14 15 21 34 104

5: Remote Renew 15 15 60 60 14 26 -47 143

6: CC 15 15 14 26 65 -108 27

7: Local 5 5 14 15 21 34 55 -108 41

8: Diverse 25 25 10 10 14 15 21 34 25 -108 71

9: LFG/Geo 25 65 14 26 -108 22

10: Wind/Solar 125 125 14 26 -108 182

Fossil-fueled

Total

Low

Med

Remote Renewables Local Renewables/DSM

High


CO2 Reduction Strategy Concepts

• Naming Convention has changed from “30/60/80” to “Low/Medium/High”

– Uncertainty surrounds actual year-to-year CO2 reductions and accounting methodologies that will be employed to account for market purchases and market sales

– Rather than peg each portfolio at a specific reduction target, we have grouped them as follows:

• Low: Illustrates reductions on the low-end (<30%) of AB 32 scoping plan requirements and generally corresponds with a 33% RPS

• Medium: Illustrates a range (35% - 60%) of reductions more in line with a scenario where AB 32 mandates are imposed disproportionately on a utility like PWP; higher reductions correspond with higher displacement of IPP

• High: Illustrates a high level of environmental leadership by achieving reductions approaching the state’s long term goal (80% reduction by 2050) in an accelerated manner


Criteria for Portfolio Evaluation and Ranking

• Emissions Reductions: % reduction in CO2 emissions in 2020 from 2008 baseline

• Cost: NPV of levelized cost of generation (including net market transactions) for each portfolio in $/MWh

• Price Risk: Adverse cost increase (95% confidence) after statistical uncertainty analysis performed for fuel prices, load, and capital costs

• RPS 2020: % of net energy for load from qualified renewable sources

• Reliability: Qualitative assessment of the reliability risks of continued reliance on the aging local generating units or replacing them with modern, efficient generation

• Capital Charges: Fixed costs for all new capacity additions ($ millions) levelized over 20 year study period

• Spot Market Dependence: Total market sales minus total market purchases as a % of total PWP net energy for load

• IPP Sale Feasibility: Adverse impact of reduced sale revenue for power from IPP

• Carbon Price Risk: NPV of levelized cost of generation under high CO2 price scenario

• Regulatory Risk: Qualitatively assess risks relating to RPS, emission reductions requirements CO2 emissions accounting rules


Summary Metrics for All Evaluated Portfolios

10810810810810847IPP Replacement

901311019515056404030Total MW Added

10987654321

1 2 3 5 6 910

87

LFG GEO Wind Solar T. Solar PV Feedin Tariff Gas CC RA DR

4

250

Emissions Reduction

Cost Price Risk RPS 2020 ReliabilityCapital

Charges

Spot Market Dependence

2020

IPP Sale Feasibility

Carbon Price Risk

Regulatory Risk


Levelized $/MWh


% of NELAnnual

Levelized $MM in 2030

% of 2020 LoadAdded Cost Levelized $/MWh


Status Quo 12% 89 9 12% 0 4% 0 201: Low LFG/Geo 25% 87 12 31% 21 22% 0 162: Low Wind 24% 88 12 29% 21 20% 0 173: Low Solar 23% 90 13 28% 24 19% 0 174: Low Local 26% 92 14 33% 23 26% 0 165: Med Remote Renew 48% 101 27 58% 65 26% 8 116: Med CC 60% 104 26 33% 34 -2% 24 107: Med Local 52% 106 21 38% 17 -40% 24 138: High Diverse 74% 105 26 74% 49 -8% 24 79: High LFG/Geo 80% 100 27 72% 58 3% 24 5

10: High Wind/Solar 73% 122 42 66% 94 -4% 24 6

Portfolio


Cost vs. CO2 Emissions ComparisonUncertainty around Natural Gas Prices, Load, Power Prices and Capital Costs

• Portfolios with higher emission reductions generally have higher costs

8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125

Levelized Cost (2008$/MWh)

Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8

Status Quo Portfolio 1 Portfolio 2 Portfolio 3 Portfolio 4 Portfolio 5

Portfolio 6 Portfolio 7 Portfolio 8 Portfolio 9 Portfolio 10


Cost vs. Risk ComparisonUncertainty around Natural Gas Prices, Load, Power Prices and Capital Costs

• Uncertainty and price risk generally are higher for more costly portfolio options

• This is due generally to the replacement of IPP power and the increased reliance on intermittent resources and uncertain capital costs of new generation options

8

$80

$90

$100

$110

$120

$130

$140

$150

$160

$170

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125


95th

Per

cen

tile

(20

08$/

MW

h)




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8



Cost vs. CO2 Emissions ComparisonUncertainty around Natural Gas Prices, Load, Power Prices and Capital Costs

• Portfolios with higher emission reductions generally have higher costs

Similar emission reduction targets for portfolios 5, 6, and 7

Portfolio 7 a candidate for elimination because it has highest cost

Similar emission reduction targets for portfolios 8, 9, and 10

Portfolio 10 a candidate for elimination because it has highest cost

8


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8

Status Quo Portfolio 1 Portfolio 2 Portfolio 3 Portfolio 4

Low Emission Reduction Portfolios

LFG/Geo are lowest cost

Adding more renewables locally can improve emissions reductions and potentially reduce reliability risks

• Low emission reduction portfolios perform very similarly on emissions, cost, and risk metrics

Portfolios 1,2,3, and 4 are candidates for elimination Combined to create one “hybrid” portfolio that includes LFG, geo, wind, solar, PV, feed-in, DR: “Portfolio 1a”

8

Emissions Reduction

Cost Price Risk


Levelized $/MWh


1: Low LFG/Geo 25% 87 122: Low Wind 24% 88 123: Low Solar 23% 90 13

4: Low Local 26% 92 14

Portfolio

1a: Low Diverse 29% 89 16


Initial Evaluation for Higher Emission Reduction Options

• Portfolio 1a was created as a “hybrid” from portfolios 1, 2, 3, and 4

• Portfolios 7 and 10 are candidates for elimination given their costs, relative to achieved emission reductions

• Portfolios 5, 6, 8, and 9 are candidates to explore further

– In addition to metrics outlined above, they warrant investigation around sale of IPP power and resource availability

8

Emissions Reduction


Charges


2020


Carbon Price Risk

Regulatory Risk


Levelized $/MWh


% of NELAnnual




Status Quo 12% 89 9 12% 0 4% 0 201a: Low Diverse 29% 89 16 40% 31 29% 0 155: Med Remote Renew 48% 101 27 58% 65 26% 8 116: Med CC 60% 104 26 33% 34 -2% 24 107: Med Local 52% 106 21 38% 17 -40% 24 138: High Diverse 74% 105 26 74% 49 -8% 24 79: High LFG/Geo 80% 100 27 72% 58 3% 24 5

10: High Wind/Solar 73% 122 42 66% 94 -4% 24 6

Portfolio


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125 $130


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8


Uncertainty around IPP Sale Can Alter Portfolio Attractiveness

Medium and high emission reduction portfolios all reliant on sale of all or part of the power generated from IPP (coal)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125 $130


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8


Portfolio 5 is less exposed to the risk of zero revenue from power sale because only 47 MW sold, as opposed to 108 MW in portfolios 6, 8, and 9

Zero price for sale of IPP


8


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8

Status Quo Portfolio 9 Portfolio 9a

Availability Affects Emissions Reductions Targets

9a: No LFG or additional 50 MW of Geo

In addition to the risk associated with the sale of IPP power, Portfolio 9 is heavily reliant on low-cost LFG and Geo, which have uncertainty associated with their general availability and with regard to transmission to PWP

If 75 MW are unavailable, costs for portfolio 9 would be increased and emission reductions decreased


8


Emissions Reduction


Charges


2020


Carbon Price Risk

Regulatory Risk


Levelized $/MWh


% of NELAnnual




Status Quo 12% 89 9 12% 0 4% 0 201a: Low Diverse 29% 89 16 40% 31 29% 0 155: Med Remote Renew 48% 101 27 58% 65 26% 8 116: Med CC 60% 104 26 33% 34 -2% 24 107: Med Local 52% 106 21 38% 17 -40% 24 138: High Diverse 74% 105 26 74% 49 -8% 24 79: High LFG/Geo 80% 100 27 72% 58 3% 24 5

10: High Wind/Solar 73% 122 42 66% 94 -4% 24 6

Portfolio

Summary of Higher Emission Reduction Options

• Portfolio 7 and 10 highest cost for given emission reductions: candidates for elimination

• Portfolio 9 raises feasibility questions, is exposed to risk surrounding IPP sale, and also may not adequately address reliability concerns: candidate for elimination

• Portfolio 5 not fully exposed to IPP sale risk and is low cost, but may not adequately address reliability concerns tied to reliance on aging local generation

• Portfolio 6 addresses reliability concerns with new local gas-fired generation, but has higher costs and more exposure to market volatility and IPP sale price

• Combine strengths of Portfolios 5 and 6 to create Portfolios 5a and 5b 8


Carbon Reduction

TargetPortfolio Landfill

Geo thermal

WindSolar

ThermalSolar PV (Existing)

Solar PV (Expand)

Feed-In Tariff

Energy Efficiency


5: Med Remote Renew 15 15 60 60 14 26 -47 143

5a: Med Diverse Renew 15 15 20 20 14 5 10 26 5 -35 95

5b: Med CC Renew 15 15 20 20 14 5 10 26 5 -65 + 65 -35 95

6: Med CC 15 15 14 26 65 -108 27

7: Med Local 5 5 14 15 21 34 55 -108 41

8: High Diverse 25 25 10 10 14 15 21 34 25 -108 71

9: High LFG/Geo 25 65 14 26 -108 22

10: High Wind/Solar 125 125 14 26 -108 182

Local Renewables/DSM Fossil-fueled

Total

Med

High

Remote Renewables

Hybrid Medium Emission Reduction Portfolios

• Preserve Portfolios 5, 6, and 8 as best performing in the medium and high emission reduction target categories

• Develop hybrid portfolios, recognizing the strengths of several portfolios and other practical considerations

– Due to IPP contract structures, removal of 35 MW is more feasible

– Diversifying the mix of resource additions reduces risks

– Local resources directly address reliability concerns

8*All capacities are incremental over existing portfolio


Final Portfolio Summary

• Portfolios 1a, 5, 5a, 5b, 6, and 8 were selected based on full analysis of all uncertainty criteria

*All capacities are incremental over existing portfolio

Emissions Reduction


Charges


2020


Carbon Price Risk

Regulatory Risk


Levelized $/MWh


% of NELAnnual




1a: Low Diverse 29% 89 16 40% 31 29% 0 155: Med Remote Renew 48% 101 27 58% 65 26% 8 115a: Med Diverse Renew 37% 95 18 58% 39 21% 5 135b: Med CC Renew 38% 92 23 50% 51 41% 5 126: Med CC 60% 104 26 33% 34 -2% 24 10

8: High Diverse 74% 105 26 74% 49 -8% 24 7

Portfolio

Total

Portfolio Name LandfillGeo

thermalWind

Solar Thermal

Solar PV (Existing)

Solar PV (Expand)

Feed-In Tariff

Energy Efficiency


1a: Low Diverse 15 15 10 10 14 5 5 26 5 105

5: Med Remote Renew 15 15 60 60 14 26 -47 143

5a: Med Diverse Renew 15 15 20 20 14 5 10 26 5 -35 95

5b: Med CC Renew 15 15 20 20 14 5 10 26 5 -65 + 65 -35 95

6: Med CC 15 15 14 26 65 -108 27

8: High Diverse 25 25 10 10 14 15 21 34 25 -108 71

Fossil-fueledRemote Renewables Local Renewables/DSM

8


Overview of Reliability and PWP Local Generation Issues

• “Provide Reliable Service” is a priority objective for the IRP planning process (ranked #1 by the IRP Advisory Group and #1 and #4 in PWP questionnaires)

• Reliability depends critically on PWP’s local generating units

– PWP has a single point of connection with the California power grid (Goodrich)

– PWP’s imports at Goodrich are limited to 215 MW, so local units must be used when customer demand exceeds this level (PWP’s peak load exceeds 300 MW)

– PWP has identified a need for 200 MW of local generation to satisfy its reliability criteria

– PWP operates the local units approximately 50% of the hours during the year to comply with various reliability criteria, including the 215 MW import limit

• Continued reliance on the aging Broadway 3 and Glenarm 1&2 units (110 MW) places PWP’s service reliability at increasing risk in the future

– The units are old (30-40 years), inefficient and increasingly difficult and expensive for PWP to keep operating

– Significant capital investments are required to extend the units’ operating lives (estimated by PWP at $20 million over the next 10 years, $65 million over the next 20 years; these costs have been incorporated into Pace’s economic analysis and results)

– PWP may need to upgrade its transmission system, such as the single Goodrich interconnection and its cross-town tie lines, in order to mitigate reliability risks relating to long-term reliance on the aging local units


Reliability Risks Associated with the Aging Local Units

• Pace reviewed PWP operating criteria and projected load data to assess the potential reliability risks of continued reliance on the 110 MW of aging local generating units

• PWP studies indicate the need to initiate rolling blackouts when customer loads exceed 253 MW and the 110 MW of aging local units is unavailable

– Pace’s analysis indicates this has a 2.04% probability of occurring (179 hours/year)

– An accepted industry planning standard is 0.027% probability (1 day in 10 years)

– Achieving the industry standard requires at least a 76.2% probability that each of the three aging local units will be available when called to meet PWP customer’s electricity requirements

• PWP is currently studying potential options to upgrade its transmission system; however, that study assumes that the existing local generation capacity continues to be maintained indefinitely.


Reliability Conclusions and IRP Implications

• All portfolios are constructed to achieve an 18% target reserve margin, but are expected to have differing impacts on reliability risks

• Portfolios 5b and 6 directly address reliability concerns by adding modern, efficient facilities inside PWP’s transmission-constrained area to replace the aging local units

• Portfolios 1a, 5, 5a and 8 may not adequately address reliability concerns because they assume that life extensions of the aging local units and/or transmission system upgrades can provide adequate assurance of reliability

• Costs that need to be considered when evaluating these options

– $86 million capital cost for new 65 MW gas-fired generation to be spent before 2014

– $65 million for life extension of existing generation facilities to be spent before 2028

– Transmission system enhancements, estimated to cost $50 million by 2014, may be required even if new local generation is added; actual costs could easily be higher

• Pace is unable to offer a definitive recommendation on the best option for ensuring reliability, but we rank Portfolios 5b and 6 higher because they directly address PWP’s reliability concerns with investments in new local generation



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8

Status Quo Portfolio 1a Portfolio 5a Portfolio 5b Portfolio 6 Portfolio 8 Portfolio 5

Regulatory Risk: GHG Emissions Accounting

• The treatment of CO2 emissions associated with market sales can significantly impact the accounting of emission reductions

• Accounting rules are uncertain with regard to the “netting off” of market sales for emission reduction purposes

• Range of potential outcomes should be considered if rules are uncertain

Cleanest resources serve native load

All generation and purchases count


8


Regulatory Risk: Envisioning a “High CO2” Scenario

• Test portfolios under a scenario with stricter CO2 policy and a higher price for carbon

– High case represents a potential policy calling for 60% to 80% emission reductions below 2005 levels by 2050

• Reduction targets from 2005 emission levels are assumed in the ranges as follows:

– 5% to 15% by 2020

– 15% to 30% by 2025

– 35% to 45% by 2030

• The High Case is aggressive enough to knock out 45% of the least efficient coal plants nationwide

0

25

50

75

100

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

CO

2 C

ost

($/

ton

ne)

Reference Case High Case


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8


Regulatory Risk: Impacts of a “High CO2” Scenario

• High CO2 prices negatively impact all portfolios; those that hold IPP face relatively higher costs

• Portfolio 5b has an emission rate lower than market, and therefore benefits more in high CO2 case from market sales

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115 $120 $125


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8


Portfolios that hold onto less of IPP perform relatively better under high CO2 scenario

8


Regulatory Risk Conclusions

• PWP faces significant regulatory uncertainty, especially with regard to future state and federal environmental policy on renewable requirements and CO2 emission reductions

• Portfolios were qualitatively ranked in accordance with the flexibility that each provides with regard to the ability to adjust to changing regulatory conditions

– Portfolios that are not aggressive or possibly too aggressive with regard to environmental actions are deemed to have the most exposure to a changing regulatory climate

– Portfolio 5b has additional flexibility to alter the operations of the combined cycle unit in order to meet certain reduction targets


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

$80 $85 $90 $95 $100 $105 $110 $115


Em

issi

on

s R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8

Status Quo Portfolio 6 Portfolio 8 Portfolio 1a Portfolio 5a Portfolio 5b

Final Portfolio Cost and Environmental Trade-offs

Potential transmission upgrades (if required) for portfolios that do not add new local gas-fired generation

Are higher emission reductions feasible and worth the extra cost?

8


Emissions Reduction


Charges


2020


Carbon Price Risk

Regulatory Risk


Levelized $/MWh


% of NELAnnual




Status Quo 12% 89 9 12% 0 4% 0 20

1a: Low Diverse 29% 89 16 40% 31 29% 0 15

5: Med Remote Renew 48% 101 27 58% 65 26% 8 11

5a: Med Diverse Renew 37% 95 18 58% 39 21% 5 13

5b: Med CC Renew 38% 92 23 50% 51 41% 5 12

6: Med CC 60% 104 26 33% 34 -2% 24 10

8: High Diverse 74% 105 26 74% 49 -8% 24 7

Portfolio

Final Portfolio Ranking• Portfolio 1a has lowest emission reduction, but at lowest cost and price risk; since it holds all of IPP, it is significantly

exposed to the impact of higher CO2 pricing and may not adequately address reliability concerns

• Portfolio 5 may not adequately address reliability concerns and requires the most capital investment, but achieves nearly 50% emission reductions

• Portfolio 5a achieves moderate emission reductions, mitigates risk of IPP sale and has low market risk but may not adequately address reliability concerns

• Portfolio 5b achieves moderate emission reductions at relatively low cost, but directly addresses reliability concerns due to the addition of new local gas-fired generation

• Portfolio 6 achieves significant emission reductions and addresses reliability concerns, but at a higher cost and with exposure to market and IPP sale uncertainty

• Portfolio 8 achieves the highest emission reduction, but at highest cost, exposure to IPP sale uncertainty and may not adequately address reliability concerns

8


Emissions Reduction

RPS 2020 Cost Reliability Price RiskIPP Sale

Feasibility


% of NELLevelized $/MWh



1a: Low Diverse 29% 40% 89 16 0

5b: Med CC Renew 38% 50% 92 23 5

6: Med CC 60% 33% 104 26 24

8: High Diverse 74% 74% 105 26 24

Portfolio


Portfolio NameLocal

RenewablesRemote

RenewablesDSM/Eff.

Natural Gas

Coal Total

1a: Low Diverse 24 50 31 1055b: Med CC Renew 29 70 31 - 65 + 65 -35 956: Med CC 14 30 26 65 -108 278: High Diverse 50 70 59 -108 71

Pace recommends four specific alternatives for final consideration

Incremental Changes to Existing Portfolio (MW)

Performance Across Key IRP Objectives and Considerations



• Pace recommends four specific alternatives for final consideration

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 30% by 2020 through modest additions of renewable energy and other clean resources. This option seeks to minimize the upward pressure on PWP’s costs, but may not address reliability concerns and PWP’s ability to satisfy emerging environmental obligations.

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 40% by 2020 through a diverse mix of renewable energy, other clean resources, and efficient new natural gas-fired generation inside Pasadena. This option attempts to balance environmental, cost and reliability objectives without subjecting PWP to extreme risks.

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 60% by 2020 through completely displacing existing coal resources and replacing them with efficient new natural gas-fired generation and modest additions of renewable energy and other clean resources. This option addresses reliability risks, but at higher cost and the risk that full coal displacement is infeasible.

– Reduce GHG emissions by about 75% by 2020 through completely displacing existing coal resources and replacing them with a diverse mix of renewable energy and other clean resources. This option provides the highest GHG emissions reductions, but is the most expensive of the four options and assumes that maintaining reliability does not specifically require adding new local gas-fired generation to replace the aging local units.


Summary of Key Decision Points

• Minimum Environmental Performance: Portfolio options break down into low, medium, and high emission reduction targets

– If the low reduction is considered a “non-starter” because it is deemed insufficient for likely carbon limits, then Portfolio 1a can be eliminated

– What additional cost to move to higher emission reduction targets is palatable to customers?

• IPP Sale Feasibility: Uncertainties regarding the sale of IPP power may dictate how much is removed from the portfolio, and the level of emission reductions that is achievable

– If no more than a 35 MW displacement is considered feasible, then Portfolios 6 and 8 can be eliminated

• Reliability: What local infrastructure investments provide acceptable reliability?

– If new local gas-fired generation is considered essential to providing an acceptable assurance of reliability (rather than extending the life of existing local units plus potential transmission system upgrades), then Portfolio 8 can be eliminated


Recommended Action Items to Finalize Decision

• Determine how much PWP’s customers are willing to pay for environmental stewardship

• Determine how much IPP power can be sold, at what price, and under what terms

• Determine whether new local gas-fired generation or transmission system upgrades (or both) is the preferred approach for ensuring reliability of service

• Track key regulatory risks (RPS requirements, GHG accounting rules) and how they will affect different portfolios

• Confirm the economics of landfill gas and geothermal resources, evaluate bids on these technologies, and pursue when price is attractive


Near Term Implementation Steps

• Regardless of the long-term GHG emissions reduction that is chosen, PWP should immediately commence with the following short-term implementation steps that are common among all of the long-term strategies:

– Continue securing contracts for power from a diverse mix of new renewable energy sources, balanced among landfill gas, geothermal, wind and solar projects

– Expand PWP’s already aggressive energy efficiency programs

– Develop demand response programs and rates to provide customers with economic incentives to reduce their peak electricity consumption

– Develop a new “feed-in tariff” program in which PWP will offer to purchase power, at a fixed price, to any qualifying renewable energy project within the City in order to facilitate the development of local renewable energy sources

– Evaluate innovative new financing approaches and electric rate structures in order to spur more PWP customers to install solar photovoltaic projects inside Pasadena


AppendicesAppendices


Portfolio 1a: Low Diverse

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

MW

LFG Geo Wind Solar Thermal Demand Response Solar PV Feedin Tariff


Portfolio 5: Med Remote Renew

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

MW

LFG Geo Wind Solar Thermal Coal


Portfolio 5a: Med Diverse Renew

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

MW

LFG Geo Wind Solar Thermal

Demand Response Solar PV Feedin Tariff Coal


Portfolio 5b: Med CC Renew

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

MW

LFG Geo WindSolar Thermal Demand Response Solar PVFeedin Tariff CC Old Gas/Coal


Portfolio 6: Med CC

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

MW

LFG Geo CC Coal


Portfolio 8: High Diverse

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

MW

LFG Geo Wind Solar Thermal

Demand Response Solar PV Feedin Tariff Coal


Annual Costs by Portfolio

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

2008

$/M

Wh

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 1a 5a 5b Status Quo


Annual Costs by Portfolio

Portfolio 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1 70.47 70.61 72.39 78.70 85.07 89.67 91.10 90.27 83.80 85.16 87.61

2 70.47 70.61 72.39 79.25 85.53 90.10 91.48 90.87 84.43 86.00 88.67

3 70.47 70.61 72.39 79.91 86.22 90.87 92.22 92.38 85.93 87.76 90.20

4 70.47 71.04 73.27 80.01 86.57 92.49 94.93 95.14 90.14 92.61 96.20

5 70.47 70.61 72.39 85.73 91.53 96.21 97.09 110.25 103.56 105.62 107.04

6 70.47 70.61 72.39 78.70 85.07 97.89 99.04 115.88 109.12 113.26 117.72

7 70.43 71.50 77.34 85.84 96.73 106.75 106.76 123.64 104.14 108.62 114.53

8 70.43 71.50 77.34 88.59 98.85 108.70 108.24 125.87 106.18 109.07 113.15

9 70.47 70.61 72.39 80.69 86.07 90.30 91.08 115.76 109.38 111.25 114.03

10 70.47 70.61 72.39 98.79 103.96 108.97 109.08 147.38 140.97 145.43 145.37

1a 70.47 70.71 72.61 79.03 85.44 90.13 91.60 92.54 86.15 87.76 90.27

5a 70.47 70.81 72.83 81.11 87.41 92.21 93.58 99.88 93.52 95.71 98.55

5b 69.36 69.69 71.72 79.25 85.55 94.00 94.97 100.38 94.08 95.50 95.48

Status Quo 70.58 70.70 72.35 77.90 84.53 89.26 91.13 90.14 84.65 86.99 90.25

Portfolio 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

1 89.16 90.07 92.16 91.45 92.92 96.98 100.24 101.41 104.54 109.94 113.73

2 91.04 92.01 94.06 93.33 94.84 98.93 102.29 103.56 106.81 112.30 116.20

3 94.24 95.25 97.37 96.41 98.38 102.39 105.51 106.88 110.22 116.25 119.49

4 98.71 99.78 102.31 101.65 103.19 107.14 109.93 111.00 113.86 118.99 122.27

5 115.25 115.57 117.67 115.95 118.27 120.82 122.16 122.62 124.19 129.81 130.06

6 118.80 121.12 121.59 118.78 120.39 125.02 128.00 129.32 133.55 141.04 145.40

7 115.49 119.50 120.85 119.42 122.07 126.77 129.97 131.57 136.52 144.73 150.13

8 114.12 116.72 118.69 117.42 119.73 123.08 124.59 124.89 127.28 133.35 136.00

9 114.13 115.09 116.01 113.98 114.70 117.67 119.24 119.05 120.84 126.05 128.98

10 146.49 147.56 148.78 145.40 149.03 150.95 151.29 151.96 153.98 162.17 160.69

1a 93.76 94.71 97.36 96.91 98.85 102.53 105.22 106.14 108.67 113.73 116.49

5a 103.66 104.84 107.29 106.41 108.47 111.94 114.23 115.03 117.46 122.86 125.18

5b 99.46 99.85 101.79 101.31 102.83 106.19 108.54 108.84 110.58 114.92 116.86

Status Quo 91.15 92.84 94.45 93.81 95.64 100.13 104.66 106.67 111.30 117.76 123.34


Annual CO2 Reductions by Portfolio

-90%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

CO

2 R

edu

ctio

n f

rom

200

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



Annual CO2 Reductions by Portfolio

Portfolio 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 -1% -5% -7% -15% -17% -18% -20% -26% -26% -25%

2 -1% -5% -7% -16% -17% -19% -20% -23% -24% -23%

3 -1% -5% -7% -16% -17% -19% -20% -23% -23% -22%

4 -1% -5% -8% -16% -18% -21% -22% -25% -26% -25%

5 -1% -5% -7% -21% -23% -24% -25% -46% -46% -45%

6 -1% -5% -7% -15% -17% -24% -26% -61% -62% -60%

7 -3% -8% -10% -18% -20% -22% -23% -54% -50% -49%

8 -3% -8% -10% -24% -26% -28% -29% -76% -73% -73%

9 -1% -5% -7% -24% -25% -27% -28% -84% -82% -81%

10 -1% -5% -7% -28% -29% -30% -32% -78% -75% -73%

1a -1% -5% -7% -15% -17% -19% -20% -28% -28% -27%

5a -1% -5% -8% -17% -19% -21% -22% -36% -37% -36%

5b -1% -5% -8% -16% -18% -26% -28% -39% -40% -39%

Status Quo -1% -5% -7% -10% -12% -14% -15% -17% -13% -12%

Portfolio 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

1 -26% -25% -25% -24% -25% -24% -23% -22% -23% -23%

2 -23% -24% -24% -23% -24% -23% -22% -21% -22% -21%

3 -23% -23% -23% -23% -23% -22% -21% -21% -21% -21%

4 -26% -26% -26% -26% -27% -26% -26% -25% -25% -25%

5 -46% -49% -49% -48% -49% -48% -47% -47% -47% -47%

6 -60% -60% -60% -59% -59% -59% -58% -57% -57% -57%

7 -51% -51% -52% -52% -53% -53% -52% -50% -51% -51%

8 -74% -74% -74% -74% -75% -75% -74% -73% -74% -74%

9 -81% -81% -80% -79% -79% -79% -78% -78% -78% -78%

10 -74% -73% -73% -72% -73% -72% -71% -72% -72% -71%

1a -28% -29% -29% -28% -29% -28% -27% -27% -27% -27%

5a -36% -38% -38% -38% -38% -38% -37% -37% -37% -37%

5b -39% -40% -40% -40% -40% -40% -39% -39% -39% -39%

Status Quo -12% -12% -11% -11% -11% -11% -9% -8% -9% -9%


Annual RPS Percentage by Portfolio

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

RP

S P

erce

nta

ge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



Annual RPS Percentage by Portfolio

Portfolio 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 12% 14% 17% 24% 24% 25% 26% 33% 33% 33%

2 12% 14% 17% 25% 25% 26% 27% 29% 29% 29%

3 12% 14% 17% 25% 25% 26% 27% 28% 28% 28%

4 12% 15% 18% 25% 26% 28% 30% 32% 32% 32%

5 12% 14% 17% 32% 33% 34% 35% 52% 52% 54%

6 12% 14% 17% 24% 24% 25% 26% 33% 33% 33%

7 13% 15% 19% 31% 33% 35% 38% 42% 41% 40%

8 12% 15% 19% 40% 42% 45% 48% 79% 78% 77%

9 12% 14% 17% 36% 37% 38% 39% 78% 76% 75%

10 12% 14% 17% 43% 44% 45% 46% 72% 70% 68%

1a 12% 15% 18% 26% 27% 28% 30% 40% 40% 40%

5a 12% 15% 18% 34% 35% 37% 38% 56% 56% 56%

5b 12% 15% 18% 30% 31% 32% 34% 47% 47% 48%

Status Quo 12% 14% 17% 17% 18% 18% 19% 20% 12% 12%

Portfolio 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

1 32% 31% 31% 31% 31% 29% 29% 31% 31% 31%

2 29% 29% 29% 29% 29% 28% 28% 30% 30% 30%

3 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 27% 26% 29% 29% 29%

4 33% 33% 33% 34% 34% 33% 33% 35% 35% 35%

5 56% 58% 58% 58% 58% 56% 56% 58% 58% 58%

6 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%

7 39% 38% 39% 39% 40% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38%

8 76% 74% 75% 75% 76% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74%

9 74% 72% 72% 72% 71% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

10 67% 66% 66% 66% 66% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%

1a 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 39% 38% 41% 41% 41%

5a 57% 58% 58% 58% 58% 56% 56% 58% 58% 58%

5b 49% 50% 49% 49% 49% 48% 47% 50% 50% 50%

Status Quo 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 10% 10% 12% 12% 12%


Annual Levelized Capital Expenditures by Portfolio

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Lev

eliz

ed C

apit

al C

ost

s ($

000)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1a 5a 5b


Annual Levelized Capital Expenditures by Portfolio

Portfolio 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1 401 623 863 7,308 7,573 7,890 8,243 14,848 15,270 15,270 15,270

2 401 623 863 8,783 9,045 9,361 9,715 11,619 12,050 12,050 12,050

3 401 623 863 9,468 9,728 10,041 10,398 12,987 13,415 13,410 13,416

4 401 623 863 7,308 7,573 8,991 10,447 11,983 13,515 14,617 15,719

5 401 623 863 21,851 22,077 22,383 22,749 43,930 44,275 44,254 44,278

6 401 623 863 7,308 7,573 7,890 8,243 27,148 27,570 27,570 27,570

7 401 623 863 7,308 7,573 7,890 8,243 8,668 9,107 10,209 11,311

8 401 623 863 17,123 17,362 17,676 18,033 40,659 41,011 42,108 43,215

9 401 623 863 19,668 19,900 20,216 20,570 58,022 58,326 58,326 58,326

10 401 623 863 44,756 44,921 45,208 45,597 93,370 93,583 93,520 93,592

1a 401 623 863 7,308 7,590 7,906 8,260 18,509 18,965 19,329 19,692

5a 401 623 863 10,943 11,226 11,542 11,896 22,145 22,601 22,964 23,328

5b 401 623 863 10,943 11,226 23,842 24,196 34,444 34,901 35,264 35,628

Portfolio 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

1 21,492 21,433 21,433 21,433 21,492 21,433 21,433 21,433 21,492 21,433 21,433

2 21,214 21,157 21,157 21,157 21,214 21,157 21,157 21,157 21,214 21,157 21,157

3 23,948 23,882 23,882 23,886 23,943 23,878 23,889 23,882 23,948 23,876 23,887

4 23,047 22,984 22,984 22,984 23,047 22,984 22,984 22,984 23,047 22,984 22,984

5 65,106 64,927 64,927 64,940 65,092 64,915 64,950 64,927 65,108 64,910 64,945

6 33,792 33,733 33,733 33,733 33,792 33,733 33,733 33,733 33,792 33,733 33,733

7 12,447 13,515 14,617 15,719 16,867 16,821 16,821 16,821 16,867 16,821 16,821

8 44,437 45,417 46,518 47,622 48,854 48,721 48,727 48,723 48,857 48,720 48,726

9 58,486 58,326 58,326 58,326 58,486 58,326 58,326 58,326 58,486 58,326 58,326

10 93,815 93,556 93,556 93,583 93,785 93,531 93,603 93,556 93,818 93,520 93,592

1a 29,919 30,277 30,640 31,004 31,377 31,377 31,377 31,377 31,377 31,377 31,377

5a 37,198 37,556 37,919 38,283 38,656 38,656 38,656 38,656 38,656 38,656 38,656

5b 49,497 49,855 50,219 50,583 50,956 50,956 50,956 50,956 50,956 50,956 50,956

Documents

Pasadena Water & Power 2009 Integrated Resource Plan Advisory Group Meeting #5 December 17, 2008