Events occurring during the past four years which led to the City of Burbank's decision to acquire an energy source adequate for the city's present and future power requirements are discussed. The community reaction to this unprecedented move is also covered. Burbank's long-range plans for the development of geothermal energy are outlined as well as the challenges which confront a public utility in implementing its projected goals. There are several advantages accurring to the city which in the opinion of the Burbank City Council and the administration justify this venture. The need for a cooperative climate which will enable all electrical utilities to better meet their obligations to the public, which is their prime responsibility before all other considerations, is analyzed

Baker, J. N.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

N75 2 0 8 6 2  
A CITY INVESTS IN ITS FUTURE 
Joseph N. Baker 
City Manager 
Bur bank, Calif  o rnia 
Mr. Baker describes events occurring during the past four 
years which led to the City of Burbank's decision to acquire an 
energy source adequate for the city's present and future power 
requirements. 
move is also covered. 
The community reaction to this unprecedented 
Burbank's long-range plans for the development of geo- 
thermal energy a r e  outlined a s  well a s  the challenges which con- 
front a public utility in implementing its projected goals. 
Baker cites several advantages accruing to the city which in the 
opinion of the Burbank City Council and the administration justify 
this venture. He cites the need for a cooperative climate which 
will enable all electrical utilities to better meet their obligations 
to the public, which is their prime responsibility before all other 
considerations. 
However, 
This paper, unlike others which have been presented during this confer- 
ence, is not addressed to the technical aspects of geothermal energy, but deals 
specifically with "why" the City of Burbank embarked on its own "Project 
Independence. ' I  
I will be the f i rs t  to acknowledge that this is a most unusual undertaking 
for  a municipality, but we feel that the events which prefaced our entry into the 
procurement of geothermal leaseholds justify our action. 
the City and its electrical utility might be of help in understanding this action. 
Some data concerning 
Burbank, California, incorporated in 1911, is located in Los Angeles 
County. 
mission and distribution system for the benefit of major industrial and commer- 
cial establishments and a resident population in excess of 87,000. Included 
among the large industries serviced by the Burbank electrical utility a r e  
Lo c khe ed Aircraft C o r po rat  ion, the National B r oadca sting Company, Wal t  
Disney Productions, The Burbank Studios (Warner Bros. and Columbia Studios), 
General Controls, Inc., Zero Manufacturing Company, Menasco, Inc. etc. 
Our community owns and operates an electric power generation trans- 
The electric power used within the City of Burbank is 788 million kilo- 
watt hours annually. 
watts, produced by a combination of gas turbine and steam-electric units 
ranging in size from 10 to 55 megawatts. 
The generating plant has a total capability of 2 4 0  mega- 
These unit5 a r e  designed and 
335 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19750012790 2020-03-22T23:13:36+00:00Z
constructed to use natural gas a s  a primary fuel and to burn residual fuel oil as 
an emergency o r  standby source. 
The severity of the problem which confronted the City of Burbank during 
the latter par t  of 1973 cannot be fully understood without some additional expla- 
nation of what occurred in prior years. 
our decision be described. 
It is important that events leading to 
In the early 1960's, Southern California electric utilities made an attempt 
to obtain natural gas supplies for the exclusive purpose of electric power gener- 
ation and to bring those supplies from gas fields located in  South Texas through 
new transmission lines. 
Trans-Western Pipeline Company, and Pacific Lighting companies, which 
include the Southern California Gas Company. 
before the Federal  Power Commission and the California Public Utilities Com- 
mission to prevent the construction of the transmission facility, 
tained that there were adequate supplies of gas available through their facilities 
to supply the needs of the electric utilities through the 1980's and that the build- 
ing of additional gas transmission facilities would be an unnecessary and costly 
duplication. In testimony given before the regulatory agencies, statements were 
made by the gas suppliers that the initial price of 45 cents per million Btu's for 
delivery of the new gas was excessive and would place an undue burden upon the 
consumers in  the a reas  to be served. On the basis of these reports,  the regu- 
latory agencies denied construction permits to build the required transmission 
facilities, and the g a s  supply then available for the new facility was subsequently 
channeled in other directions . 
Opposed to the plan were E l  Paso Natural Gas Company, 
These companies intervened 
They main- 
In 1970, the City of Burbank was advised by its gas supplier that we would 
no longer be able to receive natural gas in the quantities necessary for our 
generating purposes. 
our gas supply for 1974 is estimated to amount to only 23% of our fuel require- 
ments. This restricted supply of gas has rendered this fuel secondary, or  
supplemental, and forced the City of Burbank to re ly  on the oil companies as 
a primary source, increasing our demand from approximately 285,000 barrels  
per year to 1 ,200 ,000  barrels  per year since 1970. A s  our need for increased 
supplies of low sulfur fuel oil continued, a small independent refiner kept pace 
with the needs of the city until November, 1973, at which time we were advised 
by the company that it could no longer supply us with low sulfur fuel oil  and 
would terminate the contract with the City because its source had withdrawn 
the supply of crude. 
a contract we have not, as of this date, been able to obtain any firm commitment 
for  the delivery of low sulfur fuel oil. 
F rom a natural gas supply of 73% of our required fuel, 
Despite continuing efforts on the par t  of Burbank to obtain 
We had come to realize prior to the time our contract was canceled that 
an energy shortage was imminent. However, like all organizations, we, too, 
find it difficult, if not impossible, to take definitive preventive measures before 
a cr is is  exists. 
almost 300'$0 within a six-month period of time, we were unable to mount an 
effective campaign for energy conservation on a community-wide basis until we 
were notified that our contract had been canceled. Concurrently with the can- 
cellation of our contract, Burbank approved a mandatory energy conservation 
Even though the price of low sulfur fuel had increased by 
336 
ordinance which became effective November 26, 1973, and is still in operation 
today. The Burbank mandatory curtailment program is so effective that w e  
have led the nation in percentage reduction of power usage, and w e  cannot 
remove these most stringent restrictions until we have an assured supply of 
energy for  the generation of power. 
The City of Burbank also began to search for a r eas  which might give us 
a reliable source of fuel. 
ery; we considered entering into an  oil exploration venture; and w e  examined 
the possibility of contracting directly for oil refined outside the Continental 
United States. While nothing came of these inquiries, we did lay the ground- 
work for what was to happen later - our entry into the geothermal energy field. 
We investigated the feasibility of buying into a refin- 
While we were knowledgeable as to the progress being made in this field, 
we had not seriously considered geothermal energy as an alternate fuel source 
until a discussion w a s  held in December of 1973 with Dr. Robert Rex, P r e s i -  
dent of Republic Geothermal, Inc. 
These talks progressed rapidly, and the Burbank City Council on January 
18, 1974, authorized the submittal of bids for land in three known geothermal 
a reas  (KGRA) which were made available on December 18, 1973, by the Secre- 
t a r y  of Interior for competitive lease bidding. Quotes were also authorized for 
other lands categorized as possible geothermal land being offered by the Depart- 
ment of Interior. Our proposals for three KGRA's were  accepted, and Burbank 
found itself plummeted into a new e ra  with geothermal land holdings in the Mono 
Lake - Long Valley area in Central California and the East  Mesa area of Impe- 
rial Valley in Imperial County, California. 
The City of Burbank has been chastised and lauded for this action. Some 
have thought the city was courageous, while others were outraged that a munici- 
pality would have the audacity to  enter into this field. 
We moved into this venture with full knowledge of the benefits that could 
accrue to the city and were also aware of the future that awaits those who invest 
public monies in any project that fails to materialize - especially a " r i s k  ven- 
ture. I '  However, the City of Burbank had pioneered before - first, with charter 
membership in  the Southern California Metropolitan W a t e r  District; later con- 
tracting for electrical power in excess of its needs from the proposed Boulder 
Dam; and finally, in 1966, investing in  the Northwest DC Intertie Line for 
excess power f rom the Columbia River Basin. 
considered by some to  be courageous and by others foolhardy, especially those 
projects which were entered into during the 1930's. 
facing a similar situation. 
These ventures, too, were 
The end of 1973 found us 
The City Council action authorizing our entry into the geothermal field 
was made with many reservations. One unspoken question was, "How will the 
public accept this decision? I '  They did not have long to wait for the verdict - 
the reaction was overwhelming in favor of the decision made by the City Coun- 
cil. Letters f rom individuals, editorials in the local press ,  communications 
from civic clubs, and a resolution adopted unanimously by the Board of Direc- 
t o r s  of the Burbank Chamber of Commerce endorsed their action, and urged 
337 
the City to proceed forthwith. 
Council for the initial expenditure of $1.2 million, o r  for encumbering the City 
with a long-term financial obligation for  the development of this energy source. 
Only a few crit ics came forward to berate the 
I would advise other governmental agencies to take note of this public 
reaction, as I believe this i l lustrates why the "do nothing, " or  the "let's wait 
and see" attitudes meet with a great  deal of cri t icism f rom the electorate at 
the local level of government. 
You might be asking yourself why we, as a city, would make this decision 
in view of the long-standing precedent that when the situation becomes grave 
someone will bail  us out. Such a question is  valid and deserves an answer. 
First, our research indicated that we had only encountered the first 
symptoms of an energy cr i s i s  and that this situation would gradually worsen 
over the long-term future. 
high-priority customer by any supplier of fossil fuel. 
due to the age of our equipment a replacement p-ogram had to be initiated 
within the next ten years. 
capacity would be required to meet the ever-increasing power requirements of 
the community. Sixth, 
we had enough experience with the Air Pollution Control Board and with the 
various "clean air" groups t o  realize that the electric industry was not going 
to be given "carte blanche'' permission to  operate in a densely populated urban 
a rea  indefinitely. 
energy, such a s  coal f ired and nuclear would not be available in the immediate 
future and, when available, might be prohibitive in cost: and, eighth, it was 
obvious that the Environmental Protection Agency would require the installation 
of desulfurization equipment when and if we were allowed to burn high sulfur 
fuel oil, and that this would be a most expensive undertaking. 
Second, we knew that we were not considered as a 
Third, we realized that 
Fourth, it w a s  obvious that additional generating 
Fifth, we realized that storage for  fuel was critical. 
Seventh, we knew that alternative sources of electrical  
A previous recommendation had been made to the City Council advising 
that if we were t o  maintain our standards for providing electrical  service,  it 
would behoove the City of Burbank to acquire an energy source. This source 
would provide the assurance that we would have a permanent supply of fuel for 
generation purposes; that only then would we be i n  a position to supply elec- 
trical power to  our customers at the lowest possible cost, and that other prob- 
lems connected with aging equipment, future environmental control regulations, 
and the approval needed for the replacement o r  installation of additional elec- 
t r i ca l  generation capacity within a metropolitan a rea  would be avoided. There- 
fore, it was decided that the City of Burbank should take advantage of the oppor- 
tunity to enter into the geothermal field, thereby minimizing our future problems 
with a planned program of transition, expansion, and independence. 
Our third objective, independence, should be welcomed by many indus- 
trial representatives attending this conference. Projected requirements indi- 
cate that there will be more than enough demand for all available energy even 
if  a large percentage of the public utilities would cease being a customer 
within the next ten years -however unlikely that might be - and it appears a 
program similar to  the one Burbank has initiated should be encouraged further. 
However, this has not happened. 
338 
The facts indicate that similar action is not being encouraged and, further, 
the cities a r e  not being consulted. 
note that the Federal  Administration's response to  the problem - "Project 
Independence" - a program whose impact on cities wi l l  be quite substantial, 
excludes the participation of local elected and appointed officials who have an 
important interest  in the shaping of this national strategy. The chief managers 
of the nation's urban environments, where virtually all of the social, economic, 
and environmental consequences of the expanded energy source development 
w i l l  become manifest, have been effectively eliminated from meaningful parti- 
cipation in the development of this plan. 
By way of an example, it is interesting to 
1 
The very fact that municipalities have been excluded from the establish- 
ment of national policy makes it more imperative that Burbank proceed with 
the development of geothermal as our pr ime source of energy for power gener- 
ation. We have taken, and we will continue to take an active role in attempting 
to influence the legislation relating to geothermal energy being considered by 
the Congress. We have been interested specifically in assuring that equal con- 
sideration is given to municipalities and public utilities in all public laws which 
relate to  the exploration o r  development of geothermal energy. W e  propose to 
maintain our interest in future legislation of this type. 
Further ,  while the City of Burbank entered into the geothermal field in  
an attempt to solve a very perplexing problem facing one community, we a r e  
also interested in  cooperating with other participants, public or  private. 
Burbank's situation is insignificant in comparison to energy shortages 
facing other municipalities located in Southern California, and the energy prob- 
lems facing municipalities in Southern California are overshadowed by those 
facing this nation. 
aside; that the long-term disputes between public and investor-owned utilities 
could be ended; and that past priorities could be reevaluated in order  that we 
can maximize a l l  of our energy resources for the benefit of the public. This 
is our first obligation, and also our joint responsibility. 
I would hope that the practices of the past could be set  
ll'Doubts Surfacing About Administration's Energy Program", City Perspective, 
National League 05 Cities and U. S. Conference of Mayors, August 1974. 
339 


A city invests in its future

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server