Instead of approving a plan for a $500 million gas-fired power plant, the Glendale City Council early Wednesday took a step back, asking staff for a thorough report on clean-energy alternatives such as solar, battery storage and conservation that would satisfy energy needs while reducing the city’s carbon footprint.

The city will gather information from alternative energy companies and consultants regarding what to do with an aging Grayson Power Plant beset with failures that have caused city brownouts. When information is received from a city request for proposal, it will be packaged into a report by the staff and presented to the City Council in 90 days, according to Tom Lorenz, city spokesman.

“At that time the City Council will make a determination if there were some alternatives that were missed, or they may move forward with the EIR,” Lorenz said. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the implications of a 262-megawatt power plant — about a 41 percent power increase — that would increase smog emissions and send an additional 415,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The document, seen as the most important step toward project approval, was on the agenda Tuesday night but the City Council never voted on the EIR, meaning it could come back for a vote at a later date, Lorenz said.

More than 400 people with the Glendale Environmental Coalition, along with other residents and members of the electrical and carpenters unions, jammed the council chambers, testifying against and for the project.

The nine-hour meeting ended around 3:15 a.m. with a 4-1 vote seeking cleaner energy alternatives. Voting against the motion was Councilman Ara Najarian, who favored a natural gas power plant project.

“It’s a win, at least for now,” said Dan Brotman, organizer of the GEC, who argued the city is violating its own pledge to reduce greenhouse gases and curb global warming with the all natural-gas proposal. “We will need to be vigilant to make sure the process is even-handed, thorough and transparent, so the work for us continues.”

Clean energy

Brotman urged the city to pursue solar on rooftops and a battery storage facility, citing a recent battery storage project with Tesla and Southern California Edison at its Mira Loma substation in Ontario. SCE also built battery-hybrid plants in Norwalk and Rancho Cucamonga last year. The council seemed to follow the lead of the Glendale Water & Power Commission, which on April 2 recommended a deeper look at alternative energy that doesn’t burn fossil fuels.

To side with a volunteer commission and against managers of its own utility was remarkable, said Angela Johnson Meszaros, attorney with Earthjustice in Los Angeles, a group advocating clean energy and clean air for California and opposed to the natural gas project.

The group has seen other natural gas plants be voted down, including one recently planned for Oxnard, and views this project as a litmus test for the state’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gases.

“The City Council really stepped up to say we need complete information,” Johnson said during an interview Wednesday afternoon. “They made clear that they are ready to make the choices for the people of Glendale but they are not ready to act blindly.”

She said the decision is a good first step and will result in cleaner air for residents of Glendale, as well as nearby residents of Burbank, Eagle Rock, Silver Lake, Atwater Village, Glassel Park and Los Angeles.