Replacing Austin's coal plant means installing everything from solar panels to caulk seal. Local jobs will need to be filled, from teenagers to engineers. Millions of dollars will stream into Austin instead of its clunker coal plant -- rated #7th worst polluter in the state by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
AUSTIN -- Two days ago the Pace consultancy reported financial projections on a "Quit Coal by 2014" scenario. In my view, Pace grossly underestimated financial risks associated with the current "keep coal" plan. Risks, which could send Austin's coal costs skyrocketing. Nevertheless, even according to their estimates -- getting out of coal completely by 2014 will cost ratepayers about 5% more per month...
(Slow day, but something for discussion. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Concerning prices and Austin's electricity future -- the Pace Reports have made their recommendations without regard for alarming financial risks related to keeping the coal plant burning. Austin's coal plant is a bad investment; vulnerable to expensive clean air regulation, a volatile fuel market, and more.
Yes, Austin's coal plant has been a great fit for providing electricity when we need it, year-round, for about 30 years. But today, our power plant is clunker:
1. Antique. In 2007, Austin's coal plant ranked #7 most polluting industrial complex in Texas, out of 2,045 surveyed. (1)
2. Vulnerable. As federal climate legislation becomes a factor, with carbon caps and the like, coal's costs "will likely double" according to Austin Energy's own statements. (2)
3. Volatile fuel market. Purchasing coal to burn in the coal plant costs money. Last year Austin Energy's coal fuel expenses went up 73% from the previous year. (5)
4. Rising operations costs. Austin's coal expenditures tripled in 10 years to $180 million in 2008. (6) Even the Pace Report clearly show Austin's coal costing $1 more per MegaWatt than Austin's renewables portfolio, by 2020.
Austin is about leadership. Council should move immediately to refocusing Austin Energy's generation plan. The Pace Reports, thus far, have left out adequate analysis of our coal plant's financial risks. Austin's business leaders, City planners, advocates for the poor, and environmental activists need to look deeply at the financial risks associated with keeping this coal plant.
Austin Energy will make a recommendation to City Council this Friday on their future generation plan through 2020. According to their website, "an important component of the planning process is input from the community" -- but as of April, only about 300 people had filled out Austin Energy's survey. Through the survey, you can give Austin Energy a quick gut reaction of what kind of an energy future you want: one with more coal and nuclear (boooo, hisssss, cough cough cough), or a non-smoking future fueled by renewable energy and efficiency (cheers, jubilation!). We need as many Austinites as possible to fill out this survey and send the message loud and clear: say goodbye to our dirty energy past and look to a brighter energy future!
For a quick background on Austin's current energy mix, check out the following video from our friends at PowerSmack:
According to Austin Energy's survey, Austinites get about a third each of their power from coal, nuclear, and natural gas, and about 10% from renewables. Looking at their draft generation plan, they are looking to change that mix to 26% from coal and nuclear power, 44% from natural gas, 5% from biomass, 22% from wind, and 3% from solar by 2020.
That plan may be an improvement from what we've got now, but it doesn't show near the vision and leadership that Austin Energy ought to provide. Imagine what kind of a message it would send if Austin Energy actually tried to divest itself completely from coal -- and shut down the Fayette Coal Plant!
That's right folks, Austin -- that Central Texas shining star of wierdness, environmental stewardship, and progressive politics -- has a dirty secret. We own half of a coal plant, along with LCRA. And 16% of the South Texas Nuclear Project!
But Austin Energy's expected proposals don't put a priority on shutting down Fayette. That's why local environmental groups like Powersmack and Public Citizen are launching a new campaign to try to convince Austin Energy and the City Council to shut down Fayette. Don't sell it -- don't pawn those emissions off on someone else. Shut. It. Down.
James Hansen, one of the top climate scientists and greatest climate change advocates of our time, has said that the number one thing we can do to stop global warming is to stop using coal. Better, cleaner alternatives exist. We're not looking for a silver bullet here, but through a mixture of aggressive solar, wind, geothermal, and energy efficiency -- we can kick the habit.
But the first step is to admit we've got a problem. So fill out the survey, and tell Austin Energy you want your power to come from MUCH LESS coal and nuclear and MUCH MORE renewables and efficiency.
(An interesting read. I'm also excited that Sarah is going to be joining many of our BOR writers in attending Netroots Nation next month! - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Since the Austin American Statesman published a couple of articles on the less-than-stellar sales of Austin Energy's Green Choice program, many media outlets have picked up the story and the takeaway message is something like "liberal Austin finds out the hard way that renewable energy is too expensive". It's really regrettable that this message is permeating throughout the country because it's just not true.
Austin Energy's sales of the most recent GreenChoice batch have been low, but I hope that folks will understand that the blame lies not with wind energy itself but some serious underlying problems with the rate structure of this program and the way the energy market is regulated in Texas (hint: it isn't).
The high cost of GreenChoice highlights the failure of the deregulated market. Consumers are now unfairly burdened with the transmission costs to get wind energy from West Texas to the center of the state. Wind has to pay a toll to drive the power transmission highway, but coal, gas, and nuclear get a free ride. Not all utilities charge similar transmission costs, and in many places that would be factored into the simple cost of doing business, but in Austin consumers are asked to foot that bill. Then there's the fact that coal, gas, and nuclear power currently have priority on the transmission grid. If the wind can provide 300 MW of energy at a given time and coal can dispatch 300 MW, but there is only room for 400 MW of power to run through the lines, coal gets to move 300 MW and wind can only move 100 MW.
Another problem with Green Choice is that in addition to paying for 100% wind, customers are forced to pay the maintenance and capitol costs to upkeep Austin's dirty power sources. That just isn't fair - folks shouldn't have to pay a premium for clean energy and then be asked to foot the bill for polluters too. Folks argue that GreenChoice customers should pay a portion of the upkeep for traditional dirty power sources when the wind isn't blowing, but they shouldn't pay the same full capital and maintenance costs that average customers pay. If anything, GreenChoice customers should be offered a pro-rated charge for those costs, so that they only pay the maintenance costs for when they are actually getting power from those dirty sources. Right now, Austin Energy is asking GreenChoice customers to pay an Equal share of maintenance and upkeep for an Unequal share of power - not fair.
Then there's the fact that Austin Energy got a bad deal on this contract. They bought into a ten year power purchase agreement when natural gas prices, and energy prices in general, were at an all time high (remember $4/gallon gas?).
Austin Energy could easily restructure this program so that it is more affordable. GreenChoice wouldn't be so expensive if wind was operating on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Austin Energy can make that happen.
Ed. note: The following 2,500+ word piece, and the interviews tomorrow, were completed on volunteer time. If you want to see more work like this and support the efforts of those on BOR who are committed to bringing the best coverage of state and local politics, we would ask you to contribute to TexBlog PAC as a gesture of appreciation. We may just be kid bloggers, but we are committed to the community, and we believe journalism should be reflective of community values and community interest. Thank you for being part of our community, and enjoy the reading.
On Thursday, March 5th, the Austin City Council will vote on a proposed contract with the California-based group Gemini Solar Development Company that could potentially launch the solar energy industry in Central Texas. The official language on the Austin City Council's March 5, 2009 agenda reads as follows:
Authorize award, negotiation, and execution of a contract with GEMINI SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, San Francisco, CA, to purchase up to 30 megawatts of solar-generated power over a 25-year term at an estimated annual amount of $10,000,000, for an estimated total contract amount of $250,000,000.
Proponents of the measure point to the 30 megawatts of solar power the plant will bring to the city over the next twenty-five years, and argue that Austin can't wait to begin buildings its roots in the solar energy field. The proposal, championed by environmental groups and the Austin semiconductor community alike, has generated interest in communities as far as San Antonio, who envision developing a partnership with Austin to help, as a San Antonio Express-News article puts it, "chase the sun" in order to establish an economic corridor for the region that creates jobs and protects the environment.
However, some concerns persist about the project. The price tag -- though the most competitive among fifteen proposals made to the Austin City Council -- still appears to bring too little bang for the buck. At a time of economic uncertainty, there is worry that Austin is paying too much for too little, and that more time and a better negotiation process could lead to a proposal for a plant that would generate more energy at a lesser cost.
The proposed solar power plant has made its way into the Austin mayoral race. Austin's Mayor Pro Tempore, Brewster McCracken, has arisen as a strong and unflinching voice in support of the project. McCracken highlighted the proposed Gemini project during a trip two weeks ago to meet with San Antonio City Councilmembers (Source); he also hosted a "convergence event" focused on the possiblity of building a renewable energy corridor between the two cities. Lee Leffingwell, a fierce advocate of sound environmental policies in Austin, has focused less of his campaign attention on the project, spending more time on announcing endorsements. That being said, Leffingwell has stated that he supports the project, and that his concerns are more about implementation and making it cost efficient for the city than anything else. (Source)
Though the political implications of the vote are relevant to Austin's mayoral race, today's post will not delve into the political positions of McCracken or Leffingwell. Instead, I will post interviews with each Councilmember tomorrow, each of which extensively -- and almost exclusively -- discusses their views on the Gemini project and the future of Austin's renewable energy economy.
Today's post will focus exclusively on the pros and cons of the proposed project. Specifically, I will examine the following questions:
What is the history of the Gemini project?
Is 30 megawatts of solar energy capacity a big deal, or is Austin getting too little bang for its buck?
Is a long-term investment in a solar energy industry worth signing an imperfect yet promising deal with Gemini?
Time to show your support for solar, and your opposition to new nuclear power!
Rumor has it that Austin City Councilman Mike Martinez is the force pushing hard to bring back the Nuclear proposal and to dump the Solar project. With the big city right down 35 rolling out a major new green agenda and huge proposed changes in their utility, are we going to see San Antonio leave us and the Green jobs agenda behind in a cloud of brown dust. We've got Grandma coming back, like some of the nuclear waste that we cant get rid of, and now this, is it going to be 1978 all over again?
On Thursday, Austin City Council will take up the issues of nuclear energy and solar energy. We can't think of a better picture to illustrate the
fork in the road we face when it comes to Austin's energy future.
Item 3 on the agenda: Austin Energy will appropriately recommend, again, that the City of Austin not invest in expansion of the South Texas Project. Austin Energy hired the pro-nuclear consulting firm Worley Parsons to examine the proposal, which concluded that Austin's share of the proposed 3rd & 4th reactors would cost around $2 billion (that's only 16% of the total). Our solid credit rating would likely decline due to the large amount of debt the city would have to issue coupled with the high risk of cost overruns and schedule delays typically associated with nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the addition of 432 megawatts of baseload nuclear power does not fit with Austin's projected electric demand forecast. This deal didn't make sense in 2007 or 2008. It makes even less sense in 2009.
New nuclear power economics are frightening (numerous studies show the cost range from $12.5-17.5 billion and up), and it's a down right nasty way to make electric power. Uranium mine sites plague groundwater sources, there is no plan in place to deal with the waste, and Texas can ill-afford to devote its precious water resources to running a radioactive water boiler.
We don't need to go down the nuclear path again. We've learned from the mistakes of previous councils. Remember, Carole Keeton McClellan [Strayhorn] was mayor of Austin (1977-1983) when the city trapped itself in the boondoggle that was the first two units at STNP. Read the Austin Chronicle article from 2006 (scroll down to "Nailed to the Nuke"):
She is running for mayor again. We wonder where Strayhorn, Leffingwell, and McCracken stand on this issue, which could become a larger issue in the mayoral election.
Better options exist. Come out and voice your opposition to new nuclear power.
Item 16 on the agenda: Austin Energy will recommend that Council approve a plan to invest in 30 megawatts of solar power from the proposed solar plant near Webberville. This project is a good start down the path toward a renewable energy future for Austin. The 25 year $250 million contract with California-based Gemini Solar Development Company will provide Austinites clean, renewable power from one of the largest photovoltaic arrays in the world. Solar beats new nuclear power on cost, environment and meeting peak demand.
Solar power may seem expensive, but compared to what it costs to run natural gas plants to cover the same peak period and it's associated environmental impacts, it's a winner.
Some have raised objection to the fact that the solar panels are not local. Buying local is always preferable, but it's not always feasible. There are no Texascompanies that can currently manufacture panels for this sized plant. And while a California company has gotten the first contract because of California's commitment to solar, local contractors and products can be used to construct and maintain the facility. Austin will still own the land too. We hope that with more plants like this one, solar companies will get the message that Texas is open for business.
We expect a large pro-nuclear/anti-solar turnout, so it is critical you come out to City Council this Thursday, Feb 12, and sign up to speak. Voice your support for solar power. Tell City Council you want more!
