Every Austin City Council member has pledged to move Austin beyond coal and phase out of the Fayette coal plant. Please thank the City Council members for their bold leadership in moving Austin towards a clean energy future.
In more good news, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) last week officially rejected a water permit for the White Stallion coal plant after over 2,000 of you sent comments and demanded that LCRA not give another drop of our water to dirty coal. This LCRA victory comes on the heels of San Antonio's recent decision to shut down their Dealy coal plant and invest in clean energy.
These are huge victories for our Texas grassroots movement!
Since the 2009 Austin Generation Task Force, our volunteers have been urging Austin City Council to move beyond coal. You collected petitions, attended leadership trainings, hosted house parties, made phone calls, flyered events, contacted City Hall, and now your efforts have paid off!
Austin joins cities across the country that have recognized coal's health effects and increasing costs are too risky to sustain. It's no longer a question of IF Austin will move beyond coal; it's now a question of WHEN.
Our next goal is to work with Austin Energy and the LCRA to develop an aggressive timeline to shut down Fayette by 2016. If we succeed, Austin will be the biggest city in the country to phase out of a municipally-owned coal plant. This is an opportunity for us to lead by example, and we look forward to the challenge of making Austin #1.
These victories show that when we work together, we can build a cleaner, smarter energy future for our community. Thanks for all your help to get us there!
(Impressive organizing efforts from Sierra Club's push to get Austin to divest from coal-based electricity. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
We're making great progress moving Austin Beyond Coal.
In just two months, we've signed up 24 house party hosts and gathered more than 1,000 petition signatures demanding Austin Energy phase out of our city-owned Fayette coal paltn. We're well on track to meet our goal of 5,000 signatures by Earth Day 2012.
These efforts are getting noticed. Last week, Mayor Lee Leffingwell told the Community Impact Newspaper that he's "willing to entertain the option" of moving beyond coal.
Now we need to keep the momentum going...
We need as many people as possible to attend our Beyond Coal Town Hall on December 4th and show the decision makers that our grassroots movement is growing bigger every day. We'll also be presenting new policy research that shows the Fayette coal plant can be phased out in a cost-effective way, protecting Austin Energy rate payers from the rising costs of coal.
What: Beyond Coal Town Hall
When: Sunday, December 4th, 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Where: Texas State Employee's Union Office, 1700 South 1st Street, Austin, TX 78704
RSVP:Click here to RSVP
This campaign is important because Fayette pollutes our air and wastes 5 billion gallons of water every year. But if we phase Austin out of coal, this will set an example for the rest of the country. Austin could become the biggest city in the country to divest from a municipally owned coal plant.
Let's work together to make Austin a leader of the 21st century clean energy economy!
This was originally written by Robin Rather & Mike Sloan SEP 24, 2010. and posted at http://powersmack.org/2010/09/... Reposted with permission.
Larry Weis, the new General Manager for Austin Energy, starts work on Monday.
What will he awake to find?
A) A utility that at the beginning of 2008 was widely recognized as the greenest, most innovative, and among the most affordable utilities in Texas.
B) A utility that owns many power plants, 99% of which are nukes, coal and natural gas.
C) A utility that is steering steadily toward the rocks with an obsolete business model based on growing use of its nukes, coal and natural gas.
D) All of the above.
Many in our community believe the answer is D) All of the above.
Austin residents, who own their own electric utility, should rightfully be concerned about who is behind the helm. For the last six months, city administrators rather than energy professionals have been steering. Now Weis arrives to take charge, but without knowledge of the local waters that are the Texas electric system and Austin's complex political dynamics. Will Weis and City Manager Marc Ott - who the GM will report to - navigate Austin Energy to its rightful place as a leader, or instead hold a course of peril? That is an open question and a serious one. It takes a long time to build an innovative market leader, but almost no time to wreck it.
AUSTIN -- Yesterday was Earth Day, and a big vote took place @ City Hall. Here's a brief:
Background The electricity plan voted on yesterday, reduces Austin's fossil fuel use slightly over the next 10 years and increases the overall percentage of cleaner fuels. It does this by diversifying the assets Austin will rely on to produce electricity as it grows, i.e. - adding more solar, wind, biomass, and energy efficiency (this decade). It's a "greener" step, but certainly not the best we can do on several levels.
The Vote Council unanimously approved this "greener" plan, with an important caveat: Austin Energy must first finalize a much reqst'd "Affordability Matrix" before the "greener" plan will take effect. The Matrix will be developed in collaboration with big employers and advocates for the poor.
The Positives The "Matrix" is a protective measure to improve AE's fiscal responsibility. Why? Recently, Austin Energy seems to have invested loosely in a number things (including various green programs). Furthermore, AE is no longer recouping all the costs associated with its business (so starting to go into debt). Finally, AE is reluctant to make many of its local green programs function as business models (for ex., the utility currently loses money on incentivizing energy efficiency). It would appear adding this Matrix, a fiscal responsibility measure, is a great idea for the whole community.
The Problems The Mayor's amendment allows 8 months for the Matrix to be completed, a project which could certainly be finalized quicker and is deserving of higher priority status. In an era of worsening financial, environmental, and community-health problems - all related to the ways we make electricity, Mayor Leffingwell's 8 month timeline puts a critical project on a very slow track, possibly neutralizing any effective changes regarding the community's electricity concerns for the rest of this year.
More Positives The Mayor's amendment to the plan is fundamentally a very responsible action for the whole of the Austin community, thank you Mayor Leff. Also Council unanimously approved a green-er direction for Austin Energy (as opposed to a dirtier direction).
But ... Did the Mayor Fall short? Mayor Leffingwell is short on action when it comes to responding to today's economic, environmental and public health concerns. I think he's doing a great job of listening to the broader community, but ... There are boatloads of scientific data to substantiate the idea that Austin needs to act as effectively as possible in reducing its power plant pollutions, now. And on another hand, the opportunity costs associated with stalling the implementation of brilliant financial management and ecologically sustainable business models at the City cannot be underestimated.
Summary Mayor Leffingwell and Council have signaled their support for the two primary concerns of the community when it comes to electricity: environmental health and bill affordability. Some laudable progress was made at City Hall yesterday for reducing coal and other forms of dirty energy dependency, and incorporating the financial concerns associated with transitioning Austin Energy. Perhaps Austinites are just teeing up to talk about Austin Energy across the broader community, and how to reduce electricity's negative impacts. This conversation may take years. Lots of stakeholders were present at yesterday's vote: enviro's, Strayhorns, staffers, big employers, religious advocates, low income advocates, carbon reduction advocates, anti-coal advocates... all asking for slightly different things... The necessity of solving today's electricity problems will likely continue to grow into a forum for bringing disparate, local parties into common discussions in the future. That should be exciting.
It may not be the greenest of green electricity plans, but local environmental leaders like Matt Johnson of Clean Energy for Austin are calling for all-out support of Austin Energy's "Generation Plan" 2010-2020. Clean Energy for Austin http://cleanenergyforaustin.org/ is organizing a cheer event at City Hall, as City Council takes its official vote on the plan, Thursday 4/22.
The "Gen Plan" pertains to how Austin will "generate" its electricity from the years 2010 through 2020. Currently the plan is perceived by many as a good middle-road, with smart diversification of assets in a rapidly changing energy economy.
The plan has been hailed because it:
a) acknowledges the need to shut down Austin's coal operations ASAP
b) has good energy efficiency goals
c) has been vetted publicly over the last 2 years by citizens
d) has already been responsive to some citizen concerns, such as working with low income and large employers to create an "affordability metric" to guide future decisions.
"It has been a long time in coming. After almost two years of public input, this forward-thinking and adaptable energy plan, with lots of wind, solar, and energy efficiency, is up for a vote (Thursday) morning.
"Wear green, put on a Clean Energy for Austin sticker, and cheer when Council passes it!"
(He'll provide the stickers.)
An easy way to show our City's leaders you support doing as much as possible for environmental health and prosperity this year, on Earth Day. Power Up, Austin!
Check out the event's Facebook page: www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=103811439661643&ref=mf
Austin's Electric Utility Commission (EUC) conducted its first hearing Monday night regarding complaints about Austin Energy's transparency policies. The hearing was an exciting progression of comments from traditionally fragmented and even competing segments of the Austin community. See pt. 1 of this post, "background" http://burntorangereport.com/d...
Here are some paraphrased quotes from the hearing:
Mike Sloan, clean energy advocate (citizen)
http://powersmack.org/mike-slo... Mike gave a great, 7 minute, PPT to kick off the hearing.* A few excerpts:
> 1983 last time Austinites voted on major expenditures
> 1996 transparency problems began
> 2005 renewal of Austin Energy's "limited disclosure" policy (no sunset)
> Today, city council delegates the responsibility of interpreting and determining Austin Energy's info to Austin Energy (AE)
> Recently, AE has made a number of investments that appear too expensive (purchased way above market value)
Recommends:
- Better transparency = a better utility
Carol B, low income advocate (texasrose.org)
http://www.texasrose.org/About... > Appreciates current situation and good efforts at AE, but thinks we can do better
> "Transparency puts a downward pressure on costs" (bills)
> Primary concern is affordability
Recommends:
- AE be transparent about where costs are coming from; provide at least as much info as other utilities regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Dr. Tony Capraro, affordable carbon reduction advocate (citizen)
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/di... > What info should be available? What shouldn't be available?
> Innovative companies share info to promote new idea growth / competitive edge
> More info that can be shared, the less suspect the unknown feels to outsiders
> Is AE too tight on "competitive matters?"
- Austin is blessed with people who donate their time to reviewing community impact info
Recommends:
- EUC consider positive sides of accessibility to information
Roger Wood, big employer advocate (ccareaustin.org)
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search... > re: AE's BioMass power purchase agreement -- the decision was made without proper time and information regarding costs, to allow for public input
> As a general rule, believes citizens should always know (on major purchases):
- what is AE's plan?
- what does AE think costs will be?
- subsequently, how is the investment performing?
> Currently, customers are kept in the dark
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires public disclosure via a 200 to 300 pg annual report (per utility). AE 2009 annual report shows 5 pgs.
> Protocol/Consistency/Sloppiness... from May 2009 to Nov 2010, Roger sat on the task force to review AE's electricity generation plan (for this decade). The task force was given info that was supposed to be protected, yet is still has been unable to get info that's not supposed to be protected.
Recommends:
- the EUC go thru AE's "Competitive Matters Resolution" and review each item, line by line, to remedy today's problems
Andy Wilson, environmental advocate (publiccitizen.org)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... > Information is like oxygen
> We cannot make rational decisions without proper info
> We need to think about a future perfect state ... Andy imagines a utility that makes info access effortless, e.g. - an iPhone type apps that someday notifies you, "lower your thermostat 2 degrees right now to save $x & xCO2"
> Customers can make all decisions as long as info is given
Recommends:
- We should protect customer privacy, but otherwise AE's presumption should always be full disclosure rather than nondisclosure
Paul Robbins, environmental advocate (citizen)
http://www.austinchronicle.com... > We need a total revamp; secrecy has become a catch all guard, for secrecy sake
> Today, the public's right to challenge the institution is constricted in many ways ...
- in the 80's, citizens used publicly available data to demonstrate the faster payback of various green programs
- today, citizens can't get that data
> Austin Energy has not been in a competitive retail market since 1897, when it began
> In 2000, Paul was able to publish an Energy History for Austin in his magazine; can't get the info to do that today
Recommends:
- Consumption of specific buildings, made public
- Aggregate data by class / by month, made public
- Expired contracts more than 1 year old, made public
- Cost of power by power type, made public
- Customer lists (for those who have authorized sharing their info) in green choice program, made public
##
And then the EUC commissioners responded:
Philip Schmandt, EUC chairman (lawyer)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/phi... > Believes Transparency is good
> Encourages AE staff to consider the intangible benefits
> Concerned that some transparency might lead vendors to higher price negotiation with AE in the future (increase prices)
Bernie Bernfield, (mortgage specialist) http://www.linkedin.com/in/gar... > Sees Transparency as a valuable tool for community engagement
Steve Smaha, (software & clean tech specialist) http://www.linkedin.com/in/ste... > Can't think of anything that should be kept confidential which isn't kept confidential in deregulated markets
> AE should leverage the power of smart people / crowd sourcing ... we need as much info as possible with as many of the brightest brains as possible contributing
Dr. Michael Webber (uber academic in clean tech & energy) http://www.austinclimateexpo.c... > 2nds Smaha's comments
> Suggests that, opposite of Philip's concern, Transparency is theoretically a valuable tool to lower costs; Capitalist theory says that once competing vendors see AE's costs in a particular area, they will try to bid below the stated # to get AE's business (lowering prices)
Austin's Electric Utility Commission (the "EUC") conducted its first hearing re: complaints about Austin Energy's transparency policies, Monday night. The results were surprising.
The EUC is a citizen body, responsible for oversight on AE's business decisions. Austin Energy ("AE") is our electric utility, municipally-owned. Austin's City Council is its board of directors. "Transparency" refers to the openness with which AE shares cost and other operating info with the public. AE refers to their transparency policies as "competitive matters." AE was not allowed, nor did it request, any rebuttal during Monday's hearing.
AE has been keeping lots of operating data murky and/or secret. It hasn't always been this way. Citizen-activists Mike Sloan and Paul Robbins point out that from AE's founding in 1897 until around the year 2001, all of AE's operating info was available for public review. Mike Sloan further highlights that 7 other utilities with similar models in the state of TX offer annual reports numbering from 250 to 300 pages. AE's 2009 annual report? ... 5 pages.
##
Why Surprising?
The EUC's hearing on Transparency was an exciting progression of comments from traditionally opposed areas of the Austin community.
Citizen, low income, business, big employer, and environmental activists all stood up to emphasize the need for clearer, more easily accessible, information. Once more, the EUC responded positively, collectively voicing the idea that more public info would most likely have positive impacts on bills and the quality of AE's business.
I was lucky enough to attend the Austin Electric Utility Commission's (EUC) monthly public meeting last night. The meeting had a GREAT turnout of hard-working Austin Energy employees (thank you AE employees, et al) and numerous citizen/business/non-profit representatives. More than 60 people present.
Overall, Austin Energy's Annual Report's (1) explanations were well executed by Austin Energy CFO Elaine Hart and the report seems to have recv'd a good grade. However, concerns about openness and transparency in the way AE shares information were mixed into the overall discussion. Mike Sloan, a local energy consultant and clean energy activist, (2) voiced some of the following questions (paraphrased):
1. Why does it appear that Austin Energy fuel costs don't match AE collections? There appears to be a $131M surplus in collections.
2. Why is AE investing less $ into energy efficiency today (2009) than in 1997?
3. Why are we not given "availability information" on AE's natural gas resources?
4. Why are there some significant discrepancies between what AE reported during the last 9 months of of public discussion on Electricity Generation Planning, and what's shown in AE's annual report regarding the "capacity factor" of Austin's coal plant?
5. There are 7 utilities with similar structures to ours in the state of Texas. Each of these other utilities issues 250 to 300 pg annual reports. AE's 2009 annual report is just 5 pgs. Why is so much data held secret by the utility?
Some interesting responses and follow ups came from EUC board members (paraphrased):
re-#2, "Bernie" Bernfield:
Isn't it possible that b/c energy efficiency technologies cost so much less, today, than they did in 1997 that Austin Energy is actually having more success with energy efficiency projects than it did 12 to 13 years ago? In future annual reports, it'd be nice to see a metric for how many buildings have had energy efficiency improvements made, and how those improvements compare to historical metrics.
re-#2, Steve Smaha:
Costs per energy efficiency project have lowered... Are we getting better or worse bang for the buck?
Commissioner Steve Smaha also voiced the idea that future annual reports need to deliver "two parallel accounting systems" -- one showing costs, the other showing carbon emissions data.
AE interim General Manager, Robert Goode, seemed genuinely interested and receptive to all comments. The meeting then moved onto to a cogent series of presentations on "transparency." The EUC is beginning a process to update AE's "Competitive Matters Resolution." More on those soon.
2/27/10 -- Austin Energy's general manager, the much revered and very inspiring Roger Duncan, retired yesterday after more than 30 years of public service. During his Austin centric-career Roger achieved world renown in green utility implementation, co-founding one of the world's most progressive energy efficiency programs (dubbed "Energy Star" in the 80's, a name the federal government would later use), co-creating the WORLD'S FIRST green building program (no kidding), and achieving too many other things to list.
In many ways Roger is responsible for motivating people like me to believe we can do more.
And he encourages it. Big thanks to Roger: a great leader and civil servant.
Here's wishing Mr. Duncan and his family a very happy and fulfilling retirement.
re: The Mayor's forum on Austin's Electricity Plan, 2010-2021.
At the end of the evening last night, Roger Duncan said it best: having public input in the planning process for Austin's citizen-owned utility really does bring out the finest result.
BOR readers may need to suspend their disbelief for just a moment about local politics, but c'mon - let's gather round. Austinites are fortunate to have leaders such Roger. Big admiration to those folks in City government "showing up" and doing their best to deliver the best result for the rest of us.
##
Town Hall Report Last night's Forum was well attended (300+ people), putting Austinites on a good path towards future engagement, wherein we communicate more and better about local electricity issues.
Moderator Jim Walker did a great job of asking meaningful questions, keeping the input moving across the expert panel, and maintaining focus and good humor. Rather than sparring, the panelists took careful steps to clarify their likes and dislikes about the Plan (more http://burntorangereport.com/d... which I think I can distill:
Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club (eco) Wants to get moving on the plan as some of its goals (esp. saving Austinites money through energy efficiency, see below) are ambitious. Cyrus also wants to enhance public input in the coming decade, create an affordability metric for lowest income customers, and set Austin on the greenest most productive path possible.
Carol B, Texas Rose (low income) Wants Austin Energy to do a better job of monitoring how electricity bill increases are affecting Austin's lowest income customers, and wait to begin work on achieving environmental goals until after an affordability metric for lowest income customers has been established.
Roger Wood, Freescale (industrial) Wants to delay the total plan until he and others in the "biggest employer community" have a clearer understanding of the plan's financial impacts. Roger says his group http://www.ccarenergy.org/ needs better data than they were given during the scenario review process to arrive at a proper analysis. Roger believes Austin Energy should get moving on the things that benefit the community most, but hold off on instituting a total plan that may not be well-enough informed yet, financially.
Philip Schmandt, business lawyer (citizen leader) Believes the goal of the plan should be three fold: i) to establish a vision for Austin Energy that meets City Council's goals, ii) to design that vision according to what makes AE and its business model most competitive now and in future decades, iii) to design a plan that is realistically feasible and continues AE's mission of providing affordable/reliable, clean electricity and excellent customer service. He feels confident the current plan meets these criteria.
Joe Beal, frmr General Manager @ the LCRA (energy consultant) Believes AE is well-positioned to lead on green, but should move carefully in regards to energy planning and changing market conditions.
Michael Cration, Smarte Building (energy efficiency consultant) Seconded the idea that AE might be able to make its best energy efficiency gains by creating programs to improve building performance in apartment complexes, and generally supports all the views above.
##
Things I Liked 1) Citizen Input.
Citizens present were invited to input questions to the panel via file card, text, or email. (Unfortunately we ran out of time and only got to a few of the 117 questions submitted!) The event will be rebroadcast will be several times later this week, schedule here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/cha...
2) Leadership Ethic.
AE General Manager Roger Duncan kicked-off the evening by citing the Austin Climate Protection Plan's commitment to make "Austin Energy the leading utility in the nation for greenhouse gas reductions." http://www.austinchronicle.com... (1)
##
Things I Learned 1) Philip's perspective.
Philip Schmandt points out AE's future viability, in terms of its business model, is a critical concern -- and that the current plan to further diversify AE's electricity generation portfolio this decade will move AE toward solving its business model problems.
2) The Mayor hires well.
While I sense reluctance on his part to get "too involved" in this process, Mayor Leffingwell did very well by Amy Everhart and crew for this event, facilitating some very good and very open community dialogue.
##
What was Missing > I wish this question had been asked --- "More $$ than what?"
For some reason the Austin American Statesman continues to report Austin Energy's green plan "costs 20% more" than a "do nothing" option... Isn't this a gross mischaracterization? I spent some time trying to highlight this last week. (Help!) Here's three reasons why I think the Statesman's off-base on this one:
1. AE is currently spending more $$ than it's making. Roger D said clearly last night, "Costs are exceeding revenue." That trend will continue for at least the next few years and unless AE raises bills, the utility will go under. There are no future scenarios where bills do not go up. Perhaps I'm confused, or perhaps staff at the Statesman is confused -- but my understanding is the only way for bills to "remain flat" as the Statesman says, is for AE to go out of business... There's a lot of data here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
2. Pollution will almost inevitably become more expensive by 2021. AE's current plan is in large part about trying to prevent future cost shocks related to its use of heavy-polluting electricity generation resources (i.e. our coal plant). As community costs linked to NOx, heavy metals, and CO2 pollution are added into electricity prices, via health and environmental regulations, Austin will have to adjust. Keep in mind, Austin is particularly vulnerable as our coal plant is one of the worst polluters in the entire state, sorry world (more here and here and here on that). In other words, it's a reasonable assumption that bills will go up (in the pollution costs category), esp. for Austin, as long as we continue relying on coal for baseload. The new plan aims to begin transistion away from coal in a manner that's commensurate with industry expectations about future pollution costs.
3. So yes - bills will go up no matter what, but here's another thing the Statesman keeps leaving out. AE's strategy (as a green leader) is to add A LOT more energy efficiency. In fact, AE plans on having one of the most aggressive energy efficiency programs yet seen in the world. As such, Austinites will have more opportunities to reduce total electricity usage this decade. Keep in mind, it's not uncommon for customers to reduce total usage by 30%, and some are getting 50+% bill reductions http://eewaitsfornoman.blogspo... with smart energy efficiency investments. How 'bout some reporting on that, Statesman? In what ways would AE's green plan benefit consumer bills if it reaches its energy efficiency goals?
