Public Citizen, Environmental Defense Fund Call for Independent State Agency to Coordinate State's Energy Efficiency Efforts
AUSTIN - In response to the Public Utility Commission's (PUC) planned adoption of new energy efficiency goals, Public Citizen and Environmental Defense Fund today called for sweeping changes to the way Texas runs its energy efficiency programs. The groups said that a single independent state agency would better serve Texas because it could coordinate programs currently regulated by multiple agencies and reduce agency overlap.
"We have no confidence in the Public Utility Commission process," said David Power, deputy director of Public Citizen's Texas office. "The time has come to change the way Texas saves energy because the current setup is ineffective. It is time for the Legislature to take control and create a new state agency that can put consumers first and save more money."
The groups plan to send a letter to state Sen. Troy Fraser, chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and state Reps. Jim Keffer and Burt Solomons, chairs of the House Energy Resources and State Affairs Committees, asking them to support legislation in the upcoming session to create an independent efficiency agency.
Under current law, the PUC, the agency in charge of regulating most of the state's "poles and wires" companies, is supposed to review and approve the energy efficiency programs of the utilities. But other state agencies oversee efficiency programs too, including the Department of Housing and Community Affairs and State Energy Conservation Office. Housing the coordination of these efforts under one roof would help streamline state regulation and create more savings potential for Texans, the groups said.
"Several agencies either run or oversee similar programs," said Kate Robertson, energy efficiency specialist with Environmental Defense Fund. "In some instances, like market outreach, a single state agency could coordinate the activities of all efficiency programs instead of multiple people doing the same thing for their own programs."
The groups also criticized the PUC's negative attitude toward energy efficiency. Over the past year and a half, agency staff had been developing plans to increase the state's goal for energy efficiency. On Friday, however, the three commissioners appointed by Gov. Rick Perry slashed the proposal dramatically, ostensibly for cost reasons, reducing the efficiency goal from 1 percent of peak demand by 2014 to a third of the growth in demand by 2013 - a much smaller increase. The PUC even has proposed curtailing the amount utilities can spend on efficiency measures.
"It is baffling to us that the commission thinks energy efficiency is not worth the cost," said Matthew Johnson, a policy analyst with Public Citizen's Texas office. "Ratepayers' utility bills pay primarily for fuel like natural gas and coal, power plants and the grid infrastructure. Energy efficiency costs around a dollar per month on a typical $100 electric bill and it pays for itself by reducing the need for new, costly power plants."
Energy efficiency has had a long track record of success since the Legislature passed the first statewide goal as part of the massive 1999 electric deregulation bill. In recent years, several independent and internal reports on energy efficiency potential and cost effectiveness have been published for the PUC. None of them, however, appear to have persuaded the commission to pursue energy efficiency as a consumer-friendly energy resource.
"There are at least four internal PUC and independent reports done in the last four years that show Texas can achieve higher energy efficiency goals" said Robertson. "Every one of them shows that efficiency saves consumers money and has a payback of 2 or 3 to 1. An independent agency's primary focus would be on achieving these goals and saving Texans money on their energy bills."
Agencies that manage non-electric efficiency programs, like the Water Development Board and potentially the Railroad Commission for natural gas, the groups note, also could be incorporated into the new efficiency agency. This would enhance the state's ability to increase program participation by creating a "one-stop shop" for consumer information on electric, water and gas efficiency programs.
The groups urged citizens and businesses to contact their state representatives, who convene again in January, to call for an independent efficiency agency.
The list of five Democrats and three Republicans running against Craddick includes conservatives such as Republican Jim Keffer, who represents Granbury, and Burt Solomons of Carrollton. But either would need a centrist majority of both Democrats and Republicans to win.
Correct! Craddick can't win without Democrats, and neither can any Republican. Kennedy went on to mock the recent "OMG the liberals are coming! the liberals are coming!" letter that is floating around, correctly noting that Craddick is beholden to Democrat votes as much as any other Speaker candidate.
For now, let's forget the idea that Democrats will support Craddick. If he can't win any decisive block of support from Democrats (and he can't), no one Democrat should support him (they won't), and there are too many important issues this cycle for anyone to make a power play for their own losing benefit at the expense of good public policy.
But, that's just an argument. Anyone can have an opinion.
The problem is when Kennedy get into some strange cocktail napking math that refutes public records that are out there:
At least eight of the 76 Republicans either think Craddick stinks or are running against him. On the other side of the aisle, eight Democrats think Craddick’s a great guy.
So if everybody votes as expected, the cross-party math shows Craddick clinging to an edge as thin as one vote.
No, no, no, no.
There are 11 Republicans, as I've tallied preivously, that are publicly opposed to Craddick. Again, here are the eleven:
Add those 11 to the "64 strong" Democrats, and you have 75 "Not Craddick" Members of the Texas House. Add in Rep. Al Edwards, who e-mailed me to tell me he is not supporting Tom Craddick (so I am taking him at his word), and you have 76 House members that have publicly stated they are not supporting Tom Craddick this election.
Of course, you cannot then attribute the remaining 74 to Craddick's camp (as Kennedy does), because there are still at least 12 "toss-ups" out there that have not definitively publicly declared who they will support:
(Click "There's More" for the rest of the numbers)
Q: How do you feel about this particular set of leaders—or this particular leader, by which I mean Speaker Tom Craddick?
Each individual leader has his own style, but the membership lets that style exist. At least 76 of the 150 members dictate who sits in that position. I was very honored—a boy from Hale Center, a town of 2,200 people—to be in the office of Speaker of the House, but it wasn’t because of me; it was because of the other members of the House. I was their second choice. They were their own first choice, but I was their second choice.
So whatever else you can say about the way the House is being run, enough of the members buy into that philosophy.
Or have let it become the norm.
This is an incredibly important insight: "they were their own first choice, but I was their second choice." The House is run the way it is because the Members choose to allow it to be run that way.
One more key point from the interview:
I didn’t run the House like it’s being run now. My take on running it is that you do it in such a way that the members are able to represent their districts to the best of their ability. Their first obligation is to their districts. They’re not there to represent the Speaker, and they’re not there to represent a political party. Now, you can’t make them represent their districts, and you can’t make them work hard, but you can have a system whereby all 149 have the same equal access to the system.
For a variety of tactical reasons, I recommend that, for the time being, you not discuss with the media your decision to support Tom Craddick. As you know, Tom prefers to keep his cards close to his chest until the optimal time to show them!
Waiting until the optimal time, Rep. Hartnett? Let's look at last time:
Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006 - Democrats win a net of 5 seats on Election Day (Source)
It seems that the "optimal time" two years ago was the day after Election Day. And then, after losing 26 names in nearly two months, just after Christmas.
To compare, let's look at what's happened this year:
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008 - Democrats win a net of 3 seats on Election Day
Ed. Note: The following 2,200+ word post took tremendous research & time to write. Please take the time to read it carefully. -- KT & Matt
Using fact-based reporting and research, we can document that there are at least 74 opponents to Speaker Craddick, that his absolute ceiling of support is 63, and that there are at least 13 "toss-up" Members who have refused to commit to anyone so far.
Tom Craddick is John McCain at this point. Barring a miracle, the math is absolutely there for change.
Right now, we're just waiting to see who will bring change.
I've researched news stories on all 150 Members of the Texas House, looked at last year's Speaker's vote, re-watched the Haggerty walk-off, and studied the primary and general election results from 2008. It's amazing how original research can crystallize the picture:
There are 74 "public" opponents of Craddick.
There are 63 "public" supporters of Craddick -- this is his ceiling.
There are 13 "public" toss-up Members who are undecided.
------------------------------------
Executive Summary
We have reached the tipping point for the end of Tom Craddick's reign as Speaker. All we're waiting for is the last brave group of Members to declare they won't support him, and we can officially move on to determining who should be next in line.
Based entirely on public statements and the latest public records, Tom Craddick would have to secure every single past supporter that hasn't abandoned him yet (his 63-person ceiling) and convert every single undeclared Member to his side in order for him to retain his Speakership.
Given that reality, Rep. Jim Dunnam's statement last week seems pretty accurate:
"Stick a fork in Tom Craddick. It's over." Rep. Jim Dunnam, 11/5/08. (Source)
Here's why Tom Craddick's reign as Speaker is over:
The numbers just aren't there. As I'll detail below -- complete with sources and everything -- there are 74 public opponents to Tom Craddick. Additionally, there are at least 13 publicly "toss-up" Members that have not declared whether they support Craddick or not, though most have indicated they do not want a return of Tom Craddick's style of leadership.
That means there is an easy path to 80 (if you evenly split the "toss-up" Members) for no support of Craddick.
The likelihood that Speaker Craddick would retain all 63 "public" supporters is ridiculous. Because there is no recent "public" information on who those 63 Members may or may not support, I give them all to Speaker Craddick. But doing so is extremely generous -- it is much, much more likely that he has only 1/2 or, at best, 2/3 of that support.
Many of our readers -- both Democrat and Republican elected officials, as well as lobbyists and consultants -- can look through that list of 63 and see several names you don't believe will support Craddick again, or are on the fence and are just waiting on the next 1-2 Members to publicly declare they won't support Craddick.
The momentum just isn't there. Speaker Craddick created a false sense of "momentum" with the official tally of the HD 105 race with Rep. Linda Harper Brown. Keeping that race in his column changed nothing; all it did was make it much more likely that a Democrat would not be elected Speaker. But Craddick himself is just as likely to not be re-elected today as he was one week ago -- when we learned that, under his reign as Speaker, Republicans lost another net of 3 seats.
It is time for Democrats and Republicans to elect a new Speaker. It must be one who embraces the idea that the status quo must change, that all Members are equal, that what happened in the past is the past, and that Members should be allowed to vote for the important issues that matter to their districts.
------------------------------------
Why Public Sources Matter
A brief note as to why I use public sources: because I believe in responsible journalism.
I know that may shatter some of your perceptions of bloggers, but I absolutely believe in responsible journalism. I am angered when I read news analysis that fails to do any research -- primarily because it leads to false stories like this one:
Legislative win gives House edge to GOP, Craddick
With a crowded field of candidates and no clear alternative to Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick, the narrow 76-74 majority appears to give momentum back to Craddick in the volatile speaker's race — and all but guarantees the next speaker will not be a Democrat. -- Associated Press (Source)
There's no momentum for Craddick. It's just that everyone in the press is listening to arguments/rumors from the people who are spinning them, and no one is willing to do the required leg work and research.
Well, I did it. Here's how I came to my totals:
Started with the 80-68 split on the Geren amendment
Adjusted totals based on public statements in May 2007
Adjusted totals based on the "Haggerty walk-off roll call" vote
Adjusted totals based on the primary election results and candidates' stated support
Adjusted totals based on the general election results and candidates' stated support
Finally, I researched quotes in recent news stories, and tallied
(This was written by House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam, not by a staff writer of BOR. We continue to be proud of our Democratic leaders and look forward to a Democratic Speaker. - promoted by Matt Glazer)
Today, House Democrats stand at 70 seats strong.
No one predicted we would be this strong this fast. Not in 2001, when the Legislative Redistrict Board drew a map designed to elect 98 Republicans -- almost two-thirds of the Texas House. And not in 2002, when 88 Republicans were elected to the House.
I believe the secret to our success rests in our refusal to give up the hard fight for our constituents and our ability to work together. But as we get away from Austin, we don't always know what is going on with our Democratic House colleagues. If you don't know what's happening to our friends, you should.
Here's but one example:
Recently, Rep. Allen Vaught politely declined to meet with a potential opponent of Dan Branch. Allen explained that, in the greater interest of Dallas County, he did not think he should be personally involved in county House races. This is Allen's choice, and certainly understandable.
Imagine Allen's surprise when he received a copy of the invitation to former Rep. Bill Keffer's fundraiser this month. Of course, you can guess correctly that Linda Harper-Brown's name is on it; heck, she did the same against Republican incumbents during the 2006 primaries. But you might be surprised by some of the other host names: Joe Driver, Ken Paxton, Jim Jackson, and Jodie Laubenberg. Oh, and Rep. Dan Branch. But wait, you say, Joe Driver isn't like Harper-Brown? And Paxton has always treated other members with respect, hasn't he? And this is how Mr. Branch says thank you to Allen Vaught?
This is being duplicated across the state. These incidents are neither isolated nor uncalculated. We must recognize the great effort our Republican colleagues are making, as incumbent elected officials, to actively campaign against Democratic House members. We must understand that when our Republican colleagues go after one of us, they are going after all of us. You might be in a safe district and say to yourself, "Well, they are not coming after me," but the truth is that when they attack one of us, they attack all of us. Their goal is to weaken our collective voice by defeating us one by one.
(UPDATE: Question on process and timing were asked in the Comments. I've tried to answer for those watching this train wreck for entertainment. Glen Maxey, former member, with eyes averted from the carnage. - promoted by Glen Maxey)
Rep. Todd Smitth (R-Tarrant) filed House Resolution 2671 today, which outlines the procedures by which a Speakers race would occur.
A post in yesterday's Texas Politics blog from the Houston Chronicle explains:
AP photographer Harry Cabluck was stalking the four candidates for speaker today as they huddled in the back of the House chamber's center aisle.
Suddenly they turned on Cabluck. Reps. Brian McCall, Jim Pitts and Jim Keffer all began playing rock, paper scissors as Rep. Fred Hill watched. The implication was that they were trying to decide which one would stand alone against incumbent Speaker Tom Craddick in the insurrection. But Hill explained it differently.
"Those guys were doing rock, paper, scissors for speaker pro tem, because I'm going to be speaker," Hill joked.
(Rep. Fred Hill has also announced. - promoted by Burnt Orange Report)
State Representative Brian McCall has filed for Speaker of the Texas House, according to a news item on Quorum Report. Rep. McCall joins Rep. Jim Pitts, who filed yesterday, and Rep. Jim Keffer as the third Republican who has shown intentions to replace Speaker Tom Craddick.
**UPDATE** The Chron blog is reporting that Rep. Fred Hill has also announced that he is filing for Speaker.
Cartoon image from 
