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
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?
These notes are observations compiled from the last several months of involvement regarding Austin Energy's Generation Plan, 2010-2021. . . Austinites are invited to engage in town hall discussion on the subject Feb. 22, KLRU is featuring a televised round table prior, around Feb. 18. Here's some insight into "how we got here" --
(Part 1 of a 2 part series.)
Unfortunate Exclusions Invites: Austin Energy and City Council left out a few fundamental players, last year, when they made appointments to the citizen body responsible for reviewing electricity generation planning, 2010-2021. (1) Just ask "Carol B" at Texas Rose. The "Rose" in Texas Rose stands for "Rate Payers Organization to Save Energy." Neither Carol, nor any other low income advocates, nor any small business advocates, neighborhood advocates, citizen advocates, health advocates or etc were invited to participate in the citizen scenario review process. Whoops. The review board was made up of 2 clean energy advocates, 2 environmental advocates, 2 corporate business employees, 1 building manager's advocate, and the chairs of the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Commission (which are also volunteer citizen review boards). These appointments were a great start, but not a fair cross-representation of the whole community. Of course, how does one fairly represent the whole community?
Info: Furthermore, the folks who sat on the citizen review task force were shocked and frustrated to no end by resistance Austin Energy's staff showed in answering some of their questions. It's probably completely unintentional, but AE has yet to explain why certain info is secret in Austin that may not be secret in other cities or electricity markets.
And meanwhile -- the more financially oriented thinkers in the review process were further exasperated, because they were never given some essential framing for the way utility scenarios are traditionally carried out. Now this may or may not be true -- but apparently energy utility planning is modeled entirely off of proxy data, even in private companies. Not sure why. Colin Meehan of Environmental Defense tells me that when he worked in a consulting firm that performed scenario modeling services for large utilities some years ago -- all of the projects were run off proxies, that indeed using "proxy data" is industry standard. But here in Austin, without explanation to the citizen reviewers, this squishy data catalyzed distrust about AE's financial know how and many of the reviewers are unconvinced that the fiscal projections they were shown have any basis in reality. Thus, hundreds of "bill impact" questions remain. . . If only Austin Energy known to explain "proxy data" to their citizen reviewers and prioritize a clear reveal on bill impacts.
Communication Breakdowns Meanwhile, we are fortunate to very talented and committed staffers at City Hall and the utility who are doing their daily best to manage a flurry of incoming requests from a wide variety of concerns and knowledge bases. We might need a few more resources here. . . And, ironically, it's the things I've heard our leaders say off-hand that are defining some of today's anger.
Leadership Ain't Easy: Roger Duncan's infamous late Summer quip, "We need coal to keep the lights on," was quickly rescinded after local environmentalists (like me, the Sierra Club, and a number of UT student leaders) responded incredulously. Mr. Duncan was of course referring to the idea that unless people are willing to pay more for their electricity -- coal is an unfortunate fact of life. But it made him sound pro-coal to those of us who don't know him. (2) Another example, Mayor Leffingwell's recent remark, "We don't have to do anything for the next two years," has also upset local enviros because it sounds like he's fleeing the scene. But the Mayor is probably referring to a very complicated series of ideas, i.e.: given that the current plan so many environmentalists are endorsing doesn't call for any strategic changes in Austin Energy's electricity generation policy for at least the next three years, and the fact that the City has some relatively clear environmental policies in place, and the fact that Austin Energy is in serious financial trouble, and the fact that the Mayor's office is currently managing fears regarding deregulation (Austin Energy is a citizen-owned monopoly responsible for generating about a third of the City's operating revenue) -- it would appear the Mayor might be trying to say (without alarming anyone), "please be patient - the green plan you're supporting is already effectively in place, and I plan to continue operations carrying that out while we sort out AE's financial viability issues." But, again, that's not what it sounded like.
Unfortunate Assumptions Treehuggers like me: Another fact. Enviros like conspiracy theories. Corporations are evil and the government is full of spiritually-dead self-preservationists. . . I don't know why, but we're quick to assume the worst about those who don't share our priorities. And that's true of just about everybody. Humanity is under an awful lot of stress, right now. So, we're often driven to assume that when someone is not sharing something, they're hiding something. That may or may not be true.
Maybe it's because I've been the squeakiest of hinges in the local blogosphere, insinuating that Austin Energy was addicted to fossil fuels and blindly ignorant of coal's community costs, but I haven't had as much trouble getting my questions answered as I thought I would. Mr. Roger Duncan, General Manager of AE, has been welcoming and supportive of any efforts to help AE move off of its most destructive habit (burning coal), and he's a busy guy. I imagine there are others like me who would assume the worst before trying to build a relationship with their accused...
Suffice to say, there's a lot to know about electricity -- and personal contact, effective communication, and getting your questions answered are more fun than abstract darkness.
According to the analysis used to plan Austin's energy future it costs 3% more to lower Austin's CO2 footprint by 61 percent, as compared to the current plan which will lower CO2 18 percent, by 2020, below 2005 emissions levels. Expenses-wise that's an exceptionally small gap for an incredibly large gain, and likely that "3% more" is backwards. Let me explain.
The risk analysis used to create Austin Energy's Staff Generation Plan omits numerous elements that will cause Austin's near-future electricity prices to spiral upward.
Alarming Financial Risks associated with: ozone nonattainment, greenhouse gas regulation, coal ash regulation, health injury costs, exposure to litigation, and highly volatile maintenance costs -- are all left out of the analysis used to guide our City's energy plan, 2010 to 2020. Thus, City managers are recommending a coal-centric strategy. Risks omitted all target Austin's coal plant, located in La Grange and responsible for providing 1/3 of your electricity...
Replacing Austin's coal plant offers the possibility of rate stabilization on a significant portion of your monthly bill. By replacing coal with clean, Austin would eliminate the volatility of coal's market fuel costs from monthly bills. This should appeal to rate payers big and small. Over the last 10 years, Austin's coal fuel costs are up 138%, (1) while the sun keeps shining, the wind keeps blowing, and our energy efficiency investments keep conserving --- for free.
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.
(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.
