The Lege has a really bad bill with a exceptionally bad amendment on it that needs to be removed before it becomes law.Take time out and make a call.
Please CONTACT YOUR TEXAS SENATOR IMMEDIATELY! • Birdwell, Brian
• Carona, John
• Davis, Wendy
• Deuell, Bob
• Duncan, Robert
• Ellis, Rodney
• Eltife, Kevin
• Estes, Craig
• Fraser, Troy
• Gallegos, Mario, Jr.
• Harris, Chris
• Hegar, Glenn
• Hinojosa, Juan "Chuy"
• Huffman, Joan
• Jackson, Mike
• Lucio, Eddie, Jr.
• Nelson, Jane
• Nichols, Robert
• Ogden, Steve
• Patrick, Dan
• Rodriguez, Jose
• Seliger, Kel
• Shapiro, Florence
• Uresti, Carlos
• Van de Putte, Leticia
• Watson, Kirk
• Wentworth, Jeff
• West, Royce
• Whitmire, John
• Williams, Tommy
• Zaffirini, Judith
Rep. Dennis Bonnen unexpectedly put a horrible amendment on an already bad (but previously limited) bill - SB 875 - that now makes the bill universally bad.The bill passed in the House. Bonnen's amendment gives immunity from ALL nuisance suits!!! It strips your right to protect your property and your health from pollution from ANY SOURCE. If mercury from a coal plant contaminated your lake or pond, you couldn't do anything about it. If sulfur from that coal plant destroyed your pecan trees, your roof or even if it impaired your breathing - you'd be out of luck. If toxic runoff from an industry or CAFO reached your land or creek, there would be nothing you could do. The immunity goes for pollution of land, water or air. It's that bad!!! The bill could come up on at any time. Please email or call RIGHT AWAY!!! Immediately!!!
Please contact your State Senator IMMEDIATELY! Urge them to vote NO on SB 875.
Failing that, at least strip the Bonnen amendment from the bill. Ask them to take at least 48 hours so they can look at the bill carefully.
***********************
Who Represents Me? http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us Background information: SB 875 is authored by Senator Troy Fraser.
House sponsors of the bill are Reps. Kelly Hancock, Warren Chisum and Wayne Smith.
Bonnen Floor Amendment to SB 875
REMOVES PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTIONS
A nuisance in legal terms in an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of your property. To prevent a trespasser or polluter from destroying your land, you could bring what's called a nuisance action against them to get them to stop and pay for any damages to your property.
Bonnen's amendment is a very bad amendment that will give polluters immunity for personal injury and property damage. The bill as it came over from the Senate only applied to greenhouse gas emissions and was intended to protect businesses from greenhouse gas nuisance lawsuits filed by the EPA, according to the House Research Report. It was not intended to affect nuisance actions filed by individuals.
This amendment broadens the scope of the bill substantially. It now amends the civil practice and Remedies Code to apply to all nuisance actions, brought by individuals and the government. The amendment gives immunity to any polluter (not just greenhouse gas) in a suit for nuisance or trespass, if the polluter proves its conduct was authorized by federal or state permit. The plaintiff can overcome the defense (rebuttable presumption) only by clear and convincing evidence that the polluter knowingly withheld or misrepresented material relevant to determining compliance with the order, and that was the primary reason the permit was granted.
1. It is immunity for a polluter.
2. The definition of "person" is expansive and does not limit the defense to any type of polluter or pollution. It will apply to any nuisance or trespass.
3. The only thing a polluter needs for immunity is a permit.
4. The exception requires the claimant to prove by "clear and convincing" evidence that the polluter lied or withheld material information relevant to its compliance or to getting the permit.
5. This exception will be impossible to prove. Proving someone has lied or withheld evidence, by clear and convincing evidence is an almost impossible standard. Any documents proving such fraud will often be beyond the plaintiff's reach, but it will likely be impossible to meet the standard - clear and convincing evidence - without such a "smoking gun"
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.
According to The Hill newspaper, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) "is introducing legislation to expand use of renewable electricity and transportation fuels that she says is a way to increase political support for broad energy legislation among farm-state lawmakers." Reuters adds that Klobuchar's legislation would promote "a long-term extension of biofuel tax breaks." Klobuchar says, "it is time to look at home-grown energy and that includes biofuels and they should be part of this."
At first glance, that all sounds innocuous enough, but there's a major problem: Sen. Klobuchar is (cleverly) baiting the hook with a strong Renewable Energy Standard, which most environmentalists support, but at the same time she's also including the worst of the worst biofuels proposals – corn ethanol. For instance, as Nathanael Greene of NRDC points out, Klobuchar's proposal includes a 5-year extension of the corn ethanol tax credit, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $30 billion. Klobuchar's legislation also appears to redefine old-growth forests as "biomass," potentially promoting deforestation. And Klobuchar's legislation would harm the development of truly advanced biofuels, in favor of corn ethanol. There's more, but that's sufficient to give you a good idea of how misguided and potentially harmful this bill happens to be.
More broadly, the problem is that promoting corn ethanol actually would set us backwards on our climate and clean energy goals. NRDC has written a great deal about corn-based ethanol, most of which is not flattering.
*From an NRDC article published in March 2010, we learn that "the current corn ethanol tax credit is effectively costing tax payers $4.18 per gallon and is driving up grain prices." The author, Nathanael Greene, concludes that "[w]e don't need an additional 1.4 billion gallons of corn ethanol, or the higher prices for grains and more deforestation that come with it...It's time to transition from corn ethanol's pollution and pork to a new generation of more sustainable biofuels that brings us closer to real energy independence."
*From this NRDC article published in January 2010, it turns out that "The old, dirty ethanol industry is dominated by big companies like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Poet." The author, Roland Hwang, adds, "It’s baffling why an industry that benefits from $4 billion a year in government subsidies can’t find a way to compete on environmental merits."
*As Nathanael Greene points out here, "the nitrogen runoff from corn grown all along the Mississippi causes a huge dead zone in the Gulf every summer." And, "[w]ith about a third of the corn crop going to make corn ethanol, it should be clear that more corn ethanol is not a real solution."
In addition to NRDC, Barack Obama also weighed in during the 2008 presidential campaign, declaring that "we're going to have a transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, not using food crops as the source of energy."
Last but not least, Earth Policy Institute founder Lester Brown and Clean Air Task Force Jonathan Lewis, writing in April 2008, explained in devastating terms why corn ethanol is so problematic:
It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy -- most of which comes from coal.
Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources.
Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm.
Most troubling, though, is that the higher food prices caused in large part by food-to-fuel mandates create incentives for global deforestation, including in the Amazon basin. As Time magazine reported this month, huge swaths of forest are being cleared for agricultural development. The result is devastating: We lose an ecological treasure and critical habitat for endangered species, as well as the world's largest "carbon sink..."
Meanwhile, the mandates are not reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Last year, the United States burned about a quarter of its national corn supply as fuel -- and this led to only a 1 percent reduction in the country's oil consumption.
In short, the problem is that while "biofuels" sounds as benign as apple pie, corn ethanol – the main biofuel available today – is actually bad for the environment both in the U.S. and abroad, bad for the poor, and bad for the American taxpayer.
Just to be clear, ethanol from cellulosic material is a completely different – and far superior – story from other, advanced biofuels (e.g., cellulosic), but advanced biofuels are not what Senator Klobuchar's talking about here. To the contrary, Senator Klobuchar is using this once-in-a-generation chance for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation, to push through a big agribusiness, corn ethanol boondoggle that will harm the environment, do nothing to reduce U.S. dependence on oil or to help strengthen U.S. national security.
Yes, we want increased production of renewable energy like wind and solar. Yes, biofuels done the right way could be an important part of the U.S. energy mix. But no, Sen. Klobuchar's approach – promoting dirty, old corn ethanol - is simply not the correct approach to the energy and environmental challenges we are facing.
Last Thursday Austin Energy General Manager Roger Duncan briefed Austin City Council on the utility's Resource and Climate Protection Plan. This plan is the culmination of 18 months of input from the public, the creation of a generation resource task force of various stakeholders to review various energy plans and make recommendations, and support and input from both the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Commission -- but it still isn't the end of the line for the plan. The generation plan will also be the subject of a city-wide town hall meeting February 22nd, and city council is expected to vote on some version of it in March.
The energy plan that Duncan (who will be retiring soon and we wish him the very best) presented sets Austin on a path to reduce our carbon emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and get a total of 35% of our energy from renewable resources. It will meet council's renewable energy goals, move Austin Energy towards becoming the leading utility in the nation in terms of clean energy and global warming solutions, and re-affirm the city's commitment to the Climate Protection Plan, which has the laudable goal to establish a cap and reduction plan for the utility's carbon dioxide emissions. It is a flexible, living document that will allow council to evolve and adapt as conditions change. AND it will reduce the capacity factor of our Fayette Coal Plant by 60% and gets the ball rolling on figuring out the best way to shut it down(which you know makes me happy). Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, doesn't it?
As we've come to expect over the years from our award winning utility, Austin Energy is taking an especially responsible and forward-thinking role with this new plan. I've formed this opinion for a few reasons:
They're adopting aggressive renewable energy and efficiency goals as part of a larger, smart business plan. Austin doesn't need a new generation plan because we're going to be strapped for energy by 2020; Austin Energy could rest on their laurels and do nothing for the next ten years and we'd be fine buying up excess energy on the open market as its power purchase agreements expire and gas plants age. But if they did that, by the time 2020 rolled around Austin would be way behind the technological curve and very likely be stuck with higher rates as a result. Austin Energy has picked up on the national trend that the traditional fuels we rely upon, such as coal, are quickly becoming financial liabilities even as solar and wind are becoming more and more cost effective. This plan will allow the utility to reposition itself for 2020 going forward so that in ten years we will have made the preparations necessary to take full advantage of the coming clean tech boom rather than be left scrambling and dependent on outdated energy sources.
Austin Energy and the task force that helped formulate this plan were very careful to balance considerations of reliability, affordability, and clean (in terms of the environment and human health). The city has the responsibility to make sure that everyone who lives here can afford their utility bills. It doesn't do any good to make the switch to a new clean economy if we do so on the backs of those that can least afford it. But that couldn't be farther from the case with this plan; this isn't green for some, this is green for all. Compared to other options, this plan will minimize the impact for those least able to pay their electricity bill, supports in-house economic development and the hiring of local contractors, and ensures that everyone will have a chance to play a role in moving our city and economy forward. There's been a lot of focus and attention on the utility's estimate that the plan will raise rates in 2020 by approximately 22% or $21 a month, but what's missing from that discussion is that even if Austin Energy doesn't do anything between now and 2020 rates will go up by 15% or about $14 a month. So do the math -- for an extra $7 a month in ten years, we can build up a clean local economy that minimizes impacts on low-income consumers and creates avenues to new employment opportunities, improves public health, AND puts Austin in a prime position to start lowering rates by taking advantage of cheap renewable energy. OR we can save families $7 a month compared to today on their utility bills but lose out on new jobs and leave every citizen in the city of Austin at the mercy of high fossil fuel costs and coming federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Austin Energy is not only looking at what is most affordable now, but what is most affordable in the long term. Coal may be cheap and reliable energy now, but depending on it in the long term will get us into trouble in terms of cheap and affordable in 2020.
Austin Energy is not only reaching for the low fruit of emissions reductions and energy efficiency, they're building high-tech ladders to get at the really juicy stuff at the top of the tree. Let me explain. There are a number of ways Austin Energy could go about reducing emissions. The easiest of these would be to buy renewable energy credits, or RECs. RECs and offsets are in essence a mechanism for utilities, businesses, and governmental bodies to pay someone else to clean up and still get the credit for it. They're a good and have a positive influence on society at large because they do encourage clean energy investment and development, but not necessarily in a nearby community (in fact almost certainly not). It might be easier in the short run to pay someone else to be clean up, but then we miss out on all the delicious creamy gravy that comes along with renewable energy development. If you buy RECs you don't get new jobs and businesses in your community. If you buy RECs your own people are still breathing the same amount of pollution. But Austin Energy is taking the initiative to really get at the heart of the problem by cutting the amount of pollution coming out of the smokestacks we own. For that, they should be applauded.
(The TCEQ is fixing to be a major story in the coming months. Good to see that Sierra Club is already out in front on it. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Recently, Texas got some big news. It's a story that Texans have known for years and have been shouting out loud, but no one seemed be listening. Until a couple weeks ago. President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is not following the federal Clean Air Act!
It takes a lot for the EPA to step in and say enough is enough. Here in Texas they've finally done just that. And it's about time. However, a ruling is not enough. Time is running out considering 11 new coal-fired power plants are proposed across the state. The EPA should halt the permitting or construction of any new coal plants in Texas until the TCEQ cleans up it's act. Because air regulation in Texas has been like law west o' the Pecos, it's not surprising there are more proposed here than any other state in the nation, nor surprising that many of the17 coal plants chuffing away in Texas rank amongst the absolute filthiest. The coal companies are getting away with too much.
Texans deserve better. How about some clean air to breathe!
So, this week we (Sierra Club) and Public Citizen launched a statewide tour with a huge inflatable coal fired power plant visiting communities that would be impacted by the proposed coal plants-collecting comments to send to the EPA, hearing community members speak out, letting other community members know what's going on and asking them to take action!
This could be a huge deal for Texas, as long as the EPA knows that Texans are in their corner and that we want the TCEQ to do it's job by protecting the health and well being of us-the people-instead of just taking money for permits.
Coal is the dirtiest, least efficient energy source available. If you consider doubled asthma rates a problem, then you will say its been disastrous to the health and well being of Texans. Texas is already infamously number ONE in the nation for mercury pollution. In fact, coal plants in Texas emit nearly twice as much mercury pollution as power plants in other states. We're number ONE in our nation for carbon dioxide the principal gas causing global warming.
Texans deserve better. Submit a comment. Get involved. So far, we've been to Abilene, Waco and Dallas, College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City and Houston. Next stop, next week-Austin! See you out there.
Senator Hutchison (who you might have heard is running for governor), published an op-ed last week in a couple of Texas papers about how the ACES Bill would cripple Texas. We've pushed back, and actually got something printed in one of those old-timey-newspaper thingies in one of the papers that ran her op-ed, the Round Rock Leader. (I know, quaint-- right? newspapers? Who reads those anymore? < end sarcasm>)
Have a read here for the whole thing, or if you're in North Austin or WillCo, go pick up a Round Rock Leader. I've posted an except below:
United States Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison takes a head-in-the-hot-sand approach to climate change that will get Texas burned and drive tens of thousands of new jobs elsewhere ("Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas," Aug. 27 Leader). She misses the mark on energy policy, using discredited industry statistics to drum up fear about a Cap and Trade policy that represents just a small portion of the initiatives proposed in the energy bill that passed the House of Representatives in July.
She fails to acknowledge that the bill includes provisions for renewable energy and energy efficiency - the real solutions to climate change. Hutchison's solution is no solution at all: more oil, more coal and more nuclear, with absolutely no coherent policy on how to lower energy costs and find alternatives to dwindling resources.
America is faced with the worst economic crisis in generations, Sen. Hutchison is turning away opportunities to create new jobs while slavishly clinging to the talking points of the oil industry.
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.
The US House of Representatives passed HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sometimes referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill, or ACES, by a vote of 219-212. A majority in the House of Representatives in 218 votes.
While I wish I could say this vote went along party lines, it did not. 8 Republicans (none from Texas) voted for the bill, while an amazing 44 Democrats voted against President Obama, the environment, and green jobs (including three from Texas).
These Dems should be whipped and whipped hard. The consensus in the enviro community was that this bill was watered down and wouldn't meet the promise of a truly great energy and climate bill. But it would be the best we could get. The closeness of the vote shows that every compromise literally had to be made to get any climate bill passed.
As for our Texas delegation, we have good news and bad news. (more after bump)
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?
