(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?
This week, hundreds of Texans from all across the state descended on the Texas capitol to protest Governor Perry's decision to fast-track the construction of nineteen new coal-fired power plants. Their concerns are well-founded; coal is a non-renewable resource that pollutes our air and contributes dramatically to global climate change. As ill-founded as plans are to build new coal plants, Texas will need new sources of energy over the coming years, which is why I believe our state needs to become a leader in renewable energy by making an investment in solar power.
Texas ranks first in the nation in solar resource potential, according to the Comptroller's State Energy Conservation Office (SECO). Unlike wind, solar power is available across the state in quantities that only vary modestly. Quite literally, any place the sun is shining is a good place for solar power. Texas' cities hold huge potential for electricity production through photovoltaic (PV) panels, solar panels which convert sunlight into electricity. If Texas had photovoltaic panels installed throughout just five percent of its urban areas, (on building rooftops, above parking garages, along roadways and so forth) they would produce half of Texas' current electrical consumption . To put it another way: Texans know how the sun beats down on them - why not put that to use?
