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 dramatic irony of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) decision this morning to grant the NRG Limestone Coal Plant an air permit (and therefore permission to begin construction on a third smokestack) is painful. At the very moment that leaders from around the world are meeting to come to an international agreement to save the world from catastrophic global warming, at the very moment that residents of developing nations are begging for the continued existence of their land and way of life, Texas gives the green light to build another mercury-spewing, asthma-inducing, planet choking coal plant.
Not exactly what I was hoping to wake up to this morning.
This decision also comes just days after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out with its engangerment finding, which says that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases represent a significant threat to public health and welfare. Earlier this year, the EPA also ruled that TCEQ has not been adhering to the Clean Air Act in its issuance of new air permits. This is the first coal plant permit that TCEQ has issued since that warning (which TCEQ doesn't seem to have taken to heart). AND, according to Karen Hadden, executive director of SEED Coalition,
The TCEQ is not following federal law (Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT) in issuing this permit and a result, mercury emissions will be higher.
So many hearts to break, so little time. But of course there's always a silver lining. Next legislative session, the TCEQ (and a whole host of other commissions) will undergo the Sunset Review process -- and as Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas Office mentions, that gives Texas a chance to reform the TCEQ permitting process:
This is just another example of why the Sunset Commission should take a good hard look at how TCEQ rubber stamps permits for coal plants in Texas.
In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed for progress in Copenhagen, and drop by Texas Vox for more information on how you can help fight global warming and a 2nd Texas coal rush.
You can also find the good (NRG has agreed to offset 50% of their emissions, though there's nothing in their permit to hold them to that), the bad, and the ugly in the full press release here.
Statement of David Power, Deputy Director, Public Citizen's Texas Office
Seemingly out of concern that competitive renewable energy will damage Big Oil's bottom line, the Texas Railroad Commission wants to block renewable energy transmission lines that would put affordable energy from west Texas wind farms on an even playing field with the historical titans of Texas energy - oil and gas companies.
A new investment in these transmission lines would save ratepayers $2 billion a year, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 16 percent and create more than $5 billion in economic development benefits for Texas. Ratepayers, companies and organizations with an interest in seeing the further development of renewable energy and green jobs should contact the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) and tell them to deny the Railroad Commission's request to intervene.
The Texas Legislature authorized these transmission lines in 2008 to address the lack of available transmission lines to deliver wind energy from the panhandle and west Texas to the major metropolitan areas in central Texas where demand is higher. This renewable energy helps reduce costs for ratepayers by providing abundant and inexpensive clean energy that helps offset the volatile price of natural gas.
In its filing with the PUC, the Railroad Commission inappropriately expressed concern for current and future oil and gas development in Texas. In doing so, the commission stepped outside of its regulatory role to promote the interests of Big Oil. While the commission's stated task is "primary regulatory jurisdiction over (the) oil and natural gas industry," in this case, it is attempting to pick winners and losers in regards to Texas' energy future. It is also questionable whether Michael Williams, who sits on the Railroad Commission and who is currently in the running for Kay Bailey Hutchison's U.S. Senate seat, is acting in the best interest of the public or doing favors for potential campaign contributors.
This is another example of outrageous overreaching by the Railroad Commission on behalf of the same industries it is supposed to regulate. The commission is charged with regulating the oil and gas industries, not with protecting their interests with taxpayer dollars. The Railroad Commission and Mr. Williams need to stick to their own jurisdiction, rather than making an inappropriate power play to earn favors with Big Oil.
(What a great opportunity. Be sure to vote. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Help send Citizen Sarah, media coordinator at Public Citizen Texas and sometimes-contributor here at BOR, to the upcoming international climate negotiations in Copenhagen! I've entered a video contest on Huffington Post to be their newest citizen journalist and "Hopenhagen Ambassador". Check out my video below, and then head over to the Huffington Post voting both to cast your ballot! All it takes is a click, help send a passionate blogger on climate and the environment to cover the story of her dreams!
With the Day of the Dead just around the corner, it's the time of year to remember friends and family members who have died. That's why a demonstration is being held at City Hall on Thursday at noon to recognize those who have died from complications related to living around the City of Austin's coal plant.
Burning coal to create electricity has a high human cost. From childhood asthma to aggravated heart and respiratory problems, living downwind of a coal plant can take years off of your life. If you are a six year old or even a strapping adult with asthma and unlucky enough to live near a coal plant to boot, that is enough to send you to the emergency room on a regular basis. Individuals with heart conditions are in the same boat. And mercury emissions from the coal stacks that power our city find their way into waterways and are known to cause birth defects. A recently updated study by the Clean Air Task Force finds that our Fayette Coal Plant causes an average of fifty deaths each year.
City Council must take these considerations into account when planning our future energy mix. Why should others in the state of Texas die or live with crippling health problems when cleaner alternatives exist?
So come to City Hall at noon on Thursday to show City Council your support for a clean energy plan that would phase out the coal plant as quickly as possible. Wear black in some way, and meet at 11:50 in the lobby so that we can coordinate. Parking at city hall is free on council meeting days. Please RSVP or contact Ryan Rittenhouse at 512-477-1155 with any questions.
Please also spread the word to similarly concerned friends and invite them to the "Austin has a dirty secret" facebook group so that they can be in the loop for future events or demonstrations.
Today students from across the city of Austin came together in support of Austin moving forward in the direction of clean, renewable energy. University Democrats from the University of Texas, Campus Democrats from St. Edward's University, the ReEnergize Texas Coalition, the University of Texas Campus Environmental Center and student Sierra Club members, among others, held a press conference to announce their support for a clean energy future for Austin.
Students also announced an exciting new development: The Student Government of the University of Texas has officially endorsed the call by environmental groups and citizens from across the city to divest from the Fayette Coal Plant and invest more in renewable energy sources.
Students spoke to points featured in Austin Energy's PACE proposals and proposals submitted by a coalition of partners including the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Environment Texas, and Power Smack.
Students also discuss how divesting from the Fayette Coal Plant benefits students and the community at large.
Featured speakers included Brittany Dawn McAllister, Austin Student Outreach Director for the Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter, Andy Jones, Vice-President of University Democrats and President of Texas College Democrats, and Jimmy Talarico, UT Student Government University-Wide Representative and Legislative Policy Committee Vice-Chair.
Want more? Check out this video from the press conference, and don't forget to join the Facebook group "Austin has a dirty secret".
And an interview from ReEnergize Texas' own Jacob Bintliff:
While at Netroots Nation a few weeks back, I had the opportunity to listen in on a panel discussing climate change, Texas' energy future, and energy security featuring Houston Mayor Bill White (you might have also heard he is running for US Senate).
Mayor White gave very measured, political answers. Throughout the panel, never did the words "Cap and Trade" leave his lips, but he did remain skeptical of anyone who claimed to have it all figured out and that their answer would be easy and painless. He also showed legitimate concerns about the impacts of renewable energy mandates done wrong on low-income consumers. As a representative from a consumer advocacy organization, it is refreshing to hear White's commitment to protecting our most vulnerable even as we chart a new energy future.
Mayor White's stated goals are to become more energy independent for basic security reasons and to be in control of our energy future. To do so, he maintains that we must reduce our pollution based on sound science, and do so in a way which does not burden low-income households. He proposes three main mechanisms to meet these goals:
Cut the amount of fuel we use in vehicle travel without impinging on people's ability to travel freely-- specifically by increasing our efficiency per mile traveled.
Cut the amount of energy consumed in buildings. Why drive up the cost of business by paying for electricity?
Decrease the amount of power we get from coal and substitute that power with cleaner sources
Despite some skepticism, Mayor White certainly showed that our energy future could have our cake and eat it too, namely through increased efficiency in building codes, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and use of cost-effective renewables. See the edited video here:
Public Citizen does not and would never endorse candidates. Even if we could, it's hard to get an exact read on Mayor White and how he would act as the next Senator from Texas on the issue of federal climate policy -- so even so we could offer little endorsement other than a candid analysis of his words and his record.
When asked off-camera about how he would vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the climate bill which passed in the House in June and due up for debate in the Senate over the next 2-3 months, he remained committed to energy efficiency but overall rather vague. White showed skepticism as to large long term goals rather than smaller but gradually increasing cuts in emissions. His version of the bill, he said, would have strong building code mandates, a renewable energy efficiency standard (which is it, Bill?) with a price cap on renewables to protect consumers, and change dispatch priorities to wean the nation off of coal fired power. He did not, however, indicate whether or not he would support implementing a federal cap on carbon dioxide emissions or the cap and trade mechanism.
This is a question likely to come up in the next few months when ACES comes to a Senate vote, and hopefully Mayor White will have a clearer answer prepared when that time comes. But if the final answer is no on ACES, would he have some specific policy solutions about how to improve the bill, or would he just cast the same "no way, never" vote that we'll likely get from John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison?
That being said, it is refreshing to hear a candidate speak so fluently about energy policy. Mayor White's record on energy as Deputy Secretary of Energy stands on its own, as does his impressive work on making Houston a national leader on energy efficiency. We may still be uncertain as to where he stands on ACES, but we certainly know his feelings on energy efficiency both in word and deed - which is nothing to sneeze at.
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.
(Those of you in Western Travis County and out into the Hill Country- be sure to vote if you are in the PEC district. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Hey Pedernales Electric Co-op members!
The 2009 PEC Elections are winding down, but there is still time to vote. The deadline for members to cast their ballot online or by mail is this Friday -- or you can vote in person at the annual membership meeting on June 20th.
On May 4th, board candidates attended a presentation and discussion on energy efficiency and clean renewable energy. In turn, the candidates were given a questionnaire asking them to establish their positions and views on future energy options for PEC. You can view the powerpoint they were presented, the answers to their questionnaires, and lots more educational resources at www.cleanenergyfortexas.org/pec/.
It is vital to the PEC and the Texas Hill Country that the co-op adopt policies to emphasize renewable energy and energy efficiency. This will help keep rates affordable while combating climate change and assuring healthy air and water in Texas. Be sure to vote and please encourage your neighbors to do the same. As a member owned utility, member involvement at PEC is a genuine opportunity to make a difference in our energy future.
