Former Austin Mayor Will Wynn, PUC Commissioner Rolando Pablos, Austin Councilmember Bill Spelman, Travis County Commissioner Ron Davis, Webberville Mayor Hector Gonzales, Austin Energy General Manager Larry Weis, Austin Councilmember Chris Riley, Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Mark Mendenhall of SunEdison.

On Friday, January 6, 2012, Austin Energy held a grand opening ceremony for their new Webberville Solar Project, the largest facility in Texas and among the largest in the nation with 127,728 ground mounted solar panels that rotate with the sun and will generate 30 megawatts (MW) of electricity – enough to power 5,000 homes annually.

A number of years ago, the City of Austin purchased this land planning to install a new coal-fired power plant.  When those plans fell through, a landfill was proposed for the site that now boasts 280 acres of solar panels with a view of downtown Austin along its horizon.

Public Citizen says kudos to the City of Austin and Austin Energy for their vision and efforts in completing this project.  Given that the State Climatologist is warning us that Texas can expect up to 5 more years of the current drought cycle, this project came just in time to help provide our community with drought–proof electricity during the peak use times – that will come in handy next summer.

At that hearing, the commission will be hearing customers’ thoughts on $113 million dollar rate increase proposal for Austin Energy (AE).

“Getting the rates right is critical to assuring that people can afford to live in this city and will continue to move here, said Tom “Smitty” Smith, the director of the Texas office of Public Citizen.  “We see five flaws to the current proposal:

• they haven’t proven they need this much of a rate increase;
• the proposed rates overcharge residential consumers almost 20% more than previous methods of allocating costs;
• the proposed rates continue to be a corporate welfare program that subsidizes large industrial consumers and places the burden on average customers;
• the proposed rates are unfair to low income users; and
• the proposed rates discourage conservation and renewable energy use.”

The EUC will be hosting a series of hearings on the proposed rate increase. Monday’s hearing is the second of four and will focus on these issues.  Several consumer groups and low-income advocates will present their alternative proposals.

Josh Houston with Texas IMPACT said, “As an essential element of the city’s social safety net, the issue of electric rates intimately links the faith community and disadvantaged ratepayers.  Austin Energy’s proposed rate design adversely impacts both.  However, it is a false dichotomy that there has to be a choice between clean energy and affordable rates for disadvantaged ratepayers.  Austin Energy has always been an innovative leader and we are confident there’s a solution beneficial to both God’s creation and ‘the least of these’.”

There are numerous elements to the Austin Energy proposal that contributed to some residential customers paying more than their fair share of a rate increase.

“This is a case about subsidization:  Residential ratepayers subsidizing industrial ratepayers; and residential small (low energy) users subsidizing residential large (high energy – over 5,000 Wh per month) users,” said Lanetta Cooper, an attorney with Texas Legal Services Center.

Ms. Cooper elaborated saying, “Austin Energy used assumptions that unfairly shifted costs away from the large commercial and industrial customers onto residential customers and has admitted many of its large commercial and industrial customers are paying $20 million below AE’s cost of service.  If AE had followed the methodology that was consistent with City of Austin council’s precedent, residential customers would have had 20 million dollars in costs less allocated to them.  Unfairly, AE is seeking to raise residential rates twice as much as the increase it needs for the whole utility.”

Much of the huge disparity in rate increases for residential users is due to an increase in fixed customer charges that include economic development costs that benefit commercial customers and have nothing to do with the provision of electric service to residential customers and the addition of a new wires charge from $6 to $25. This results in raising residential small user rates 42%.

Cyrus Reed, the Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of Sierra Club said of this, “Austin Energy’ s recommended rate increase puts too much of a burden on low energy users working families and the residential sector in general with these proposed new high fixed costs  Instead AE should adopt new rates that are a fairer balance between industrial and residential, support it’s generation plan to encourage energy efficiency and conservation solar and moving away from continuing to rely on burning coal at its Fayette power plant.”

Austin Energy customers are encouraged to attend and participate in the meetings in any of three ways:

• speak during citizen communications (3 minute limit) at any meeting
• submit written questions or comments at any time via the rate review website
• request an opportunity to provide formal comments or a presentation during EUC rate review meetings.

Comments or questions on the rate proposals or a request to make formal comments at an EUC meeting may be submitted directly via email to ratereview@austinenergy.com.

To read the story discussing weather crisis and energy in the Texas deregulated market, click here to go to the Austin Chronicle’s story.

NRG now wants Austin to buy into nuclear power through a power purchase agreement instead of direct investment.  (Click here to read our earlier post on the letter sent by NRG to Austin Energy.)  “Considering this messy history and the fact that reactor costs have tripled, why should Austin Energy even be talking about a nuclear deal with NRG?” asked Karen Hadden, Director of the SEED Coalition.  Watch the press conference video to see how other concerned citizens are responding to this new NRG tact.

Solar Si, Nuclear No! Press Conference
Speakers, in order of appearance:
Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition
Frank Cooksey, Former Mayor of Austin
Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy
Susana Almanza, PODER
Roy Waley, Vice Chair, Austin Regional Group of the Sierra Club”

The power purchase agreement would raise electric bills 20% or more and would cost $13 – $20 billion over the life of the reactors. These billions of dollars could do so much more if used for safe, clean renewable energy and efficiency projects..

Frank Cooksey, who was the Mayor of Austin from 1985-1988 when Austin was hemoraging money during the construction of the first two units at STP as cost overruns and construction delays caused the existing reactors to balloon to six times the original budget estimate and come online eight years late, said “I was serving during the time when those costs were placed into our electric utility rate base, resulting in large increases in the utility bills of our citizens. The angriest and most difficult public hearing that I ever presided over was the one that addressed the increases in electric rates generated by the high costs of construction of the STNP (South Texas Nuclear Project).”

Austin Energy has been a leader on energy efficiency and in developing solar projects, and other clean energy efforts that benefit our local economy.  The recently approved Austin Generation Plan, developed by a citizen task force with input from Austin Energy and approved by the City Council, builds on that legacy and did not include a power purchase agreement  with a nuclear project that Austin already decided was too risky to buy into as a partner.

Nuclear reactors would consume vast quantities of Colorado River water at a time when regional drought is expected to increase. No other form of power comes with such high security and terrorism risks and creating more radioactive waste adds to a problem that has not been solved.

Austin should steer clear of more nuclear power and pursue a safe and clean energy path.

Two months ago, I informally delivered a proposal to you for Austin Energy and NRG Energy to explore a purchase power agreement from the South Texas Project Expansion. Today I am pleased to formally deliver to you a proposal for an internal framework for moving forward to explore the addition of more nuclear energy to Austin Energy’s baseload. The attached document outlines a series of transactions that NRG Energy believes could have significant value to Austin Energy. The components outlined in this proposal, while only a starting point to negotiations, showcase the potential for a nuclear power purchase agreement.

NRG recognizes that this is a particularly busy time for Austin Energy with a rate case, a power generation plan, an affordability matrix and a new business model all in play. We understand the responsibilities of the utility and believe that we can structure an offer that will help with each of the issues and aid in the fulfillment of your overall goals. We will work to ensure that the time demands on you and your staff are minimal as we move forward to evaluate a potential partnership.

We know that you are focused on reducing the city’s carbon footprint and keeping rates low and we believe we can develop an effective proposal to accomplish both of your goals. If NRG purchases Austin Energy’s stake in the Fayette Power Plant it would provide a significant influx of capital to the utility that could be used to significantly delay the need for a rate increase. Austin Energy could replace the coal–‐generated baseload provided by Fayette with carbon–‐free baseload from STP 3 and 4 through a power purchase agreement, thereby reducing the utility’s carbon footprint by 70 percent while ensuring affordable rates for a generation.

It is the intention of NRG that the points laid out in the attached document include opportunities to support Austin’s long–‐term goals, such as a partnership to develop solar, wind or offshore wind projects. NRG’s corporate focus is on diversification of energy sources that results in a portfolio that provides many options.

I look forward to engaging in this process on behalf of NRG. I hope that we can begin discussions as soon as possible and I will make myself available at your convenience. It is my hope that we can engage in an open discussion through a non–‐ binding MOU agreement about how NRG can best help Austin Energy reach its energy goals.

NRG Energy, Inc. Proposal to Austin Energy

The components outlined below are starting points for the negotiation of a nuclear power purchase agreement between NRG Energy, Inc. and Austin Energy. Once both parties enter into a non–‐binding MOU agreement along with appropriate Non–‐Disclosure/Confidentiality Agreements, these points can be discussed in further detail and adjusted to meet the needs of Austin Energy:

1. NRG would acquire from Austin Energy it’s fifty percent (50%) undivided ownership interest in each of Units 1 and 2 at the Fayette Power Project for fair market value.
2. NRG and Austin Energy would enter into an interim power purchase agreement (600MWs) for the purchase and sale of power generated by Units 1 and 2 at the South Texas Project at a fixed price.
3. NINA and Austin Energy would enter into one or more long term purchase power agreements (for a total of 800MWs) and, together with the Interim PPA, for the purchase and sale of power generated by Units 3 and 4 at STP at a fixed price.
4. Target closing date is June 30, 2011.
5. Delivery point—source busbar.
6. Partner with Austin Energy on a renewable project such as wind or solar.
7. This proposal will only establish the framework for further good faith negotiations to be conducted among the parties to reach a definitive agreement without any intent to incur any liability or other obligation thereby. A binding agreement or contract will not be deemed to have been entered into by the parties with respect to this proposal unless and until definitive agreements having mutually satisfactory terms and conditions have been duly executed and delivered by each party.
8. Each party will be liable for its respective costs, expenses, and fees incurred by it and its representatives in connection with the negotiation of a definitive agreement and any related documents.

Public Citizen believes this is a bad deal. 

The offer made by NRG to swap Austin’s share of the Fayette coal plants for a contract to buy nuclear power is like giving up smoking cigarettes and taking up smoking crack cocaine. Taking this deal will leave us broke, addicted and dependent on a dealer for our next fix of energy.

We’d loose control of the coal plant to NRG, which means Austin will not be able to reduce emissions from this plant when it threatens our air quality nor will we be able to reduce the damage to the climate.  

Austin has developed a long range generating plant that calls for meeting our energy needs with efficiency, renewables, and natural gas. This plant can be easily changed if the markets shift, while a long term deal with NRG can’t.

 There are 10 good reasons NOT to do this deal

1. We’ll loose control of our energy future and be locked into a long term deal. 
2. The cost of buying 800 MW of nuclear energy over the 40 year lifetime of this plant would exceed $20 billion.  The last time Austin bought into STNP, it wreaked havoc on the city’s bond rating.
3. We could invest that money in energy generated in Austin, and create wealth locally. The people who will make money off this deal are from New Jersey and Japan.
4. The cost of the proposed nuclear plant has tripled in the last three years while the cost of solar and other alternatives are dropping.
5. The date this plant is expected to come on-line has been delayed 3 years already.
6. These nuclear plants will built next to two existing nuclear plants – and if one were to have a leak or an explosion, we’d loose more than 1/3 of our power.
7. The type of nuclear plant hasn’t been built in the US.
8. If this plant is built the cooling water will reduce water levels Lake Travis and other Highland lakes.
9. We’ve looked at buying into the plant twice before and rejected the deals twice.
10. NRG has been sued for fraud by San Antonio because they weren’t honest about the costs of the deal that they had with them.  This has driven NRG to try something never done before in nuclear construction – finding buyers for the electricity before the concrete is even poured.



If you are concerned about Austin pursuing such a deal, call the mayor and tell him about your concerns.

One of these two reactors isn't working. And they call renewable energy unreliable!

South Texas Project has since announced it will extend its Unit 2 outage to repair a seal-housing gasket on a reactor coolant pump, which moves water through the steam generator.   The company has decided that, while the gasket’s condition is within operating criteria, STP will make the needed repairs, while they also continue to run unit 1.

A repair schedule is being finalized and restoration of the unit is projected to be completed sometime in November, but we here wonder if it won’t be even into December before it is repaired.

In the meantime, Austin Energy, which gets 27% of its energy from STP, and San Antonio’s CPS, which gets 38% of its energy from STP will be purchasing energy from other sources to make up for the loss from the STP outage.  Let’s hope we don’t have a major cold front come in before STP unit 2 is back online, or these energy companies could be looking at a lowered earnings projection for their final quarter.

This continues a banner few weeks for the nuke industry, who had to shut down Vermont Yankee because of a radioactive water leak and an unexplained transformer explosion at Indian Point 2, a reactor just 24 miles north of New York City, a known secondary target of terrorists on 9/11.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Related Articles

• Nuclear demand on hold (washingtontimes.com)
• Calif. nuke meltdown site finally set for cleanup (msnbc.msn.com)
• Deal to clean up LA-area nuclear accident site (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• CPA fails its own candor standard (mysanantonio.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Austin Energy hired a consultant to help determine how its rates compare to those of other utilities in preparation for its plan to substantially raise electricity rates in 2012.   The work is ongoing, but an eye-opening statistic has already emerged.  Estimates indicate that the average US household’s energy costs are equal to 7% of household income, but the study shows that on average, the poorest 5 percent of Travis County households spend about 45% of their incomes on electricity.

That is a staggering statistic and points out the need to provide more energy efficiency funding for low-income families.  The short and long term benefits are economic relief and cost-effective home improvements. While assistance relieves pressure on individual households, the benefits also ripple into the community. With less money spent on energy, more money is available for other goods and services. If this money is spent locally, Austin captures this revenue, with further benefits rippling out from there.

Keep in mind, most low-income households are renters.  There should be incentives put in place to encourage landlords to increase the energy efficiency of their properties.  And don’t forget, there are environmental benefits to reducing our energy usage.  This seems like a win win for our city.

Interview with the Thorntons:

Vimeo

YouTube

Like most people, the Thorntons don’t think it is right that a foreign company can come into the United States (and Texas) and use the threat of eminent domain to force landowners into a contract. And, like many others, the Thorntons have quickly learned the vast extent of the negative impacts such a pipeline would have not only on folks like them, but the world in general.

Check out our previous posts on the Canadian Tar Sands Pipeline including this one.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

In the coming weeks you might notice a sleek, new Nissan LEAF or Chevy Volt cruising past you on the road. Many of the major car companies are introducing electric, plug-in vehicles (EVs) designed for the American family market. They range in cost from about $20,000-$45,000 and are small and practical. Not all EVs run completely from electricity, some are hybrids with electric-assisted engines, like a Toyota Prius. Others, like the Volt, are propelled exclusively by electricity, but include batteries and generators. These differences affect the amount of carbon emissions your car produces. All-electric vehicles, like the LEAF, have the potential to emit no carbon at all, from their own engines, or at the power plant where your electricity is generated. As Austinites, we can choose the green energy option from Austin Energy, in which 100% of the electricity we buy is generated from renewables.

Gas may still be necessary to run your EV, depending how it’s engine uses electricity, but the new EVs are becoming quite efficient at using minimal fuel. It’s important to consider that the majority of Austin’s air pollution comes from vehicles. Purchasing any EV is a step you can take to make a positive impact on our environment.

EVs can also make a positive impact on your wallet. An EV averages 100 miles per charge cycle in the city. Comparatively, this costs about $1 or less/gallon in terms of the gas you would have used in a conventional vehicle. As efficiency improves, these costs will also fall, while gas prices are always volatile. If you’re interested, please contact your dealership about buying an EV; they will be fully available in 2011.

What else do you need to know after purchasing an EV? Concerned consumers have contacted the Public Citizen office worried about potentially expensive charging stations. An EV powers up at a charging station that’s a higher voltage than your normal wall plug. It looks something like the plug for an electric washer/dryer. This unexpected expense can naturally cause worries right after purchasing a new car, but Austin Energy has a program to encourage consumers to buy EVs.

All you need to do is contact Austin Energy and let them know you’ve ordered an EV. They will come and provide assistance and incentives to install a charging station in your house. For more information about Austin’s Energy’s charging station incentive program please contact Larry Alford at larry.alford@austinenergy.com.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

We are shocked to hear the news that former Austin Energy and Pedernales Electric Cooperative General Manager Juan Garza has taken a job promoting nuclear power with New Jersey-based NRG Energy. While Garza rightfully acknowledges the danger climate change poses to Texas, nuclear power’s life cycle carbon footprint, exorbitant cost and extreme construction time belie the claim that nuclear is a solution to the climate crisis.

Numerous independent analyses warn that new nuclear reactors are too expensive, including consultants to the City of Austin who twice recommended the city pass on investment in the proposed South Texas Project units 3 and 4 due to high risk and cost. San Antonio’s CPS Energy has cut off investment in the project. Municipal utilities and electric cooperatives should take heed of the nuclear industry’s poor track record of delivering new reactors on time and on budget. The cost of these reactors has more than trebled in three years and when we built the first two units they were 6 times over budget and 8 years late. There are cheaper, cleaner, faster ways to meet new power needs in a carbon-constrained world.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

For those in Austin who don’t know, the EGRSO (the Economic Growth and Redevelopment Services Office… I had to look it up too) gets a substantial portion of its funding from the municipally-owned utility Austin Energy. What does this office do? From its city website:

[The EGRSO] implements the City of Austin Economic Development Policy as directed by the Austin City Council.

Essentially, the office provides grants and loans of city funds or services in order to promote economic development. Among its awardees are Facebook, LegalZoom, Heliovolt, Friday Night Lights, and the Home Depot Austin Technology Center.

Recently, the Electric Utility Commission voted unanimously to cut AE’s funding of the EGRSO, citing the fact that AE faces tough budget choices inside its own walls. Commissioner Shudde Fath wrote in the Business Journal that AE can no longer be the city’s cash cow.

EUC Chairman Phillip Schmandt released a statement on the matter yesterday:

I applaud EGRSO and its programs.  There are many great ideas in EGROS’ $10 Million budget.

But not every great idea should be funded with government money.

And more to the point, not every great idea should be funded from utility bills paid by our hard working customers who are struggling to make ends meet every month.

As a utility customer, I expect my utility company to be a careful steward of the money I pay to it.  There is no better economic incentive than a well run utility with low rates.

I would be much more sympathetic towards Austin Energy’s funding of EGRSO if Austin Energy controlled the spending of EGRSO.  If that were the case, Austin Energy, with its citizen oversight, could ensure that the monies were spent to promote Austin Energy’s generation and conservation plans recently approved by Council.

But the opposite is true.  Austin Energy provides the money, while EGRSO spends it.  No one at Austin Energy has oversight over the budget or can trim its growth.   As a result, EGRSO’s budget, with over 45 FTEs, has almost doubled since 2006- 2007 and its personnel has increased by 25% — while other departments  and our public safety units experience cuts and hiring freezes.

And meanwhile Austin Energy operates at a deficit and will soon need to raise its rates.

For three straight years, the Electric Utility Commission has considered EGRSO’s claims that it provides a benefit to the utility and the EUC has concluded that Austin Energy should spend less on EGRSO or have greater control over its spending.  This year the EUC escalated its recommendations by voting against the entire EUC budget on the grounds of lack of effective oversight and control over EGRSO.  I ask that you listen to your citizen advisors, who this year spoke unanimously (6-0) on this issue.

There are two reasons why this year it is so important to remove EGRSO from Austin Energy’s budget.

First,  if the rate case will be in 2012, then the 2011 budget will be the test budget on which future rates are based.  In the name of preserving Austin as an affordable city, EGRSO should be removed from Austin Energy’s budget.

Second,  Austin Energy is rethinking its business model,  The City Council recently approved spending tens of millions of dollars on consultants that will help Austin Energy wean itself from the old business model based on volumetric sales of energy.  EGRSO’s justification for its existence is based entirely on that old business model.  We should not have one city department spending tens of millions of dollars in furtherance of one mission while another city department spends tens of millions of dollars trying to abandon that mission.  That is folly.

The fact that EGRSO’s reports to Council and the EUC do not even recognize this fundamental conflict only serves to highlight how far adrift EGRSO personnel have strayed from the mission of their sponsoring agency.

We cannot expect Austin Energy’s new business model to emerge in the future whole cloth from thin air and to be seamlessly implemented.  Instead, that transition will require many incremental steps, the bulk of which will be painful.  This is one of them.

It is a poison to government to anoint one department to spend money without being accountable to those who provide the money.  Austin Energy ratepayers have no effective oversight over EGRSO.  And that structure of unchecked governance is, my friends, a bad idea – even if someone thinks the EGRSO’s budget contains some good ideas.

Budget choices are always tough. This will be an interesting one to watch in the next few weeks as city council adopts its 2011 budget.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

This ran in today’s Texas Energy Report, but want to give all of our Public Citizen Texas members and followers a taste if you’re not a subscriber to the Energy Report.

SMITTY: TWO CITIES TOOK OPPOSITE PATHS IN SELECTING UTILITY GM

An Op-Ed by Public Citizen’s Tom “Smitty” Smith.

The recently announced new general managers for Austin and San Antonio couldn’t be more different, and may have huge economic repercussions for both cities.

Austin has chosen Larry Weis, a “green” general manager from Turlock, California, Irrigation District. San Antonio’s CPS Energy has chosen Doyle N. Beneby Jr., from Exelon Corp. While Mr. Weis opposes nuclear power due to its costs, Mr. Beneby comes from a utility that has the largest nuclear assets in the country.

The process that each city underwent in selecting their new managers stands in stark contrast with one another. Austin announced its finalists over a month ago and invited the public to question the candidates.

CPS kept its candidates secret. In light of this lack of information, I am left to wonder what San Antonio’s fate will be given the recent track record of Exelon. Could Mr. Beneby signal the re-nuclearization of San Antonio or does he represent a future of renewable energy and green power?

Although San Antonio is still reeling from the trebling of cost of expanding the South Texas Nuclear Project, the CPS board has chosen someone from Exelon, which has tried and failed to buy NRG Energy, CPS’s partner in the nuclear expansion project, while simultaneously trying to develop another nuclear plant near Victoria.

While Exelon does have a mix of fossil fuel, hydroelectric, solar, landfill gas and wind generation sources, it only amounts to a meager 7 percent of its generation assets. The other 93 percent is nuclear.

Since the public was not privy to the public utility’s selection process, we are left to speculate what Beneby ‘s plans are.

Will the vision of Mayor Julian Castro and the legacy of former Mayor Phil Hardberger to turn San Antonio into a green city come true, or will San Antonio slip back into the nuclear spiral?

On the bright side, Exelon has a strategy to reduce, offset or displace more than 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2020.  This is an amount greater than the company’s 2001 carbon footprint and equivalent to taking nearly 3 million cars off the road.

On the dark side, most reductions could be through more nuclear power. In addition, Mr. Beneby participated in Exelon’s City Solar, a 10-megawatt solar installation located on a 41-acre brownfield in a Chicago neighborhood – the nation’s largest urban solar power plant, and Exelon has long been known for its energy efficiency programs.

Mr. Weis, on the other hand, has strong green credentials. He has developed strong energy efficiency and renewable energy programs (Weis’ utility has 28 percent renewable energy compared to Exelon’s 1 percent renewable portfolio) and has voiced his concern about global warming and the costs of coal which could force Austin Energy to act sooner than later to shut down its coal plant due expensive pollution control upgrades at the Fayette Power Plant.

The good news is over the last five years, there has been a real collaboration between environmental groups and clean tech companies in Austin around the idea of using renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage along with smart grid development as a way to reduce pollution, costs, and the need to build new expensive power plants.

Mr. Weis is the driver to put really smart people from higher education, utility, and high tech industries together to make the products and create the systems necessary for the new clean energy economy and meet our energy needs while creating local wealth.

The choices could not be more different, but both new leaders have the opportunity to choose to develop their utility’s enormous renewable energy and energy efficiency potential and use their purchasing power to buy these services locally, thus creating wealth for their communities.

Or CPS’s Beneby can continue to invest in nuclear power plants built in Japan and create wealth for other nations.

The strange “tale of two cities” and their contrasting utilities will continue.

Tom “Smitty” Smith directs the Texas office of Public Citizen, a national consumer and environmental watchdog group.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

In fact, former City Councilwoman Brigid Shea told reporters that “Mr. Wright is wrong for Austin” and that they had hoped our nationwide search would produce “major league” candidates to fit with Austin’s leadership on energy and community issues.  “No offense, but these guys are more minor league.”

You can see the entire video here of their press conference, led by Public Citizen representative Cary Ferchill:

YouTube:

Vimeo:

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas

From the Austin Business Journal:

The finalists include Ronald Davis, Larry Weis and David Wright.

• Ronald Davis (Burbank, Calif.) Davis has worked 30 years in the electric industry and has led Burbank Water and Power for the last 12 years. Burbank Water and Power is a municipal utility in urban Southern California with a 2009 budget of $410 million and a peak electrical load of 308 megawatts. The company adopted a 33 percent renewable energy portfolio standard in 2007.
• Larry Weis (Turlock, Calif.) Weis is the general manager and CEO for the Turlock Irrigation District, one of the 30 largest public power utilities in the U.S., which provides water and electricity to Central Valley California. He has 29 years of experience in the electric industry, including 20 years as a general manager. TID is currently supplying 28 percent of its annual energy requirements from renewable resources.
• David Wright (Riverside, Calif.) Wright is the general manager for the City of Riverside’s public utilities. He’s worked in the sector for more than 22 years. The Riverside Public Utilities group serves more than 300,000 residents with an annual budget of more than $500 million. He is a Certified Public Accountant and former finance director for San Diego County Water Authority. He was also city controller for Riverside before taking joining Riverside’s public utility.

As the energy industry changes rapidly, this hiring decision is critical. We will look forward to hearing more about these candidates in the coming days.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Today is a great day. Not only is this the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, but Austin City Council just gave every Texan  a reason to celebrate: Mayor Lee Leffingwell and City Council passed the Austin Energy Generation Plan!

After two years of hard work, enormous inclusive cooperation and citizen participation, the council unanimously approved the proposed Austin Energy Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan.

City hall attendants saw rigorous public approval–and some misguided contention–of the plan’s affordability and the process’ public participation during the public discussion. Council broke for citizen communications and an executive session before returning to approve the proposal.

Mayor Leffingwell spoke strongly in favor of the bill for both its environmental and economic responsibility, saying that global climate change will be the defining challenge of our era. Although it is a global problem, he said, Austin has a responsibility to do its part because “the sum of local policy is global policy.”

I caught up with Public Citizen’s David Power, Ryan Rittenhouse and Matt Johnson outside along with Sierra Club’s Cyrus Reed celebrating the fruition of their tireless efforts.

Matt would like to thank all the members and supporters of the Clean Energy for Austin coalition for their hard work and dedication.

Congratulations! Go and celebrate Earth Day with jubilation!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Wanna do something green to start off Earth Week? You can do this from your desk. Quick and easy:

1. Sign up as a supporter for Clean Energy for Austin.
2. Tell a friend or co-worker to sign on too!*

Austin City Council will vote on this forward-thinking energy plan this week! Clean Energy for Austin is a coalition that exists to support council passing this plan. Learn more at www.cleanenergyforaustin.org.

Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Environment Texas, Environmental Defense Fund, SEED Coalition and others endorse this plan but we need your help! Spread the word, and look forward to more easy actions as the week unfolds.

*You’d totes get a ton of karma points if you got 5 people to sign on. You’ll also get a high-five from me, which you can claim on Thursday at City Hall.

Please attend the mayor’s town hall meeting at 6 p.m. TONIGHT, Monday, Feb. 22, at the Palmer Events Center, 900 Barton Springs Rd.

Public Citizen will have a table outside the auditorium where we will gather signatures for the Clean Energy for Austin coalition. Working with other environmental organizations, we’ve gained the support of more than 70 businesses, 18 nonprofits and over 200 individuals, who are calling on the City Council to pass the clean energy plan. But we need you to come to this town hall and show your support.

This is your opportunity to ask questions, learn more and have your input heard by our mayor. In addition, city officials will be asking questions of the audience, so you can tell the mayor and City Council that you want a clean energy future for our town.

So please endorse Clean Energy for Austin, and come to the meeting Monday night. We hope to see you there!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Photo Courtesy of Donna Hoffman at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Thanks Donna!

Dozens of businesses and nonprofit organizations as well as more than 200 citizens have formed Clean Energy for Austin, a coalition whose purpose is to push Austin City Council to adopt a clean energy plan. Specifically, the coalition supports the passage of Austin Energy’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan and recommendations of a city task force created to examine the plan. Coalition members support the plan because of its emphasis on renewable energy and efficiency, green jobs creation and careful consideration of Austin’s low-income residents.

To date, more than 70 businesses, 18 non-profit organizations and more than 200 individuals have signed on in support of the energy plan through www.cleanenergyforaustin.org.

The energy plan is a road map for how Austin Energy, the city-owned electric utility, will meet the city’s energy needs over the next 10 years. It includes a substantial investment in energy efficiency and a variety of renewable energy resources like wind and solar, as well as new more efficient natural gas plants. In addition to diversifying its generation portfolio, Austin Energy wants to create a self-sustaining market for renewable technologies like solar rooftops and parking lots by 2020.

“A good business practice is to keep your options open when selecting suppliers,” said Steve Taylor of Applied Materials, a semiconductor manufacturer employing more than a thousand Austinites. “This plan allows for a diversity of different energy options, so it protects businesses – and residents – from long-term price spikes for any single power source because other energy supply options will be available and abundant. This plan also enhances Austin’s efforts to create green businesses and green jobs for years to come.”

The plan is the culmination of a nearly two-year public process of gathering input from multiple stakeholder groups, including businesses, environmental organizations, and groups serving low-income communities. Four representatives from the mayor’s Generation and Resource Planning Task Force, which analyzed more than a dozen scenarios of where Austin could get its power by 2020, are members of the coalition: Phillip Schmandt, chairman of Electric Utility Commission, Cary Ferchill, chair of Solar Austin, as well as non-profit members Public Citizen and Sierra Club.

“The great thing about the plan is its flexibility,” said Matthew Johnson, clean energy advocate with Public Citizen. “If costs for any resource type rise or fall dramatically over the next 10 years, Austin Energy would have the ability to change the plan, and do so with the help of community stakeholders. That’s the beauty of a diverse portfolio of resources. If Austin were locked into building a new coal or nuclear plant, our fate would be sealed.”

Energy efficiency, generally recognized as the cheapest energy resource, would be the main component of the plan. Austin Energy would take a more proactive and coordinated approach to reach low-income households with free weatherization to help lower their electric bills.

“Low-income communities need the most help with paying utility bills,” said Sunshine Mathon, design and development director of Foundation Communities, an Austin-based nonprofit affordable housing organization. “Austin has a long track record of having the lowest bills in Texas because of its commitment to conservation programs that help people lower their bills. My hope is that with the passage of this plan, those programs will not only expand but coordinate with other programs like bill assistance, neighborhood housing and community development.”

Coalition representatives also said that the plan reduces financial risk associated with overreliance on fossil fuels. The plan would enable Austin Energy to ramp down the Fayette coal plant more often, protecting the utility from pending carbon regulation.

“Whether or not you support greenhouse gas regulation, reducing the amount of carbon emissions that Austin is responsible for makes economic sense,” Johnson said. “That’s in addition to the improvements in air quality Austin and the surrounding region would experience. It’s a win-win.”

Austin’s City Council could vote on the plan in March, according to Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. He has scheduled a Feb. 22 town hall meeting on Austin Energy’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan. Coalition members urge the public to visit www.cleanenergyforaustin.org and sign on as well as attend the town hall meeting to show their support.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Few things irk me more than when people fail to see the connection between improving social welfare and protecting the environment.

The notion that green power has to come at the expense of low-income households needs to be eradicated. Social welfare and protecting the environment are not conflicting or exclusive goals. By cleaning up the way we produce electric power and making homes more energy efficient, we can do much to improve the quality of life in Austin. And by making homes that can be heated and cooled with less energy, we can save low-income families money on one of their biggest monthly expenditures AND keep Austinites healthy and safe during bitter cold and dangerous summer heat.

There are a few key points that need to be part of the public discussion about the energy plan which have largely been absent from the public radar. I’d ask any Austinite doing their homework for the Mayor’s Town Hall on Monday to take these issues into consideration:

The Plan is Flexible

As part of the Generation Resource Planning Task Force, I voted with all other members of the Task Force to include a provision that Austin review the plan every two years in case any one resource option became too costly (recommendation 3a-b). That way, AE would have the ability to adapt its plan and go with something cheaper. This is a ratepayer protection and cost control mechanism that will protect all customer classes and should be included in the public discussion about the plan. As my friend Cyrus Reed at the Sierra Club puts it astutely: the plan is a roadmap, not a straightjacket.

That’s the beauty of a diverse energy portfolio. Austin would not have this ability if it were locked into building a new nuclear plant or coal plant (like CPS Energy is).

Energy Efficiency is part of the plan

Public discussion of this plan tends to focus on supply-side renewable resources, but the biggest component of the energy plan is energy efficiency. If it met its goals, Austin would achieve 800-1000 MW of energy savings by 2020. The next highest new resource addition would be wind (~562 additional MW when taking into account 203 MW worth of expiring wind contracts). 800 MW of efficiency represents 55% of all the resource additions that encompass the Resource & Climate Protection Plan (note that 100 MW of gas, 100 MW of biomass, and 30 MW of solar that are due to come online over the next three years are not part of the plan).

Efficiency achieves carbon reduction objectives and affordability objectives. Thus, the biggest component of the energy plan will help keep bills low. It’s also worth pointing out that if we do not achieve the efficiency goals, we will need new supply-side generation in order to keep the lights on–800 MW worth. Without efficiency, bills are sure to go up much higher because all supply-side options are more expensive than efficiency.

Comparisons give perspective

Let’s talk about bill impacts on the poor. Take a drive down I-35. San Antonio’s utility, CPS Energy predicts they will need to increase rates 40% by 2020 and that does not even include the future cost increase for natural gas or costs for investing in the proposed expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Plant, which has risen from ~$6 billion in 2007 to $18 billion today before license application are adjudicated or construction begins.

No one is advocating for environmental protection at the expense of the poor. That is flat-out a false choice. This plan won’t do that because of the protections that will be put in place, the overwhelming focus on energy efficiency and AE taking a more proactive and cooperative approach to services for those struggling to pay their utility bills. In order to make electricity more affordable for people, it is up to us as a community to adopt a pragmatic approach to realizing and achieving the complimentary goals of social welfare and environmental protection. After all, you can’t have one without the other.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

The town hall will be an opportunity for Austinites to learn more about the Resource & Climate Protection Plan that I geeked out about last week. For those of you keeping score, I’m a fan of the plan because it will significantly reduce our carbon emissions, increase the diversity of our energy portfolio (with, a-hem, renewables), and sets us on a path to divestiture from the Fayette Coal Plant (Austin’s somewhat secret shame). But don’t take my word for it — more than 60 local businesses, 16 non-profit organizations, and over 200 individual supporters support it as well. To join them, visit CleanEnergyforAustin.org and add your name to a letter supporting the energy plan put forth by Austin Energy as well as the additional recommendations of the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force (which our boy Matt was a member of, along with other stakeholders such as the Building Owners and Managers Association and Freescale).

I certainly hope you can make it out to the meeting February 22nd from 6-8pm at the Palmer Events Center. Look for the Public Citizen crew and stand with us to support Austin’s clean energy future!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.