Election season is imminent and advocates for environmental welfare and public health need not look very far for the hyper-political red tape and drawbacks to pollution legislation. Like many of her colleagues in the Democratic Party, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has been campaigning nationwide for the regulation of toxins such as mercury from coal burners which, in effect, could prevent thousands of related deaths and stimulate the job market. Just two weeks ago, Jackson even made an appearance on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” encouraging viewers to exercise vigilance in the fight against toxic emissions and to demand personal protections for clean air and water.

Her sentiments were met with grand applause due to their pertinence in 2011 where it is estimated that 72% of all toxic mercury air pollution in the United States is attributable to coal plants in violation of the Clean Air Act. Just to add some perspective to this statistic, such a figure indicates that 386,000 tons of hazardous compounds are being emitted into the atmosphere per year at an unprecedented rate.

Jackson’s apparent support for tightened environmental regulations was short-lived however, when just one week following her Comedy Central interview the EPA halted essential protections for controlling exposure to air-borne mercury, arsenic, lead, and a plethora of acid gases. The basis for these laws were established in 1990 when President H.W. Bush signed Clean Air Act amendments into law thus making it the EPA’s responsibility to establish emission standards for industrial facilities. Originally, these plans operated on a permit system designed to pinpoint power plants, factories, and additional sources of ground level ozone that had exceeded allowable limits for what was deemed “requisite to protect the public welfare.”

One of these statutes created under H.W. Bush’s administration, called Boiler MACT, monitored emission caps from boilers that produced power sources specifically like those found in large to small coal plants. As of February 2011, under a court issued order, the EPA was also charged with the task of enforcing this body of legislative action. And now, a mere two years after the Obama administration vowed to protect the interests of public health and respect the law, this regulation is one of many that Jackson’s post at the EPA has indefinitely delayed.

Historically, the EPA has acted as an outspoken critic of the industrial “Powers that be” and their habits of ignoring Clean Air Act restrictions with economic impunity. In fact it was the EPA’s records that first indicated that more than 4,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 1,600 cases of acute bronchitis and an excess of 313,000 missed work and school days could be avoided if these laws were enacted properly- and this doesn’t even account for the upwards of 6,600 toxic related deaths. But the EPA strayed its course due to the fast-approaching 2012 elections. They managed to place re-election aspirations above environmental necessities on the hierarchy of political agendas, caved to industry pressures, and watered down many of their contingencies to begin with.

In lieu of this regressive blow to mandatory emission guidelines, Lisa Jackson and the EPA as a whole have endangered countless vulnerable Americans by casting a blind eye to the Boiler MACT legislation. Not only are these steps in reverse potentially (almost certainly) disastrous, people living near industrial giants and coal-fired power plants are now at serious odds with their own health and well-being.

The Alliance for a Clean Texas kicked off a series of town hall meetings across the state on the sunset review of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on September 15 th.  Last night in Corpus Christi, residents criticized the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, saying it holds too much power and ignores public concerns in the interest of business.

Nearly 250 people, participated in the meeting, about the agency’s upcoming review by the state’s Sunset Commission, which is required by state law and seeks to identify and reduce waste, duplication of efforts and inefficiency.

Cyrus Reed, conservation director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Ryan Rittenhouse with Public Citizen and Donna Phillips, area director for the agency’s Coastal Bend and East Texas Region all gave brief presentations during the meeting held at Del Mar College’s Center for Economic Development.  Their comments centered on Corpus Christi’s recent experiences with the TCEQ over the proposed Las Brisas Energy Center, a $3 billion petroleum coke-fired electricity plant whose permit application is under review by the state environmental agency. If approved, the plant will be built near the Port of Corpus Christi.

• Cyrus Reed, conservation director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, said that the agency’s role in the Las Brisas permitting process is at the center of a national debate on energy resources and the environment.  He said that coal plants, including Las Brisas, pose an ongoing threat to the state’s environment and went on to say Sierra Club would like to see the agency increase fines and fees and follow the federal Clean Air Act.
• Ryan Rittenhouse with Public Citizen said that the decision to allow coal plants should not rest with the agency’s three commissioners. “The commissioners are completely ignoring their mission, which is to guard the state’s environment, not its economy,” he said.  Coal-fired plants add toxins such as mercury into the environment. He added that the Gulf Coast and 13 Texas lakes and reservoirs and three rivers are under mercury contamination advisories for two species of fish.
• Donna Phillips, area director for the agency’s Coastal Bend and East Texas Region, told the crowd that the agency’s primary goal is a clean environment and the agency creates and enforces regulations to that end.

Twenty residents spoke during the meeting and none had any praise for the agency.

• Tom Thomas, a teacher, said that he is distrustful of the commissioners of the agency.  “When three people can ignore the warnings of doctors, judges and even their own public interest council and make decisions, that is messed up,” he said.
• “The system is totally broken,” said John Kelly, a local environmental activist. “And I’m not sure TCEQ shouldn’t be totally abolished and we shouldn’t start from scratch.”
• Daniel Lucio, a Corpus Christi resident, said the Las Brisas permit process has not involved the public. He said that the commissioners, who decide which permits are approved, hold too much power.

The state agency, second only to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency in size and jurisdiction, is one of 29 under commission scrutiny this year, including the state’s Public Utility Commission, Railroad Commission and Department of Transportation.

The Sunset Commission is composed of five appointees from each state legislative body and two private citizens. Legislative members serve four-year terms and private citizens serve two-year terms on the commission.  All are appointed by the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House.

The Sunset Advisory Commission will hear testimony from the agency, commission staff members and the public at hearings Dec. 15 and 16 in Austin and the commission will submit its recommendations to the Legislature when it convenes next year.

The town hall meetings being coordinated by ACT are not part of the Sunset input process but we encourage people around the state to attend those meetings when they are held in your area.  For information about when and were the town hall meetings are being held, click here.

Citizens wishing to speak to the commission will only have that opportunity at the December hearing.  However,  there are other opportunities for members of the public who wish to participate in the review process to do so. It is important for citizens to realize that they can provide valuable information to the Sunset Commission about how well or poorly an agency performs its functions. Your input can help identify potential issues for study and proposed changes to the agency. You can participate in the review of an agency by:

• Providing Input to Sunset Staff. You can submit your comments on an input form or mail them to:.
  Sunset Advisory Commission
  PO Box 13066
  Austin, TX 78711
• Commenting on Sunset Reports. Sunset reports are made available to the public before Sunset Commission hearings to provide an opportunity for public comment on the staff’s findings and recommendations and on the agencies themselves. You may submit comments to the Sunset Commission by letter (at the above address) or by email.
• Testifying at Public Hearings. The Commission holds public hearings on each agency under review. These hearings offer the public an opportunity to testify about an agency and comment on the Sunset staff’s recommendations. If you would like to testify before the Commission, witness affirmation forms are available at the meeting. Public hearings are webcast and archives are available.
• Taking Part in the Legislative Session. Generally, if an agency is to be continued, a bill must be passed by the Legislature. Members of the public can participate in the legislative process as you would with any other legislation.  You can follow the TCEQ Sunset process by visiting our website regularly or Follow us on Twitter- @PublicCitizenTX.

If you have special needs or wish to request an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, contact the Sunset ADA Coordinator at sunset@sunset.state.tx.us or call (512) 463-1300.

This is your process and your participation is vital if any changes to TCEQ are going to happen.  Let your voice be heard.

###

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.

Back in the day, not so long ago, there were wizards walked the earth mighty and proud. They worked with lightning, electricity we say, with sparks and bolts that could knock you down, pick you up and smack you around and kill a cat if you didn’t know the rules, it wasn’t nothing to play round with now, can you dig it? I knew that you could.

The greatest of these wizards was known as Thomas A, or “The Big E” as he thought of himself in those days, and the lightning to him it was nice and flat- DC he called it- and that was that. Ol’ Thomas A. wanted to build power plant’s all over the place, for all the cats and kitties to use his magic juice for their lively hood. To light the dark and perform their chores, but there was a problem see, DC won’t carry very far, so power plants were needed far and wide, build one on every corner, all over the countryside..

But there soon came a cat with special eyes- he could see things that others couldn’t, imagination beyond normal men, he could look at things in a special way he even went to work for Mr Thomas A. Nikola he was known to the wizards those days, we will call him Uncle Nickky as The Hip Einie did, and he was bound to amaze , he was special cat and a wizard beyond all others, he was known to juggle balls of fire just to amuse himself and didn’t care much for others Yeah, Nickky was an All High Flip Out in Orbit Mother to end All Mothers!. The other wizards didn’t know what to make of Uncle Nickky- he just flipped their wigs with those way-out thoughts of his and they bad rapped the poor cat every step of the way. Can you dig it, I knew that you could.

Well Uncle Nickky didn’t swing the DC way, from positive to negative, or the other way ’round, depending on your thinking, it just didn’t work that way. Uncle Nickky had a theory- AC it was called- irritated the grand master E- but it now makes the world go ’round you see. He liked the rhythm, he liked the sound, 60 cycles per second, that hum that you hear, it wailed so hard that the snakes in the jungle picked up on the lick. Now keep the Ohm going in the background, I know it’s been a while now, but it sounds might fine, tuned the 60 of our cosmic electrical sound. You can hear it on a foggy night if you go near the wires, it’s the tune, it’s the rhythm, it lights mankind’s fire. For some reason, across the pond in the countries of old, they set the tune to 50, they always did seem a bit off, a bit different, didn’t they, maybe this is why, who’s to say?

On the practical side (you knew we had to start to come down) the physics of our electrical system is that “generation always follows load”- those huge smoking beasts that power our lives, follow our load, always. No matter how small, from the little LED that glows alone in the dark, to when you flip on a light switch to brighten a room, or you hear the rumble of that big A/C unit kicking on in the brutal Texas summer to keep you , your dwelling  and your cherished ones cool. Some where, some place, on the ERCOT grid, a generator speeds up a little more to supply those needed watts or kilowatts that you are using, and if it didn’t, that 60.000 might droop, just a little to 59.9999. And when you turn the light off restoring the gloom, or the A/C shuts down for a bit, or even that little glowing LED dims in the dark, that generator, or another, slows down exactly that same amount, all to the ticking clock of 60.000 cycles per second. It keeps our clocks on time, it keeps our motors turning, it keeps our civilization pulsating, all to that rhythmic beat of 60.000. Its the tick tock ,tick tock of synchronization that’s necessary for every we thing we rely on, from our traffic lights, the power supplies in our computers, in our TVs, it’s woven its way into the “fabric of our lives”.  Cats and Kitties, we all dance to its rhythm even if we don’t know it, that 60.000, can you feel the beat? You can see its flicker in the fluorescent lights if you look for it, or the old computer monitor if you’re bent that way, or if the motor in that old clock in the corner isn’t wound quite right, it loses a second every now and then, but we all keep dancing to that pulsing beat of 60.000 cycles per second.

So what’s the point you ask, why is the 60.0 so important or actually the 60.000? It’s how we keep the electrical system that supplies the juice to keep our stuff running, running. The generators and the wizards at ERCOT ( the Electric Reliability Council of Texas) monitor that clock very closely and if it starts to slow, even a bit, it means that there is more load  on the system than the generators are supplying and a special type of fast-responding generator (it’s a gasser)  with a governor attached called an AGC (automatic gain control) sees that dip and puts the pedal to the metal, so to speak, and adds the needed juice to get back to 60.000. But wait, some where a load goes off and our pulsing rhythm speeds up a bit and now we are at 60.001 and that won’t do, clocks are running too fast and the generators are putting out to much of that juice, so mister AGC kicks in and takes his foot of the pedal and slows back down. Yep that’s how it works, in a simplistic matter of course, Can you dig it, I knew that you could. There are many mighty generators all with these AGC controls that chase the elusive 60.000 scattered all over this grid of ours in Texas cause were all alone, see we’re not interconnected.. They are always chasing that 60.000 and never quite getting it exactly right- gassers speeding up, slowing down but never quite getting it just right they’re to slow, you see, it takes them 5 maybe 10 minutes to respond, so we have a lot of them in our electrical pond. There are wizards on the grid that tune those little AGC’s trying to get them to guess just right, they get paid for supplying that service in the market at ERCOT (ancillary services it’s called), lots of money to tune that beat and try to keep it right, on the mark, on time, keep the beat, at 60.000.

Generation follows load, its always been that way, as Uncle Nickky set it up an finally this great lick started to spark the spacehead grapevine, and all the space cats were tuning in, and always will, dancing to the tune of the 60.0

So let the Ohm come down, as I hang up my hat and this story’s through, cats and kitties we can ponder the wizards and Uncle Nikky, and those young wizards at ERCOT that keep the tune, and the generators follow the load and it will stay that way

Flip the Bugbird, nevermore!.Or will it, whose to say?

###

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.

July 24th in Houston at Discovery Green

On July 24th, the Sierra Club and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Service (TEJAS) will host The Great Texas Cleanup: A Rally & Concert for Clean Energy and Clean Air. Environmental and community groups from Houston, Texas and around the country will join local, state, and national businesses in taking a stand to cleanup Texas now!

The concert is FREE to the public and welcomes all ages.

Local musicians will play an eclectic variety of music that will unite youth, students, young professionals, families, and different communities in the fight for a future we all share. Community leaders and distinguished speakers will talk about urgent issues that have culminated into our best opportunity to cleanup Texas now. Artists, businesses, and local nonprofits will share with you what they are doing to help and how you can get involved!

Hope to see ya’ll there! CleanupTexasNow.org

###

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.

Press Conference

Meeting: Presentation and Public Comments

Video Comments Submitted to the EPA

###

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.

Clearly, we’re going to have to part ways on that one. Judge McDonald fired the first shot with an op-ed in the Bay City Tribune, but the paper gave us a forum to respond. You’ll find our answer below, and can find the rice farmer’s response here.

No such thing as ‘clean coal’

by Tom “Smitty” Smith

Recently, County Judge Nate McDonald expressed his concerns that rice famers met with Public Citizen, a national consumer and environmental group, to discuss the negative impacts of the proposed White Stallion coal plant, particularly the amount of water the plant will use. Unfortunately, he got his facts wrong about both the plant and our organization.

The judge says he welcomes development and that his requirement for White Stallion is “that it be the cleanest coal plant there is and do no harm to our environment and air quality,” but the facts show that this plant is not the “cleanest coal plant there is” and will do substantial harm.

There is no such thing as “clean coal.” Even if there were, White Stallion would certainly not qualify.

This coal plant would be, by far, the largest source of pollution in Matagorda County. It will not be the cleanest coal plant in the country, or even in Texas. There are at least four other traditional coal plant proposals in Texas that would have cleaner emissions than White Stallion. The sulfur and nitrogen oxide emission rates of the NRG Limestone, Spruce, Coleto Creek, and Tenaska coal plants would all be lower than White Stallion.

The Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of strengthening air quality attainment standards, and this coal plant could result in Matagorda County being reclassified and included in the Houston/Galveston non-attainment region, which would result in a loss of federal funding and stricter regulations for new businesses.

The Lower Colorado River Authority estimates that White Stallion would require a staggering 36,000 acre feet of water every year — enough to cover 56 square miles one foot deep in water.

The way water deals work, White Stallion would get priority over other users if there isn’t enough water for everyone.

That’s why the rice farmers, and any other industry that uses water, are threatened by this coal plant.

Judge McDonald made some comments about Public Citizen and myself that are not true. Public Citizen isn’t a “protester for hire” as Judge McDonald writes. We advocate for clean energy and oppose dirty energy such as White Stallion. For example, I have worked hard on promoting wind and other types of clean energy, and have recently received a major national award for my work to create the Texas wind energy boom.

To ensure our integrity, Public Citizen doesn’t take money from corporations or government. Instead, we raise money from ordinary citizens and major foundations who share our concerns and vision of a clean economy.

When asked, we offer advice and help organize local groups who have concerns about new facilities.

The rice farmers are just one of many groups who understand what a bad idea this is for their community.

We trust that the judge is a man of his word when he says that he will only support a power plant that will “do no harm.”

Hopefully, with a little more research he’ll see just how miserably White Stallion fails to meet that requirement and oppose this plant.

###

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.

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 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 to 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

This is just my own personal take-away from listening to various people discuss the recommendation plan and hearing Roger Duncan’s presentation to council. You can learn a lot more about the process and final recommended plan by visiting AustinSmartEnergy.com or CleanEnergyforAustin.org. Join us after the jump for some fast facts on the various components of the plan, but for the real nitty gritty check out Duncan’s own powerpoint presentation.

Recommended Energy Generation Plan through 2020: Plan Components

Wind

• Increase wind capacity to 1,000 MW by 2020

Solar

• Double Solar goal to 200 MW by 2020
• Develop incentives and strategies for local manufacturing capacity
• Plan for development of full on‐site solar energy potential in Austin

Coal

• Reduce Fayette Power Plant capacity factor to 60% by 2020
• Sets stage for eventual modification, closure, or sale
• Continue to investigate co‐firing at Fayette Power Plant
• Investigate further NOx reductions and carbon capture and storage retrofits

Natural Gas

• Maintain current gas units of 1,544 MW
• Add 200 MW combined‐cycle gas turbine (CCGT) at Sand Hill

Efficiency

• Increase current 700 MW Goal by 2020 to 800 MW by 2020
• Refocus on base load efficiency programs that reduce carbon
• Conduct new energy efficiency potential study

Biomass

• Add 50 MW biomass capacity by 2020
• Continue to investigate biomass co‐firing at Fayette Power Plant

Nukes

• Continue participation in STP Units 1 and 2
• No participation in STP Units 3 and 4
• Evaluate nuclear power purchase agreements if offered

###

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.

President Obama announced this morning he was putting the government on a low carbon diet. Through a series of initiatives, he hopes to decrease energy consumption through efficiency and switching to alternative energy that is less carbon intensive.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Fun fact 1: The US government uses approximately as much energy as the entire country of Austria.

Fun Fact 2: Similar initiatives made by states have netted huge results. The state government of Utah, led by governor Jon Huntsman (who Obama named ambassador to China, you may remember), invested $1.5 million in energy efficiency for government agencies expecting a 10 year payback. They made it back in 3– and now they save over half a million dollars in energy costs a year. Efficiency is an economy of scale– and I’m willing to be the entire government of Utah would not even fill in one of the large federal agency buildings around DC.

Fun Fact 3: Texas has its own “No Regrets” greenhouse gas reduction strategy in accordance with the passage of SB 184, which Public Citizen supported: don’t forget that Sunday is the last day to submit your energy efficiency ideas to the state comptroller’s office. For more info see: www.TexasNoRegrets.org

I think this is a domestic spending freeze everyone can get behind.

Column – Andy Wilson: Perry spews hot air on warming

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry’s recent essay (“EPA ‘science’ doesn’t add up in global warming equation,” Dec. 27, 2009) is full of hot air and not much else.

The governor’s outrage produces more heat than light, revealing his ignorance of science and penchant for quoting dubious and discredited economic studies funded by energy companies.

The real inconvenient truth is that Texas cannot afford to make meaningless political statements any longer, especially when there’s work to be done – carbon regulation is coming whether the governor throws a tantrum or not. We can shout at the wind or harness it into a clean energy future.

Planning for a low-carbon future now will pay dividends in the future as the world comes to Texas for the clean energy we can supply in abundance. But if we choose to pout rather than produce, we risk missing the clean energy train.

Already, Texas wind turbines are providing electricity, not to mention jobs and tax revenue, and we’re blessed with some of the best solar potential of any state. According to data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, West Texas families pay less for their electricity, thanks in large part to all those wind farms. Peer-reviewed economic studies, including one by the Union of Concerned Scientists, show Texas families stand to save $980 annually in energy costs by enacting clean-energy legislation.

The scare-tactics scenarios the governor laid out use phony statistics from studies underwritten by dirty energy lobbyists who are afraid of competition from these low-carbon upstarts. If you dig deeper into these studies, even under their highest cost projections, U.S. economic growth remains robust and millions of new jobs are created, hundreds of thousands of which would be in Texas.

Given our high-tech, manufacturing, and energy leadership experience, Texas should be attracting green energy technologies already. But instead, we’re losing major solar and battery manufacturing to states which are less sunny but more savvy, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Maybe Perry should spend less time posturing and complaining about science he doesn’t understand and more time enacting strong policies to attract clean energy jobs and industry to Texas, the same way Amarillo has in their recent announcement to bring as many as 750 new wind turbine manufacturing jobs to the area.

The truth about the hacked e-mails Perry references that purport to discredit global warming is this: It’s a tempest in a teapot, and every scientist knows it. If we’re looking for a “smoking gun” that disproves the settled science of climate change, we would need glaciers and ice caps to stop melting at record levels worldwide. We would need temperatures and drought throughout Texas to recede, rather than having the last decade be the hottest and driest on record.

Since we only depend on the research of scientists at the University of East Anglia, a town and university so small, I challenge you to find it on a map, for a very small portion of the corpus of scientific knowledge on climate change, we would need much more than a few choice words from scientists behaving badly to contradict that. To discount all climate science based only on these emails would be the same as disqualifying University of Texas from playing in the Rose Bowl because of the criminal misbehavior by one of their bench wide receivers.

But the good news is that whether you believe in global warming or not, all of our tools to solve it are the same tools we need to solve our current crises and create a better future for Texans.

Worried about unemployment? Energy security? The loss of American manufacturing? Clean energy development cuts into all of these problems, and just happens to help save the planet while we’re at it.

Everybody wins.

So at the start of a new decade, let’s be winners, not whiners. Texas should be getting in front of federal legislation and putting in place the policies that ensure that the nation will turn to us for their future renewable energy needs for the 21st century, the same way they have for the past century with oil and gas.

Doing anything less, Gov. Perry, certainly seems … well, un-Texan.

Andy Wilson is the Global Warming Program director for Public Citizen’s Texas Office.

###

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.

We’ve had a hell of a year here at Texas Vox.  In such a short span we’ve gone from a humble policy blog, primarily read internally and by our own interns, to stake our claim as a top climate and energy blog in the state, with a national and even international reach.  And you, dear citizen-readers, are not the only ones to take notice: from responses we’ve received over the year it is clear that we’re also on the radar of agency commissioners, legislators, city council members and even the office of the governor.  Not too shabby for 12 month’s time, and an exciting place to be as we enter a new decade and crucial political time.

So here’s the first segment of our “Year in Review” series: the Top Texas Vox Stories of 2009.

1. Energy Citizens

Remember when, way back in August, your intrepid friends at Texas Vox boogied down to Houston to crash the American Petroleum Institute’s astroturf “Energy Citizens” rally?  This was the first of several rallies across the nation that API staged to make it look like there was a strong, ground-up movement against a federal climate change bill.  But it turned out that the event was more of a company picnic than a grassroots campaign; they blocked our entry and wouldn’t even let in the “real” anti-cap and trade grassroots, as organized by folks like Freedomworks — no American flags either! But never fear, your own Citizen Sarah was able to sneak past their burly guards and interview a few of these so-called Energy Citizens — who we found out say the darndest things (like that they don’t really know much of anything about the climate and energy bill and are there because or their employers)!

API’s antics didn’t end in Houston, either — in North Carolina, they even locked out the state representative of the district where the rally was held! After a few more rallies, it quickly became clear that on top of being funded by the American Petroleum Institute and stocked with energy company employees, the majority of them were also organized by oil-industry lobbyists. But by that point, no one was buying API’s story anymore.  Way to bust ‘em, Netroots!

2. The 2009 81st Legislative Session

Activists had high hopes for the 2009 81st Legislative Session.  With the new Obama administration, fear of pending federal climate legislation, and a new Speaker of the House to break the Craddickocracy, it seemed almost certain that good bills would pass to move Texas closer to a clean energy future.

Two weeks into the session, Public Citizen Texas’ legislative package (which included such lofty goals as significant climate change legislation, a major update of state energy efficiency programs, a non-wind renewable portfolio standard (RPS), and a bill to create incentives for solar power) was in the best shape it had ever been, and the session looked to be one of the most productive in history.  At this point, all of the bills Public Citizen’s Texas office supported had made it out of committee, been passed by either one chamber or the other, and had made it out of Calendars committee and were scheduled for debate.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of our legislation was calendared behind an incredibly contentious Voter ID bill which would have required Texas voters to present a valid driver’s license to vote.  In order to block this bill, House Democrats adopted the “chubbing” tactic — talking bills to death — to avoid getting far enough down the bill list to have to vote on the Voter ID bill.

This stalling technique cut five days from the end of the session deadline and killed a tragically long laundry list of bills that were scheduled after Voter ID.  As an example, SB 16, an omnibus air quality bill which would have provided funding for TERP, plug-in hybrids, and a diesel emissions reduction plan, was directly after Voter ID on Calendars.  Our solar incentives bill was also on the same page, and the non-wind RPS bill was scheduled to be discussed the following day.  It was a very disheartening end to an otherwise shining legislative session — kind of like a great interception and full field run that ended in a trip just shy of the 1 yard line.

But there were still some great victories in there. These major wins included:

• Funding for the Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) for areas in non-attainment status of the federal Clean Air Act (CHB 1796)
• A carbon dioxide registry to address the state’s contribution to global warming (CHB 1796)
• A “green fee” bill allowing the governing board of public colleges and universities to institute an environmental service fee (once approved by student body election)
• A bill to create municipal solar districts that would allow local governments to provide low-cost loans to consumers to install solar on roofs (HB 1937)
• A “no regrets” strategy for greenhouse gas reduction in the state.  This bill will require the State Comptroller to examine the state’s energy use in order to find ways to reduce our emissions and save money at the same time (SB 184)
• A green fleets bill to promote low emissions and plug-in hybrid vehicles for fleets of major state agencies (HB 432)

For the full text, all-green-groups wrap-up number, read the press release Texas Legislature Advances Clean Power and Green Jobs, but Loses Steam in Political Wranglings.

Check back with us tomorrow for more fun stories from 2009!

###

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.

The project’s 100 General Electric 1.5 MW turbine generators are expected to generate more than 525,000 MWh of wind energy per year, which will be sold into the ERCOT system. Approximately 200 jobs were created during the nine-month construction period and 10 full-time professionals will be employed at the now-operational facility. Padoma Wind Power, an NRG subsidiary, developed the project, which is capable of powering more than 100,000 Texas homes.

###

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.

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.

###

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.

TXsharon continues to follow the abuses of Aruba Petroleum in a Barnett Shale backyard and Wednesday the Wise County Messenger picked up the story. It’s all on Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is really p*ssed that some South Texas Democrats voted against women’s health care.

WhosPlayin posted an interview with Neil Durrance, the Democratic candidate seeking to unseat Michael Burgess in Congressional District 26.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on some of the talk this past week about raising the statewide gas tax. All that being said there are only two options to pay for transportation in Texas, which will we choose Taxes or tolls?.

McBlogger takes a look at Sen. Hutchison’s decision not to resign from her Senate seat.

Off the Kuff looks at a threatened outbreak of homophobic behavior in the Houston Mayor’s race.

The War on Christmas starts early at The Texas Cloverleaf, complete with a beach landing at WalMart.

Sue Schechter announced for Harris County Clerk last week and PDiddie at Brains and Eggs caught the press release.

With Thanksgiving almost here, Neil at Texas Liberal ran a picture of a sultry pilgrim holding a turkey, and included in this post information about the status of women in Colonial New England.

###

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.

The Participants:

The main participants will be the United States, China, India(biggest world polluters) and a bloc of 27 countries of the Europian Union. But overall, there will be more than 190 countries that will be a part of this summit. Many of these countries already have been working on cutting or constraining the grow of ththeir emissions, while some refuse to make any commitments. However, though the summit hasn’t taken place yet, 11 countries that are vulnerable to climate change have dedicated 1.5% of their gross national product for climate change actions. Those countries are Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, the Maldives, Nepal, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam.

“We are not responsible for the hundreds of years of carbon emissions, which are cooking the planet[...]But the dangers climate change poses to our countries means that this crisis can no longer be considered somebody else’s problem.” said Mohamed Nasheed, the President of the Maldives who was a leading voice in the Climate Vulnerable Forum.

The Task:

The general set goal for the summit is to keep the increasing temperature of the globe below 2C (3.6F). That will happen through the many proposals of the participating countries. Cutting Carbon commission is a major one. Some of the European countries have agreed on cutting greenhouse emissions by 20% by 2020, the set date for these commitments. The United State’s climate change plans call for 17 percent less emissions by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to U.N, however, told news agencies that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “”has consulted with a number of heads of state and so far the general feeling seems to be that we should try to complete the job earlier than later.” This has been part of what triggered the White House to consider other options (International agreement) that can be more efficient and faster but cover a shorter term, this is also because of the concern that Congress will fail to pass a climate change legislation this year. Unfortunately, world leaders have decided not to agree on ”Global pact” for climate change action in the Copenhagen summit but rather to come up with a “politically binding” agreement that will set the guidelines for a future pact in a possible forthcoming conference in Mexico City. This does nothing but postpone actions to deal with a urgent and a concerning phenomena such as our man-made-climate change. The postponement is due to recent assessment by the participants of the summit “that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days,” said Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

In the summit, there will be plans for developed countries to help the developing countries to cut on their emissions through renewable energy sources.

The initiatives also include “measures such as building sea defenses, securing fresh water supplies and developing new crop varieties” as BBC reports.

What The People Are Doing

While the world leaders are set to meet to come up with an agreement to deal with climate change, the media reports that the number of people who believe there is a global warming is declining, much less believe it is caused by human activities.

This is the time to be concerned about our health and the environment. Scientist have said that you don’t have to be an environmentalist to care about the issue because global warming will affect a major element of our lives, the economy.

It will be some time until we will see an effective treatment for climate change but YOU can start Now. Some are doing the Climate Justice Fast, a demonstration to the world to show the need for an urgent action and also ” to inspire those who are already aware of climate change to become more politically active.” Others are holding debates about the issues to be discussed in the Summit. Some have come up with twelve-steps programs for America to become green. You don’t have to fast or go win a debate about climate change, you can even by as simple an action as turning off the light you don’t need.

You also can participate in:

• Hopenhagen Ambassador Contest: A contest by the Huffington Post that will award the winner a trip to Copenhagen to attend the summit.
• Cast your vote in the Angry Mermaid Award and help decide which company or lobby group is doing the most to sabotage effective action on climate change.

###

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.

A report was recently released by the National Academy of Sciences examining the externalities of energy – the hidden costs of the energy we use. It was requested by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This little statement, found in the executive summary, gets at the heart of what an external cost is:

Modern civilization is heavily dependent on energy from sources such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Yet, despite energy’s many benefits, most of which are reflected in energy market prices, the production, distribution, and use of energy also cause negative effects. Beneficial or negative effects that are not reflected in energy market prices are termed “external effects” by economists. In the absence of government intervention, external effects associated with energy production and use are generally not taken into account in decision making.

Interesting, and perhaps even a bit understated. The point is that externalities exist within our energy-economic system, and by keeping them external they can have fairly serious consequences.

Here are some of the more grave externalities of coal-power, with an illustration to help:

Effects of Coal, Alan Morin, taken from "Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal," Clean Air Task Force: http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf

(1) Classical Pollutants: Particulate Matter (PM), SO₂, NO_x, as well as other pollutants such as O₃, CO, Benzene, Benzo-[a]-pyrene, and a host of other tongue-twisting compounds. These have negative effects on health through cancers, respiratory disorders, and a general decrease in life expectancy. They can also have a negative effect on building materials (acid damage), crops (yield reduction, acid deposition), and ecosystems (eutrophication).

(2) Greenhouse Gas emissions: CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and others. Contributes to climate change.

(3) Direct Environmental Damage: Mountain-top removal mining (MTR), Strip mining, etc. Mining causes irreparable damage to the local land and water resources, and can lead to chemical spills as a consequence of the mining.

(This information was taken from a similar European Report, published in 2003).

The grand total in external coal-induced damages put forward by the report is $62 billion (for 2005). That said; keep in mind the fact that not all coal-fired power plants are created equal. Researchers took data from 406 coal-fired power plants from across the US (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) and produced some notable results. The top 5% in terms of pollution caused damages of over 12 cents (per kWh), whereas the lowest-emitting 5% of the plants caused less than 0.5 cents (per kWh) of damage. That is quite a difference. This diagram illustrates the extreme variation in damages:

Damages of Coal and Natural Gas Plants, taken from "Hidden Costs of Energy," report in brief: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/hidden_costs_of_energy_Final.pdf

These numbers take into account neither possible climate change effects, ecosystem damage (such as MTR), nor mercury emissions. The study done by the European Commission did try to include all factors, and as expected found significant costs related to climate change and ecosystem damages. Here is a summary of the external costs produced throughout the energy sector in Germany:

Taken from "External Costs," European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/externe_en.pdf

Looking at the same data, we can see the relative little external costs of wind or hydro power (renewable energy sources).

There is quite a lot of crying these days about subsidies for renewable energy, and how these forms of energy are too costly to be feasible. However, as this report points out, if we were to look at all of the costs of conventional coal power (internal and external) at least we would have a more level playing field. Perhaps then wind, solar and other renewable energy sources would be better able to compete? (This discussion ignores both the fact that coal is a finite resource and that there are huge subsidies given to coal companies each year – other matters altogether).

But the past is behind; let’s see this in light of the future. The US Department of Energy, in their International Energy Outlook of 2009, has predicted that world coal consumption would increase by 49 percent from 2006 to 2030, saying that “coal’s share of world energy consumption increases from 27 percent in 2006 to 28 percent in 2030.”

By continuing to allow the torrid growth of coal in the next two decades, how much more damage will be left out of the equation? You can work out the economics of that one.

J Baker.

###

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.

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 Tuesday 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.