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.

Monthly wind energy graph

Some interesting facts show that wind generation continues to provide a significant amount of energy to the grid as the technology matures, new turbines are developed and better tools are put in place to maximize the turbines generation. The effects of the CREZ (certified renewable energy zone) transmission line build out are starting to be seen as congestion from wind rich west Texas is reduced and more energy is being able to be delivered to the major urban ares. The report shows that wind generation provided 9.9% of the total energy used from January thru June of this year.

Other good news is that the capacity factor (100% capacity factor would be a perfect generator running flat out all of the time all 8760 hours of the year) for the wind fleet has now reached 38.3%  and continues to increase, that’s better than a lot of natural gas plants.

In addition on June 19, 2011, at 10:26 PM, ERCOT set a record for instantaneous wind generation of 7,355 MW (which represented 77.6% of installed wind generation capacity and 14.6% of the ERCOT load at the time).  This broke the previous instantaneous wind generation record of 7,227 MW set on December 10, 2010. So much for wind not working in the summertime.

The amount of wind produced energy continues to increase and the new coastal wind farms have been a major contributor.  According to the CEO of ERCOT wind has saved us a couple of times this year. Back during the February 3rd rolling blackouts the wind farms played a large roll in keeping the grid running when the aging fleet of fossil fuel generators, along with some brand new ones, failed in the cold.  Then during the current heat wave, the coastal wind farms supplied around 2000 mw of much needed energy during one of the highest energy demand days, keeping the lights on. Perhaps the PUC should start paying more attention and let us add some solar to the mix instead of letting the 500mw non-wind project expire as they did.

ERCOT Wind Generation Capacity

Recently San Antonio put out a request for a large solar project and was bombarded with proposals.  ERCOT then announced they are planning to un-mothball several old gas plants just in case we run short on energy again.  It’s the same thing we saw during the legislative session – the fossil fuel companies got to keep billions in tax breaks but solar didn’t get a dime.   Now the PUC is having a meeting (August 22nd) on how they can “fix” the market to get more generation built when they already have the tools and the opportunity staring them in the face.

During a recent ERCOT meeting held at the peak of the energy demand, I over heard folks saying how “it sure would be nice to have some more solar on the system.” Perhaps the politicians should get out of the way and let the engineers do their job.   The public power utilities (municipally owned and rural electric cooperatives) are leading the way.  San Antonio is looking to build 400mw utility scale solar, Austins 30mw Webberville project moving along and several other Munis and Co-ops looking to build solar projects.  But where is the much vaunted deregulated energy market when we need them?  Relying on 30-50years old smelly, toxin spewing existing fleets – or business as usual.

As Texas bakes in the the record summer heat wave and our scarce water resources are being sucked up by traditional power plants ( a typical coal plant can use 10 million gallons of water a day) low impact non polluting energy sources are being allowed to languish on the sidelines. Its time to get with it, and bring some new industries, more jobs and clean renewable energy to the Texas grid to keep the lights on and meet the EPA regulations for clean air and water for us and our children to enjoy. Companies want to build 3000 MW of offshore wind beyond the barrier islands south of Corpus Christi, and there is a 10,000 mw farm that is in the plans to be built up in the Panhandle.

To paraphrase, the answer my friends truly seems to be blowing in the wind, just as the sun comes up every morning.

On January 21, 2011, the EPA did in fact grant a partial waiver for E15 for use in MY2001-2006 light-duty motor vehicles. These decisions were based on test results provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other information regarding the potential effect of E15 on vehicle emissions. Taken together, the two actions allow, but do not require, E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles if conditions for mitigating misfueling and ensuring fuel quality are met. The EPA is still in the process of completing work on regulations that would provide a more practical means of meeting the conditions.

These new waivers implemented earlier this year by the EPA have cattle ranchers in an uproar as well.  But what could the Texas livestock industry possibly have to do with the newest ethanol implementations? According to the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA), the new 50% increase in ethanol-gasoline allowance, is detrimental to the costs of their livestock production.  The TSCRA claim that such a dramatic increase in ethanol permittance will have serious negative repercussions for their cattle ranches.  A statement made by TSCRA president and fellow rancher, Dave Scott, indicated that these high levels of corn based ethanol are one of the most influential factors in driving price increases in corn products, including the feed for cattle.  This is a clear indication of the dangers we create once we begin to place our food and fuel in competition against one another.  In 2008, according to the US Department of Agriculture, feed for livestock reached its record high at $45.2 billion.  This was an increase of more than $7 billion from 2007.  With the cost of feed for livestock and newer, higher levels of ethanol being so intertwined with each other, we will only be seeing an even more dramatic rise in the cost of feed for cattle production…and more unhappy ranchers.

Our nation’s food supply and methods of transportation must find a way to compromise and divert their routes of competition elsewhere because both are at serious risk in the future.

The hope is that the SunShot initiative can reduce the total costs of photovoltaic solar energy systems by about 75 percent so that they are cost competitive at large scale with other forms of energy, without subsidies, before the end of the decade.  This level of cost reduction would make the cost of solar roughly $1 a watt – which would correspond to roughly 6 cents per kilowatt-hour – spurring the broad deployment of solar energy systems across the country and, at these price points, helping regain American economic competitiveness in the global market for solar photovoltaics.

The SunShot program builds on the legacy of President Kennedy’s 1960s “moon shot” goal, which laid out a plan to regain the country’s lead in the space race and land a man on the moon. The program hopes to aggressively drive innovations in the ways that solar systems are conceived, designed, manufactured and installed.

In addition to investing in improvements in cell technologies and manufacturing, the SunShot initiative will also focus on steps to streamline and digitize local permitting processes that will reduce installation and permitting costs. To achieve the SunShot goal of reducing the total installed cost of large scale solar electricity by about 75 percent, DOE will be working closely with partners in government, industry, research laboratories and academic institutions across the country.

For more information and to follow the initiative’s progress, visit the SunShot Initiative webpage.

Guest contributer - Paul Sadler

Paul Sadler is the executive director of the Wind Coalition, and a former Texas state legislator.  He responds to the recent comptroller report which he believes did not accurately represent the job creation potential of wind energy. 

If we are to believe a recent report from the comptroller’s office (“An Analysis of Texas Economic Development Incentives 2010″), wind energy creates only 500 jobs in Texas.

And if we are to believe another claim by the comptroller’s office, a weekend of Formula One racing at a taxpayer-subsidized track in Austin will bring 5,000 jobs. In other words, even though Texas is the sixth-largest producer of wind energy in the world, with enough installed capacity to power 2.5 million homes, we are supposed to believe it produces one-tenth the number of jobs as expensive cars driving along a track.

Texas Comptroller Susan Combs has indicated she does not believe the statute authorizing her report on economic development incentives allows her to look at the total economic impact of wind energy as she did for a Formula One race.

So, let’s introduce some facts missing from the comptroller’s report.

Wind energy not only creates jobs on wind farms, it creates headquarters jobs in cities like Austin and Houston. Wind energy also creates manufacturing jobs, such as those in Dallas-Fort Worth. Wind energy creates supplier jobs for companies that specialize in producing technical parts in virtually every part of the state.

And wind energy produces jobs in fields like transportation – have you ever seen a massive turbine blade being driven from one of our ports west? – as well as thousands of construction jobs.

In fact, Texas economist Ray Perryman says wind is responsible for 10,000 jobs in Texas, and doesn’t even count the peripheral job impact in that calculation.

If the comptroller is going to include taxis in her job count for a weekend racing event, then she also should tally land surveyors, contract engineers, wildlife biologists, and landowner attorneys, as well as restaurateurs and hotel owners who see an influx of business in their local communities when wind farms are being built. And there will be even more jobs to count once the state finishes the transmission project authorized by the Legislature under Competitive Renewable Energy Zones.

Why is this important beyond a semantics debate? Because the comptroller is recommending a major overhaul of a tax incentive that local communities may offer wind energy companies and certain manaufacturing interests based on a very limited view of job creation. Her calculation of wind jobs per tax incentive is missing 95 percent of the jobs we create!

These incentives – known as 313 agreements for the chapter of the tax code that authorizes them – were intended not only to bring jobs to Texas, but also capital investment.

Wind energy companies have invested more than $7 billion in large capital projects throughout Texas, generating millions of dollars in revenue for landowners and local school districts as well as growing the local tax base. When you consider there were barely any turbines on Texas soil at the turn of this century, this is a remarkable success story.

Some opponents of wind energy are quick to argue that CREZ amounts to a subsidy of wind. Nonsense.

First, no one calls the other $4 billion in proposed transmission lines a subsidy for coal, gas and nuclear generation. Nor have we ever referred to the 37,000 miles of transmission lines already built for coal, gas or nuclear as a subsidy for those industries. Plus, the CREZ lines will be used not only by wind generators, but all forms of electricity generation.

Second, subsidies for fossil fuel generators are massive compared to wind. In fact, in a report authored in 2007, Comptroller Combs includes the following fact in her findings: 99.6 percent of energy subsidies in Texas go to fossil fuel generation.

Want to discuss subsidies? Fine, let’s just be sure to put them all on the table, and not single out one industry. Want to discuss jobs tied to energy generation? Sure, but let’s discuss real numbers.

Restricting the definition of job creation for wind to only those jobs created on wind farms is like saying oil and gas creates no jobs in Houston because only the guys monitoring the pump jacks in the oil field count. Again, I say nonsense. That just would not be fair.

People around the world are looking at Texas and asking just how we went from less than 100 megawatts of wind generation to 10,000 megawatts of installed capacity in only a decade.

I recently returned from Morocco where I was invited to explain the genesis of this phenomenal economic success story.

I wish our West Texas comptroller could see what the rest of the world sees in West Texas: an economic miracle blowing in the wind.

In the worst recession in 70 years, we need all the investment we can attract.

Paul Sadler has given us permission to reprint this article as it appeared in the Amarillo Globe News this weekend.

What we do know is wind energy played a major role in keeping the blackouts from becoming more severe. Between 5 and 7 am yesterday morning (the peak of the electricity shortage) wind was providing between 3,500 and 4,000 MW, roughly the amount it had been forecast and scheduled to provide. That is about 7% of the state’s total electricity demand at that time, or enough for about 3 million average homes.

Currently, total wind generation capacity in ERCOT is 9,528 MW and a mere 23 days ago, wind generators set a record for instantaneous wind generation of 7,227 MW (76.3% of installed capacity and 25.8% of the total load served at the time).  I’d say wind was doing its part this winter

On the other hand, it has been reported that Energy Future Holdings’ plants accounted for almost half of the total missing capacity, but they have declined to say which other plant (besides Oak Grove and Sandow) was down.

In case you don’t know who Energy Future Holdings is, they are the electric utility company formerly known as TXU until its $45 billion leveraged buyout by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Texas Pacific Group and Goldman Sachs. That purchase was the largest leveraged buyout in history.  As part of the buyout, the electric distribution part of the company is now called Oncor Electric Delivery, the electric generation business is called Luminant, leaving TXU Energy as solely a retail provider of electricity without any electrical distribution or production assets.

As part of a deal, between Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and TXU, that helped broker the buyout, TXU took off the table, plans to build 8 of 11 proposed coal-fired plants in Texas.

One of the three plants that went forward is Oak Grove, one of the failed coal plants Dewhurst mentioned earlier in the day.  Oak Grove, is a 1,600-megawatt facility that is among the largest in Texas and began operation only in the last few years. Overnight, frigid temperatures caused a portion of the pipeline to fail and Luminant Generation Co., which operates the plant, is still assessing the damage.  Another of the three TXU plants that was not taken off the table during the buyout is Sandow 5, the fifth coal-fired plant at the Sandow Generating Station site. Luminant currently operates both this unit and the remaining operating unit (Sandow 4) which used to be operated by Alcoa to supply power to the aluminium processing plant which has now closed down.  The older three units at this station are currently not operational.

When large coal or nuclear plants go down, ERCOT calls on natural gas plants to fire up to meet demand, as they can do so quickly. However, the state’s natural gas network was also hampered by the cold, so some natural gas plants couldn’t get fuel because of loss of pressure in natural gas pipelines.

Late yesterday, ERCOT warned it might have to initiate outages again on Thursday morning if the down power plants, including three new coal plants owned by Energy Future Holdings, didn’t get fixed.  Fortunately, that does not seem to have happened, but Sen. Troy Fraser, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, said he planned to hold hearings on the blackouts.

In the meantime, energy officials continue to use every tool they have to bring power on the system.  This includes:

• Asking Texans to conserve energy
• Opening a few portals to bring in power from Mexico and Louisiana (Mexico’s Federal Electricity Commission agreed yesterday to transmit 280 megawatts of electricity to Texas, enough to power about 56,000 households.)
• Lifting some pollution rules to allow all functioning plants to generate as much power as they could. (Some older plants meet pollution regulations by operating below their capacity.)

So, to sum up: who DIDN’T contribute to yesterday’s rolling blackouts?  Well, wind and hydro really saved our bacon when we needed it most.  And let’s not forget solar.  No one has heard much from ya’ll, so why don’t you folks with solar installations let us know how you fared during the blackouts yesterday? All in all, it was a great day for renewables.  Fossil fuels? Not so much.

Interesting Note:

Brains and Eggs’ McBlogger has an interesting conspiracy theory.  Want something to ponder as you watch the snow fall on or ice sheet your home this evening, click here.

###

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.

His love for science, technology, engineering and innovating has made him wealthy and in 1986, Kamen bought a tiny, 2-acre private island off the coast of Connecticut in Long Island Sound, where he began bumping heads with the local authorities from the town of Southold, N.Y., which has jurisdiction over the island, when he wanted to put up a wind turbine.  Like our Governor Perry, he made noises about seceding, but eventually did receive his variance to build his personal wind turbine. That turbine, coupled with the use of solar panels, provides the island with all its power. He replaced all the island’s lighting with LEDs, which cut down his in-house energy consumption by 70 percent, thus creating the most carbon-neutral kingdom (his pseudo island nation kingdom) on the planet — “carbon-negative,” in fact.

Kamen’s methods may sometimes seem childish and self-serving, but he claims to use mirth to attract attention to what he considers his most important work: inspiring others to think outside the box in developing new ways to live better lives and he hopes to inspire young people to follow his lead in seeking out innovation so that they, too, can become island rulers — or at least the masters of their fates.

Let’s hope that he does inspire people in this country to innovate and they can lead us into a new 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.

Recently introduced the “Storage Technology of Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2010″ Act (S. 3617) introduced by U.S. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) stands to finally get things moving in the energy storage development space.

To go along with that, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality announced that they are taking applications for a Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) new technology implementation grant (NTIG) on energy storage based on a bill that got passed last session (yes they did pass a few bills last session). Anyone that needs a cool 3 mil to get a project off the ground should consider applying as applications are due by September 17 and, if congress can get their act together, there might be a 20% tax credit to sweeten the pot.

Energy storage has been called the holy grail of renewable’s by members of the Leg and could potentially solve a bunch of technical issues on the Texas electrical grid depending on the technology implemented. Compressed air storage, fast acting flywheels, super conducting magnetic loops and all sort of different batteries each provide a different solution to various problems.

Grid stabilization is one that needs to be looked at in the near future. Using solid state electronics these storage solutions can react in fractions of a second (and less then one of the 60 cycles per second our electrical system runs on) to smooth the flow of electrons from the generator to your home and business and reducing the speed that a gas generator needs to react to an increase or decrease in load on the electrical grid.

Large scale storage will allow wind (which blows mostly at night in Texas) and solar to be stored and used when the energy is most needed (all though solar produces most of its energy at peak load already). Batteries, suitably placed like the one EET built in Presidio can reduce the need to build new transmission lines and substations. Lets hope our Legislators (both in Texas and at the federal level) can do something to move this new technology along. It can support the increasing amount of renewable’s we need to build, stabilize our electrical system and reduce emissions by making renewable energy available when we need it, and providing fast acting response when the grid needs a little extra juice, rather than firing up another gas turbine, or help us, a coal 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.

The blast near Darrouzett, just south of the Oklahoma border, was the second fatal natural gas explosion in Texas in as many days. On Monday, a worker was killed when a utility crew accidentally hit and ruptured a natural gas line in rural Johnson County, about 30 miles south of Fort Worth.

Tuesday’s blast involved a crew that was removing clay for a dirt-contracting company, Lipscomb County Sheriff James Robertson said in a news release. The explosion happened when a bulldozer struck a pipeline.

***

Three other workers were injured. One was taken by helicopter to a hospital in Oklahoma City. Two others escaped with injuries that were not considered life-threatening.

The utility crew involved in Monday’s explosion worked for Oklahoma-based C&H Power Line Construction Services. Fred Haag, the company’s chief operating officer, said the crew followed the proper procedures in locating the line before digging. It used a survey map and made calls verifying the line location, he said.

***

“Even at night, the soles of their shoes were melting because it was still extremely hot,” said Jack Snow, Johnson County’s emergency management coordinator.

At least seven of the other 13 workers who had been close to the site were treated at hospitals, mostly for burns to their necks and arms as they ran away from the massive fireball, Haag said. Only one worker remained hospitalized Tuesday, he said.

A 23-member crew that had been working in the area for several months was drilling a hole Monday for an 80- to 120-foot utility pole when the gas line was struck and ruptured, sending a massive fireball into the air that burned out about two hours later after the gas flow was shut off.

***

After investigators finish looking over the site, workers will repair the ruptured pipeline, which is expected to take several days, said Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners LP, which partially owns the 36-inch-diameter line. It is a 395-mile segment of a pipeline extending from western to eastern Texas, the company said in a Tuesday news release.

Unlike other cases (BP oil spill, Massey mine explosion, etc) this does not look like a problem of lax oversight, but merely the inherent dangers of fossil fuels.  As I wrote in a editor’s note in Ali’s post:

All of this comes back to our reliance on fossil fuels and regulation. Whether it’s oil, coal, or even natural gas, there are inherent risks in extracting these fuels from the earth and dangerous, toxic emissions that come from burning them.  To date, no one has been killed in a “wind spill” or “solar spill.” We ultimately need less of the fossil fuel resources, no matter their source, and more renewables.  Oftentimes small government advocates and conservatives warn against regulation because of the cost it can create.  We never advocate for regulation merely for the sake of regulation, but we NEED smart regulation that places a premium on human life and quality of life over the search for more corporate profits. All of these stories have this theme in common: common sense regulation through a smart regulatory agency, which is something we have lacked from TCEQ.

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.

http://www.klru.org/aai/

Unable to  embed unfortunately.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Public Citizen participated in developing an energy plan for Austin to cut carbon emissions, use more renewables, and promote energy efficiency. And because we did, I’m about to be famous!

Pay no attention to that girl trying to steal my spotlight

Recently, I was one of several energy experts interviewed about the plan for a special program called “Austin at Issue: Energy for the Future”—a joint project of KLRU-TV (Austin’s PBS), KUT, and the Austin American-Statesman.

Watch “Austin at Issue: Energy for the Future” this Thursday, February 18, at 7:30 p.m. on KLRU or listen at 8 p.m. on KUT 90.5 FM.

City Council should vote on the plan to brighten Austin’s energy future sometime in March. To educate Austinites about the plan, the mayor is holding a town hall meeting on Monday, February 22, from 6 – 8 p.m. at the Palmer Events Center.

We need to show support for investment in renewables and energy efficiency that will bring new green jobs to Austin, and move us away from old dirty energy sources.

So do your homework by watching or listening to Austin at Issue, or visit www.cleanenergyforaustin.org, and come on out to the Mayor’s town hall on Monday. 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.

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.

Original post can be found at the ReEnergize Texas Blog

On Tuesday, students from Southwestern University’s Students for Environmental Activism and Knowledge (SEAK) had intended to speak before the Georgetown City Council regarding the 20 year energy plan for their city.  They had registered an agenda item with the City Secretary’s Office, asked all the right questions about who could speak and for howlong, and everyone was in City Council chambers ahead of the meeting forms in hand and polite, thoughtful, well-reasoned remarks committed to memory.

SEAK’s charismatic President, Connor Hanrahan, went to the mic and spoke politely about hoping to form a positive “working relationship” with the city as they discussed aspects of the energy plan and in particular a provision to purchase 30% of their electricity from nuclear power plants.

“We are not here to protest nuclear,” he said, “but want to discuss new information that affects this plan.”

And then the Mayor dropped a bomb.  Citing a “misunderstanding” about City Council procedures, he informed Connor and the group of students and allies he’d brought with him that they would not be allowed to speak at the meeting that evening.  To his credit, Mayor Garver did make an effort at conciliation by offering Connor the opportunity to nominate 2 members of his party to speak for 3 minutes apiece, but the notion was quickly rebuked by Councilwoman Pat Berryman, a known proponent of nuclear power.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?  Think Pedernales Electric Coop and CPS Energy.  These two major electric utilities in Texas have been recently embroiled in controversy over failure to provide information, give the public access to speak, and making bad, even corrupt decisions from positions of power.  As a result, reform candidates have been elected to the PEC Board of Directors and two of its former members face multiple felony indictments.  At CPS, two executives have been placed on leave while its board investigates why the utility failed to disclose new cost estimates to the public and the San Antonio City Council.

Why would Georgetown’s Mayor and City Council tell local students they had no right to speak about the energy future of their own city?  Because the rules said so?  Can a member of the City Council not make a motion to suspend the rules?  In fact they can, but no member of the City Council had the courage or good sense to make that motion and give their constituents the opportunity to weigh in on an issue of city governance.

Georgetown’s website recently posted an article patting the city on the back for moving forward with a citizen participation plan aimed at increasing civic engagement.  This little episode made clear that such a plan is badly needed.

Georgetown is not a big city.  As of last year the population was a little under 50,000.  David Foster, an activist from Clean Water Action who had been invited by SEAK to speak at the meeting, talked fondly beforehand about the small-town feeling that had drawn him and his wife to the city for a short retreat just a week earlier.

But in this same small town, if an ordinary citizen and a couple of his or her friends want to bring an issue up to their elected city council, the answer appears to be “I’m sorry, but we don’t care to hear about it.  You’ll just have to wait until one of us decides that your issue is worthy of our consideration.”

Newsflash Georgetown City Council – your rules need changing.  A person shouldn’t have to work themselves raw if they want to let a few people speak to you about an issue or bring in an expert or two who’ve done some research on the subject.  Even the Texas Legislature, where lawmakers have only 140 days every 2 years to make important decisions affecting the entire state, allows people to simply show up, sign up, and speak directly to Representatives and Senators.

The truth of the matter is that the City Council and Georgetown Utility Services made a boneheaded decision when they 1) made nuclear power 30% of their future energy mix and 2) sent a representative to San Antonio to speak on behalf of CPS Energy in defending the nuclear project.  He was 1 of 17 people who spoke for the plant, while 63 spoke against it.  And now that nuclear project is embroiled in controversy as rising cost estimates have made it too expensive for San Antonio and it is becoming clear that utility officials attempted to hide that information from City Council as they prepared to vote on a $400 million bond package for the plant.

The Georgetown City Council should know that this kind of stonewalling can only hurt them.  PEC stonewalled its customers and got one of the biggest utility scandals in Texas history.  CPS did a little better regarding the public but nevertheless erred on the side of closed-door-meetings and non-disclosure and has put itself on very thin ice with the City Council and the public.

Being open and transparent is not as much of a hassle as you might think, and especially not in a small town.  Had the City Council bothered to listen to its own residents, they might have learned that programs aimed at efficiency could save residents money.  They might have learned that nuclear power is generally the most expensive form of energy commercially available.  They might have learned that reliable alternatives such as solar power with natural gas back-ups cost far less than energy from new nuclear reactors.  Those crazy environmentalists with their fiscally responsible approach to energy policy!

The members of SEAK, Mr. Foster, and representatives from Public Citizen and ReEnergize Texas will be back in two weeks.  We will jump through the new hoops City Council has erected, or we’ll just ask Councilwoman Patty Eason to represent the students of Southwestern, who live in her district, by making the energy plan a Council Action Item or whatever terminology they need it to be in order to sit through the unwanted babbling of their own citizens. But beware, City Council.  That babbling has had a strange way of coming true lately, particularly when it comes to nuclear power, and if the CPS experience is any indication that’s one train you don’t want to get hit by.

If you missed out on that event, or listened in but would like a recap, check out our videos from the forum.  Here’s a quick recap, featuring highlights from the evening — but those who would like to watch the entire broadcast can find that coverage after the jump.

Full video after the jump!

Here are the highlights:

Energy Efficiency: Goal increases from 700 megawatts to 800 megawatts by 2020, a new study on energy efficiency potential will be conducted and AE will target “baseload” efficiency more (previously they had really gone after peak reduction with an emphasis on load-shifting).

Renewable Energy: Goal increases from 30% to 35%. Doesn’t seem like a lot but it is. By 2020 Austin Energy will have 1001 megawatts of wind, 200 megawatts of solar (double what the previous goal was) and 162 megawatts of biomass.  They had originally thought to seek an additional 100 MW of biomass on top of what AE already has coming from Nagocdoches in 2012, but decided to scale that back to 50 MW. Not a bad idea considering the limited resource in Texas.

Gas: An additional 200 MW of combined cycle at Sand Hill. The expansion of the plant will provide balancing services to variable renewable resources.

Nuclear: Keep STP 1 & 2. Still saying no to 3 & 4 (woo-hoo!). If someone makes them an offer to contract for the power (we hope it never gets built), they’ll evaluate it.

Coal: The increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy should enable AE to reduce the capacity factor of their share of Fayette coal plant to around 60%, “setting the stage for eventual sale or other disposition of Austin’s share of the plant” (from the AE recommendation). At last night’s Electric Utility Commission meeting, Duncan said currently it’s at about 85-90%.

CO2 plan: Emissions would be 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 (Waxman, Markey, you got that?).

Water use: Water use intensity of the utility’s generation sources reduces by 20% from 724 gallons/kWh to 574 gallons/kWh. Most of that would come from running Fayette smaller.

Other notes: AE will heavily go after solar resources within the city. Duncan estimated that there is roughly 3,000-4,000 MW of solar potential in the city (both for electricity and solar water heating). AE also would work to develop energy storage like compressed air energy storage-aka CAES (case).

We have tons of questions and we’re still analyzing the plan. But our first impression is: this is a pretty good plan but it can be improved.  Roger Duncan and his staff deserve recognition. At a time when other utilities in Texas are actually still building new coal plants (CPS Energy, LCRA), Austin Energy recognizes the need to get out of coal. To hear this acknowledged by the utility publicly is very positive, but City Council needs to make this a commitment. The goal should be to see Fayette closed… sooner rather than later.

Obviously, this plan comes with a price tag. Once we get the chance to ask more questions and analyze the plan and possible variations of it we’ll do a more in depth post.

We look forward to a healthy debate on this plan over the next few months. To all you Austinites who want a clean and more sustainable utility, keep urging city council to go beyond coal!

-Matt

Public Citizen, a national non-profit consumer advocacy and watchdog group, seeks motivated interns in our office in Austin. For over 25 years, the Texas office of Public Citizen has worked on protecting consumers and standing up for the common citizen in the halls of power. When corporate interests send in their high-priced lobbyists, the public can rely on Public Citizen to advocate for what is in their interest.

PC Texas currently works on mostly energy issues, as energy usually represents the second or third largest household expense for most families. We are currently involved in working on federal climate change policy, increasing the use of renewable energy and efficiency as new power resources, and stopping proposed coal and nuclear plant expansions across Texas. We also have a vibrant communications team which specializes in both traditional and “new” media outreach.

QUALIFICATIONS: An intense desire to work in the public’s interest, excellent writing and verbal skills, organized, ability to work under pressure, team player, self-motivated. Background in energy, environmental issues, politics, economics, public policy, etc helpful. Desire to learn a MUST. Interns interested in communications work should have some background in media/communications/PR, etc.

All internships are 20 hrs/week and unpaid and will take place at our office in downtown Austin at the corner of 13th and San Antonio (3 blocks East of the Capitol).

If interested please email Melissa Sanchez msanchez@citizen.org with a resume and a short writing sample.

Austin Energy’s sales of the most recent GreenChoice batch have been low, but I hope that folks will understand that the blame lies not with wind energy itself but some serious underlying problems with the rate structure of this program and the way the energy market is regulated in Texas (hint: it isn’t).

The high cost of GreenChoice highlights the failure of the deregulated market. Consumers are now unfairly burdened with the transmission costs to get wind energy from West Texas to the center of the state. Wind has to pay a toll to drive the power transmission highway, but coal, gas, and nuclear get a free ride. Not all utilities charge similar transmission costs, and in many places that would be factored into the simple cost of doing business, but in Austin consumers are asked to foot that bill. Then there’s the fact that coal, gas, and nuclear power currently have priority on the transmission grid.  If the wind can provide 300 MW of energy at a given time and coal can dispatch 300 MW, but there is only room for 400 MW of power to run through the lines, coal gets to move 300 MW and wind can only move 100 MW.

Another problem with Green Choice is that in addition to paying for 100% wind, customers are forced to pay the maintenance and capitol costs to upkeep Austin’s dirty power sources. That just isn’t fair – folks shouldn’t have to pay a premium for clean energy and then be asked to foot the bill for polluters too.  Folks argue that GreenChoice customers should pay a portion of the upkeep for traditional dirty power sources when the wind isn’t blowing, but they shouldn’t pay the same *full* capital and maintenance costs that average customers pay. If anything, GreenChoice customers should be offered a pro-rated charge for those costs, so that they only pay the maintenance costs for when they are actually getting power from those dirty sources. Right now, Austin Energy is asking GreenChoice customers to pay an Equal share of maintenance and upkeep for an Unequal share of power – not fair.

Then there’s the fact that Austin Energy got a bad deal on this contract. They bought into a ten year power purchase agreement when natural gas prices, and energy prices in general, were at an all time high (remember $4/gallon gas?).

Austin Energy could easily restructure this program so that it is more affordable. GreenChoice wouldn’t be so expensive if wind was operating on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Austin Energy can make that happen.

Seeing as we are just at the beginning of the history of wind, it is a story that is constantly evolving.  Coastal wind projects have been developed in Texas recently (look for a post on this very topic soon!).  Just this week, the Abilene Reporter News ran an article about a local professor and director of the Wind Science and Engineering Research Center at Texas Tech that testified on a bill in Congress that would pump $200 million annually into research and development for wind power.  While wind is of course a viable industry in its current stages, further R&D will allow it to provide an even larger portion of our total electricity needs, operate more efficiently, and be an even cheaper and more reliable form of energy.

While you’re at it, check out this recent article from the Guardian about the “furious search for practical, affordable electricity storage” so that excess energy produced when the wind is blowing but no one’s lights are on can be socked away and used when we need it most.

Even though Texas leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions, Governor Perry balks at making any major stand on producing reliable renewable energy.

“Are the Democrats willing to say we’re fixing to raise everyone’s cost of living in America, on science yet to be solidified?” said Rick Perry several weeks ago.  Perry has vowed to veto any legislation with the phrase, “Global Warming” present in bill, while Republican members in Congress continue to protect the oil industry.

It is important to understand the rhetoric being proposed by representatives such as Perry.  They are siding with big oil and manufacturing lobbyists; who argue renewable energy would increase electric bills.  However, the latest studies have shown renewable energy and energy efficiency can dramatically decrease energy consumption.  This decrease in electric bills will be especially helpful for low-income families, who could save up to 30% on future electric bills.

Rick Perry claims, “renewable energy would be devastating to Texas economy,” but research indicates otherwise.  A recent study done by the University of Massachusetts has declared renewable energy and energy efficiency programs would, “save low-income families 4% for their annual income, and the programs would pay for themselves in three years due to the savings by each family.”

Global warming is a real, scientifically confirmed problem, despite what governor Perry would like to believe — and our best answer to this global problem is renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.  Renewable energy and energy efficiency programs have been dramatically effective in Europe and other states through the United States. It is time to examine these successes and find an energy solution right for Texas.

Explained in a report by Green for All, “The most powerful way in which clean-energy investments will expand economic opportunities is through the channel of job creation, especially by increasing the availability of jobs for people with relatively low formal credentials.”

The renewable energy industry can provide thousands of jobs for Texans, which should be welcomed during a time of economic uncertainty.  However, we need to invest in the future of renewable energy before it is too late.  The renewable energy market, from research to production, is a prime opportunity for economic development in Texas.  We must not let Texas be out-competed by states such as California and Vermont, which is sure to happen if Texas does not chose to invest in renewable technology.

Governor Perry’s claim renewable energy will hurt the Texas economy is completely off base.  With renewable energy proving to be a reliable and affordable alternative for energy production, now and in the future, it is time we make active steps towards developing renewable energy in Texas.