Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

Good News for Houston, Corpus Christi- So. California ports cut diesel emissions 80%!

Posted in Diesel, Energy, Global Warming, Toxics, tagged , , , , on October 7, 2009 |

Great news from the Edmunds.com Green Car Blog:

Southern California Port Pollution Drops Dramatically Under Clean-Truck Program

port-of-los-angeles.jpgA clean-trucks program at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in California has shown quick progress, with an 80 percent decline in diesel emissions expected by the end of 2010 — a year ahead of schedule.

“This is the most successful effort to clean a port in the world,” said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. “I mean, think about it. Nobody thought it was possible to retrofit 5,000 trucks in a year, and we’re at 5,500 and growing.”

So far, the program has reduced diesel truck emissions at the Los Angeles port (pictured) by 70 percent compared with 2007 levels, Villaraigosa said. Long Beach has seen similar results, according to Mayor Bob Foster.

The program is part of a larger effort to reduce diesel emissions at the port complex, one of the major sources of pollution in Southern California. Increased rates of cancer, asthma and other serious health ailments for area residents have been attributed to port pollution.

Villaraigosa and Foster unveiled the promising figures during a briefing at the Port of Long Beach on Thursday, when U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced $26.5 million in federal grants for clean-air programs throughout Southern California.

This is really great news for our port cities, whose dirty air is tied at least partially to the pollution from the ports.  Diesel emissions also contain black carbon particles, which can have a much greater effect on the climate than CO2, methane, or any of the other greenhouse gases.  Also, as a particulate, it can get lodged in your lungs and cause all sorts of respiratory ailments.  Cutting black carbon should be a major goal, and one which the Ports of LA and Long Beach seem to be tackling very well.

Farbeit from me to advocate that Texas ever in any way should try to be like California, (*smirk*) but this shows that specific programs designed to tackle specific problems can be very effective.

“LA and Long Beach Together– Now You Know You’re In Trouble…”

Read Full Post »

Climate-Change Bill: Is It Really Bad for Texas?

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , on October 1, 2009 |

Public Citizen hopes for climate change legislation that will direct us in becoming more energy efficient, less dependent on foreign oil, and better stewards of out state’s environment. As we await the outcome of the Waxman/Markey and Kerry/Boxer legislation in Congress, Governor Perry irresponsibly dismisses the issue with outrageous arguments to scare up more votes for the upcoming governor’s race.

In a speech that New York Times reporter John Rudolf described as fiery, Governor Perry addressed the climate-change bill passed by the U.S. House of Representative in June. The Waxman-Markey bill is now facing great opposition by many Republicans ,along with some conservative Democrats, while being debated in the Senate.

Perry anticipates that the “misguided” piece of legislation, as he describes it, will wreak economic disaster on the state. “Between 200,000 and 300,000 Texans who today work to supply the rest of America with energy would find themselves out of work,” said the governor. But these numbers do not conform with the numbers given out by Martin Huber, the Deputy Comptroller of the State of Texas. Perry’s numbers are more than a hundred thousand off. Both numbers, given by Perry and Huber, disregard what researchers say and boldly ignore the serious economic impact of climate change on the state. Texas has already experienced a devastating drought this year which has negatively impacted the agriculture of the state.

Texas needs some fundamental change in terms of energy production. In addition, a recent study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Boston and the Center for American Progress shows that investments in clean-energy have the potential of creating more than 153,000 jobs in the state of Texas alone — about 90,000 of which are jobs for those with lower educational credentials.

Such figures would have brought down the state’s unemployment to 3.6 percent in 2008. These numbers prove that in investing in green energy, the state has a great potential in ameliorating its climatic conditions as well as boosting its economy.

Read Full Post »

BYU Chemist uses sugar and weedkiller to make cheap fuel cell?

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2009 |

For the second time in a month, it’s very popular among my friends and co-workers that they know a BYU Cougar (the first, of course, after the football game against Oklahoma, exciting my Longhorn-lovin friends and officemates, but I digress…)

From the Edmunds Green Car blog:

Brigham Young University Scientist: Sugar + Weed Killer = Direct Carbohydrate Fuel Cell

BYU-Professor-Gerald-Watt.jpgResearchers at Brigham Young University claim to have developed a fuel cell that harvests electricity from glucose and other sugars known as carbohydrates using a common weed killer as a catalyst.

Lead researcher and BYU chemistry professor Gerald Watt (pictured) said in an article published in the August issue of the Journal of the Electrochemical Society that carbohydrates are very energy rich and that he and his colleagues sought a catalyst that would extract the electrons from the carbs and transfer them to an electrode.

Watt said he and his colleagues discovered a solution in the form of a cheap and abundant weed killer. He described the effectiveness of the herbicide as a boon to carbohydrate-based fuel cells.

By contrast, hydrogen-based fuel cells such as those developed by General Motors require costly platinum as a catalyst.

The study conducted experiments that yielded a 29 percent conversion rate, or the transfer of 7 of the 24 available electrons per glucose molecule, Watt reported.

“We showed you can get a lot more out of glucose than other people have done before,” said Dean Wheeler, who was part of the research team. “Now we’re trying to get the power density higher so the technology will be more commercially attractive.”

This isn’t the first time that a glucose-based fuel cell has been reported. In 2007, Japanese scientists announced they had invented a device that used sunlight to convert glucose into hydrogen to power a fuel cell.

Read Full Post »

Boxer and Kerry take two steps forward and two steps back on climate, but EPA looks ready to go!

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 30, 2009 |

This just in from EPA:

LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.

The full text of the Administrators remarks will be posted at www.epa.gov later this afternoon.

UPDATED: that text is now available here.

“Wow” would be an understatement.  This on the heels of the release of Senator Kerry and Boxer and their climate bill.  Here’s my statement on that subject:

Sept. 30, 2009

Reaction to Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Discussion Draft

Statement of Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

The Boxer-Kerry draft includes some important measures to address climate change and create new green jobs, but it is simply not sufficient to solve climate change or create the green jobs revolution we need. While an improvement in some ways over Waxman-Markey and its billions in giveaways to polluting special interests, the discussion draft put forth by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) still punts on many of the most contentious issues, such as how and to whom emissions allowances will be allocated or auctioned. Waxman-Markey started off similarly strong and vague but was weakened as it went through the committee hearing process. Sen. Boxer must work to strengthen the bill as she guides it through her Environment and Public Works Committee hearings.

The discussion draft calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution from 2005 levels by 2020. This is a slight improvement over the 17 percent called for by Waxman-Markey, but is far short of the goals our best science tells us we need to make. Specifically, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us in order to avoid the worst of global climate catastrophe, we need to cut our pollution levels 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Japan will cut its emissions 25 percent by 2020; the EU has signaled it may meet or beat that goal. Why would we set ourselves to lag behind the rest of the world? We must win the technology races in manufacturing advanced energy technology so we do not replace importing oil with importing solar cells.

The draft should be applauded for including strong language to protect consumers and protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate emissions in the future.

Among the changes we recommend to the draft are alterations to address these problems:

Allowances should be auctioned 100 percent. President Obama’s budget continues to show revenues from a 100 percent auction and EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey found this to be the least regressive method of implementation.

Subsidies for nuclear should be removed. Despite recent findings by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff that the United States will never need to build another traditional power plant, the bill spends considerable space on (Subtitle C, Sec 131) and would allocate significant resources to nuclear power. Nuclear is neither as carbon-free nor as safe as the draft language claims. Neither is it cost-effective. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated half of all federal loan guarantees for nuclear loan guarantees will fail, meaning any extension of these guarantees is a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry leaving the taxpayers on the hook for up to half a trillion dollars.

The draft still relies on more than two billion tons in offsets – actually expanding permitted offsets from the Waxman-Markey language. This has huge potential consequences. It means that despite the intent of the draft, we could conceivably end up having failed to reduce emissions at all – and with major questions about whether alleged offsets were even achieved. While the offset oversight language is considerably better than in Waxman-Markey, it still is troubling that we are relying on offsets rather than actually decreasing our pollution.

The draft does nothing to improve vague language in Waxman-Markey, which could effectively grandfather more than 40 proposed coal-fired power plants, including up to a dozen in Texas alone. These proposed plants would be exempted from new performance standards in the bill, while a plant built just three years from now will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half.

With Kerry-Boxer maintaining EPA’s right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, this sets the table nicely to try to get a bill passed which will both solve climate change and create the new energy economy we need.  We just need to improve the ground of the special-interest-riddled Congress.  Tip of my hat to Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman for their articles on this earlier this week about the severity of the problem that faces us and the relatively lame responses by our government.  As a palate cleanser, please to enjoy this 15 second video from [adult swim] about what the REAL problem may be:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAUnjhB7l4]

Read Full Post »

Reminder Post: Nuclear reactors too expensive

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , on September 29, 2009 |

In case you didn’t catch our editorial in the San Antonio Express News this summer, it’s worth repeating.

NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE

By Matthew Johnson – Express-News Guest Voices

CPS Energy announced its cost estimate for two more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project near Bay City last week. The $13-billion price tag is the latest estimate in a sustained and systemic low-balling by utilities wishing to receive government subsidies.

CPS’ partner, NRG Energy, recently pegged the cost of units 3 and 4 at $10 billion, a figure that has jumped nearly 50 percent from its original estimate of $5.4 billion.

Other analyses, however, have estimated the cost of two new reactors to be nearly 100 percent higher than the CPS estimate. Former Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel official Clarence Johnson recently estimated the cost of STP expansion to be $20 billion to $22 billion, while nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Dr. Arjun Makhijani estimated a cost of up to $17.5 billion in 2008.

A new study by Mark Cooper, of the Vermont Law School, analyzed numerous cost estimates of the so-called nuclear renaissance beginning around 2001. He discovered that early estimates of new nuclear reactors were made predominantly by industry and academics and were optimistic and eager to rejuvenate the industry.

Since then, utilities’ estimates have shown similar wishful thinking, but continue to rise. Independent analysts and Wall Street, Cooper shows, offer the most realistic estimates that are much higher.

The history of the STP expansion effort follows this pattern. CPS and NRG have been attempting to gain support in federal, state and city government since they submitted their application to build two new reactors to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007.

Wall Street estimates also place a similar and continuously rising price tag on new reactors. The bond-rating agency Moody’s predicted $5,000-6,000 per kilowatt for new reactors almost two years ago, which translates to $16.2 billion for STP expansion, and recently indicated that it could downgrade bond ratings on utilities constructing new nuclear reactors.

The federal government established an $18.5 billion subsidy to back loans taken out to construct new reactors. STP expansion advocates brag about being on the short list for part of these loan guarantees, but proponents and opponents agree that more reactors won’t be built if the feds don’t pony up the dough.

The reason is simple. Investors are squeamish to lend money for projects with such a high risk of defaulting on repayments. Delay and cost overruns increase risk. STP’s original reactors took eight years longer than planned to complete and costs soared six times over original estimates.

CPS Energy has faster and cheaper alternatives. Their recent announcement on the 27 megawatt solar plant in West Texas, the Mission Verde plan to develop 250 megawatts of solar and new wind contracts plus their goal to save 771 megawatts through energy efficiency by 2020 are shining examples of the path they should focus on to keep rates stable and low in the future. This path also creates more local jobs.

City Council will soon have to decide on San Antonio’s involvement in new reactors. It must vote no on nuclear to protect San Antonians from bearing the overwhelming economic burden of building costly, dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactors.

Matthew Johnson is an energy policy analyst for Public Citizen’s Texas office.

Read Full Post »

Oppose the Murkowski Amendment and Support the EPA’s Authority to Curb Global Warming

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on September 23, 2009 |

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has circulated a draft amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill—the Environmental Protection Agency’s annual spending bill—calling to prevent the Agency from regulating stationary sources of greenhouse gases, despite a mandate from the US Supreme Court two years ago to do just that.

The amendment would ignore worldwide scientific consensus that indicates carbon dioxide emissions from both stationary and mobile sources as a major threat to public health and welfare.  Logic, science, and the law agree!  Global warming pollution from power plants and oil refineries is just as harmful as that from cars and other passenger vehicles.  According to major scientific bodies, such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions—no matter what its source may be—are warming the planet, as well as threatening public health and the welfare of our citizens.

Furthermore, the Murkowski amendment would severely undermine the Clean Air Act’s provisions to protect public health and the environment.  Oil refineries and coal plants are among the biggest global warming polluters in the nation.  The amendment would let these big players off the hook, delaying any momentum our nation has in transitioning to sources of clean energy.  If the amendment is rejected, our ongoing shift toward solar and wind energy will drastically benefit our nation, providing a continuous and cleaner supply of energy that will only get cheaper over time, while creating millions of clean energy jobs.

The United States is the single largest producer of harmful gases, with China and India following closely behind. China has even surpassed the US at times in CO2 emissions, although with the current economic recession it’s tough to know who is winning, or should we say losing, the carbon pollution race. Our nation alone contributes nearly 25 percent to global greenhouse gas emissions each year. It is feared that the amendment would make a loud statement heard across the world; one that says the U.S. is not serious about reducing and controlling its global warming pollution, giving developing countries a ‘get out of jail free’ card when it comes to reducing their own carbon emissions.  This could be devastating to international negotiations slated to take place in Copenhagen in December to create a framework to follow up to the Kyoto Protocol.

Lastly, the Murkowski amendment could inevitably prevent the EPA from preparing to implement climate legislation.  The Agency would be prohibited from collecting information and expertise it may need to effectively implement climate change legislation, such as the carbon-capture-and-sequestration bonus allowance program, free allowances for energy-intensive manufacturers, or early-offset programs.

If Murkowski gets her way, we could see a vote this week.  This is the wrong message for our Senators to send, who should not be trying to overturn a Supreme Court ruling and impede international climate negotiations through dirty tricks playing with the budgets of federal agencies.

Click here to see a general action alert by the Sierra Club and more reporting on this by the New York Times.

Read Full Post »

Casual Friday: “I Feel Like I’m Taking Crazy Pills!” Bjørn Lomborg Nonsense, Forbes names Exxon “Green Co of the Year”

Posted in Coal, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , on August 28, 2009 |

I got an email from my brother thanking me for the Zoolander references in yesterday’s blog post about the “Faces of Coal” Astroturfing. His only complaint is that there wasn’t more Mugatu.

Well, after reading Bjørn Lomborg’s nonsense in today’s WSJ, I can honestly say:

Mugatu and Lomborg

I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!

Lomborg may classify me as an alarmist, but when I listen to him it makes my head want to explode because he wants to have it both ways.  He says climate change is not a pressing crisis, but one that can be solved through middling, weak policies and technology research. But then he says solving climate change will be beneficial and cheap. Not to be crude, but WTF?

This is the most backwards thinking since Exxon was named Forbes’ “Green company fo the Year” (BTW, Forbes says Exxon is “green” because of its support of natural gas! Again–WTF?!?)

Lomborg claims that climate change will not be serious and damaging– it might even be beneficial! His argument? Loss of agricultural productivity, etc, in one area will be offset by gains in another.  Just tell us that while we in Texas are suffering under the worst drought and hottest temperatures ever– our loss is North Dakota’s gain?  I’m sure Texas will be glad that our farming and cattle operations will move to Oklahoma and Nebraska– and we can just bake in the sun with no water.

But then he advocates radical geoengineering policies like cloud-seeding to have clouds’ albedo effect shelter the earth from more direct sunlight.  (Too bad Lomborg, not a scientist, hasn’t kept up with the scientific debate, or else he would’ve read that increased water vapor and clouds would actually speed up global warming) He then claims that doing this to “Solve” global warming could save $20 TRILLION dollars.

So,let me make sure i understand this correctly:

Argument 1: Climate Change won’t be Costly

Argument 2: Solving warming will save $20 Trillion Dollars.

Any disconnect here?  On what alternate plane of existence does $20 Trillion Dollars not amount to a @#$%load of money? (And here I was under the delusion that Lomborg was an economist)

Lomborg completely ignores the real solutions here: energy efficiency and renewables.  According to McKinsey and Company, we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions 35-40% as a country at a net cost savings using technology already in hand. Already in Texas, we see the effect that having wind as part of our electrical generation reduces costs, as evidenced by lower electrical rates in the West ERCOT zone where the wind is, over areas relying more on oil, gas, coal, and nuclear.

Lomborg has not only missed the boat– he’s not even anywhere near the shore.  Solving climate change will bring Texas millions of new green jobs and spur a technology revolution that will change how we live in the same way the Internet and computer revolution has– and all of those changes are for the better.  But you don’t have to take my word for it:  read a transcript of a debate between Lomborg and Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Colombia University from Fareed Zakaria GPS a few months back.  Also read here someone who spend their time cataloging the ways that Lomborg misrepresents the facts in his writings.

Read Full Post »

Houston Mayor and Senate Hopeful Speaks on Energy Security

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2009 |

While at Netroots Nation a few weeks back, I had the opportunity to listen in on a panel discussing climate change, Texas’ energy future, and energy security featuring Houston Mayor Bill White (you might have also heard he is running for US Senate).

Mayor White gave very measured, political answers. Throughout the panel, never did the words “Cap and Trade” leave his lips, but he did remain skeptical of anyone who claimed to have it all figured out and that their answer would be easy and painless. He also showed legitimate concerns about the impacts of renewable energy mandates done wrong on low-income consumers. As a representative from a consumer advocacy organization, it is refreshing to hear White’s commitment to protecting our most vulnerable even as we chart a new energy future.

Mayor White’s stated goals are to become more energy independent for basic security reasons and to be in control of our energy future. To do so, he maintains that we must reduce our pollution based on sound science, and do so in a way which does not burden low-income households. He proposes three main mechanisms to meet these goals:

  1. Cut the amount of fuel we use in vehicle travel without impinging on people’s ability to travel freely– specifically by increasing our efficiency per mile traveled.
  2. Cut the amount of energy consumed in buildings. Why drive up the cost of business by paying for electricity?
  3. Decrease the amount of power we get from coal and substitute that power with cleaner sources

Despite some skepticism, Mayor White certainly showed that our energy future could have our cake and eat it too, namely through increased efficiency in building codes, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and use of cost-effective renewables. See the edited video here:

[vimeo 6300204]

Public Citizen does not and would never endorse candidates. Even if we could, it’s hard to get an exact read on Mayor White and how he would act as the next Senator from Texas on the issue of federal climate policy — so even so we could offer little endorsement other than a candid analysis of his words and his record.

When asked off-camera about how he would vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the climate bill which passed in the House in June and due up for debate in the Senate over the next 2-3 months, he remained committed to energy efficiency but overall rather vague. White showed skepticism as to large long term goals rather than smaller but gradually increasing cuts in emissions. His version of the bill, he said, would have strong building code mandates, a renewable energy efficiency standard (which is it, Bill?) with a price cap on renewables to protect consumers, and change dispatch priorities to wean the nation off of coal fired power. He did not, however, indicate whether or not he would support implementing a federal cap on carbon dioxide emissions or the cap and trade mechanism.

This is a question likely to come up in the next few months when ACES comes to a Senate vote, and hopefully Mayor White will have a clearer answer prepared when that time comes. But if the final answer is no on ACES, would he have some specific policy solutions about how to improve the bill, or would he just cast the same “no way, never” vote that we’ll likely get from John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison?

That being said, it is refreshing to hear a candidate speak so fluently about energy policy. Mayor White’s record on energy as Deputy Secretary of Energy stands on its own, as does his impressive work on making Houston a national leader on energy efficiency. We may still be uncertain as to where he stands on ACES, but we certainly know his feelings on energy efficiency both in word and deed – which is nothing to sneeze at.

Read Full Post »

Most Energy Citizen Rallies Organized By Oil Lobbyists

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 24, 2009 |

A new line of intrigue in the Energy Citizen astroturf events: turns out that, on top of being funded by the American Petroleum Institute and stocked with (at the Houston event, exclusively) energy company employees, the majority of them  are also being organized by oil-industry lobbyists.

Kate Sheppard from Grist reports:

Here’s more evidence that the “Energy Citizens” rallies against climate legislation are anything but grassroots uprisings. We already knew that the American Petroleum Institute was behind the whole idea. Now it turns out that even the local organizers of individual rallies are oil-industry lobbyists.

Grist obtained a copy of API’s list of coordinators for the 21 planned rallies, and 15 of them are registered lobbyists, mostly for API or its state-level affiliates.

There have already been three “Energy Citizens” rallies—in Houston, Texas, on Tuesday; in Roswell, N.M., on Thursday; and in Lima, Ohio, on Friday. Others are planned for cities around the U.S. during the rest of the August congressional recess.

Read Full Post »

Energy Citizens (Corporate Employees) Say the Darndest Things at API Astroturf Event

Posted in Campaign Finance, Energy, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 20, 2009 |

Even though we were denied access, our intrepid Citizen Sarah was able to blend in with a crowd walking in and starting talking to energy company employees about climate change legislation.  You know, Energy Company Employees Can Say the Darndest Things:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gp6mVn0XWE]

Look for:

  • Global Warming Deniers!
  • People Who Have NO IDEA What is actually in the American Clean Energy & Security Act!
  • Misrepresentations about the bill–and our energy policy and energy sector– all spouted back like they got the memo of Big Oil’s talking points!
  • And…. a guy from a natural gas company who really understands what made the climate bill bad: too much special interest influence and lobbying! (irony, much?  But he does have a point….)

Read Full Post »

Big Oil Astroturf rally in Houston more company picnic than grassroots campaign

Posted in Campaign Finance, Energy, Global Warming, Good Government, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 19, 2009 |

Your intrepid friends at Public Citizen tried to attend the astroturf “Energy Citizens” rally yesterday in Houston.  We’re busy pulling together our bloggings and all the footage we shot, but keep checking back here for updates throughout the day.

We were not allowed in the meeting, as we did not work for an energy company, but we managed to sneak some great footage before being escorted out and being told to leave the premises.

We have:

Footage of the 34 busses used to bring people into the rally from different energy companies.

Normal Citizens who weren”t good enough to be “Energy Citizens”– people who weren’t allowed in the meeting, as this was for energy company employees only!  Interviews include lots of crazy conservative teabaggers who hate cap and trade (I understand why Public Citizen and Sierra Club might not be allowed in– why weren’t even they allowed?), nice ladies who were escorted out of the building because they dared to bring American flags to the rally (why does Big Oil hate America?), and lots of people angry at oil companies because they’re hiding this from the public.

“Energy Company Employees Say the Darndest Things” — watch as your friends in the oil and gas industry display ignorance as to the salient details of the ACES bill and spout misinformation about it, or, the people who do know a lot about the bill talk about how it’s a bad piece of legislation because of corporate giveaways to the coal industry!  Here’s one quick tidbit:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXFt8fwh_0]

Want more?  Read my full press statement after the jump:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Boerne Makes Move on Local Renewable Power

Posted in Coal, Efficiency, Energy, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on August 12, 2009 |

I came across this article recently in the Express-News’ Northwest Daily and had to share.

Boerne, population c. 9,400, located about 30 miles northwest of San Antonio, will soon establish a framework for the development of distributed generation.

Under the terms of an ordinance that passed a first reading on July 28, each single-family residence or business could generate solar or wind power for its own use, then send excess energy back to the electric grid, ultimately saving the amount of electricity the city would have to buy from wholesalers.

“This is an opportunity to add renewable power to the electric utility,” said Don Burger, assistant director of Public Works.

Sounds good to me.  Several questions remain though.

  1. What, if any, will the buyback rate be for electricity put back onto the grid from someone’s rooftop solar system or small wind turbine, for example?
  2. Boerne currently buys all of its electricity from LCRA, which gets most of its power from coal and gas, and is also contracted for 200 MW of the new Sandy Creek coal plant under construction near Waco.  Will Boerne adopt a progressive power provision similar to the one adopted by Pedernales Electric that allows PEC to generate up to 35% of its electricity from local sources like energy efficiency and renewable energy?
  3. Will Boerne set up energy financing districts?  HB 1937 (Villareal) passed the Legislature earlier this year. It allows cities to set up districts wherein the city may issue bonds to cover the costs of major energy efficiency improvements or renewable energy projects for homes and/or businesses. The loan would then be repaid by a special voluntary tax assessment on the property.

Boerne is a publicly-owned utility, which means it is accountable to the people of Boerne, not some power company who may not have residents’ interest at heart when making decisions on power. If you live in Boerne, take a moment to express your support for local renewable energy development to mayor Dan Heckler and city council.

Read Full Post »

Austin Energy Wants to Know: What kind of an energy future do you want?

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 5, 2009 |

Smoking or Non-Smoking (high res)

Austin Energy will make a recommendation to City Council in August of their future generation plan through 2020.  According to their website, “an important component of the planning process is input from the community” — but as of April, only about 300 people had filled out Austin Energy’s survey. Through the survey, you can give Austin Energy a quick gut reaction of what kind of an energy future you want: one with more coal and nuclear (boooo, hisssss, cough cough cough), or a non-smoking future fueled by renewable energy and efficiency (cheers, jubilation!).  We need as many Austinites as possible to fill out this survey and send the message loud and clear: say goodbye to our dirty energy past and look to a brighter energy future!

For a quick background on Austin’s current energy mix, check out the following video from our friends at PowerSmack:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYd_AIpH8o&feature=player_profilepage]

According to Austin Energy’s survey, Austinites get about a third each of their power from coal, nuclear, and natural gas, and about 10% from renewables.  Looking at their draft generation plan, they are looking to change that mix to 26% from coal and nuclear power, 44% from natural gas, 5% from biomass, 22% from wind, and 3% from solar by 2020.

That plan may be an improvement from what we’ve got now, but it doesn’t show near the vision and leadership that Austin Energy ought to provide.  Imagine what kind of a message it would send if Austin Energy actually tried to divest itself completely from coal — and shut down the Fayette Coal Plant!

That’s right folks, Austin — that Central Texas shining star of wierdness, environmental stewardship, and progressive politics — has a dirty secret.  We own half of a coal plant, along with LCRA.  And 16% of the South Texas Nuclear Project!

GHASP! Skeletons in the closet.

Ghasp indeed — and skeletons in the closet for real.  We all know how bad coal is, and the Fayette plant is spewing toxic emissions into the air every day on our behalf.  A total of 44 people die early deaths as a result of these emissions every year.

But Austin Energy’s expected proposals don’t put a priority on shutting down Fayette.  That’s why, along with our friends at PowerSmack, we’re launching a new campaign to try to convice Austin Energy and the City Council to shut down Fayette.  Don’t sell it — don’t pawn those emissions off on someone else. Shut. It. Down.

James Hansen, one of the top climate scientists and greatest climate change advocates of our time, has said that the number one thing we can do to stop global warming is to stop using coal.  Better, cleaner alternatives exist.  We’re not looking for a silver bullet here, but through a mixture of aggressive solar, wind, geothermal, and energy efficiency — we can kick the habit.

But the first step is to admit we’ve got a problem.  So fill out the survey, and tell Austin Energy you want your power to come from MUCH LESS coal and nuclear and MUCH MORE renewables and efficiency.

If a city as polluted as Los Angeles can commit to stop using coal by 2020, so can we.  Let’s walk the walk.

Read Full Post »

Energia Mia Press Conference Today!!!

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , on August 5, 2009 |

The press conference marking the announcement of the formation the Energia Mia Coalition takes place today, Aug 5th at 4:30 at St. Paul’s Community Center, 1201 Donaldson – at Donaldson and St. Cloud Road. The media arrives at 5:00 and several people from local groups are scheduled to speak. For any questions contact Cindy Weehler, at, 210-367-8510 or Kat Swift 210-471-1791. We hope to see as many people there as we can get, thanks for your support.

Many concerned San Antonio citizens will speak including: Patti Radle, Former City Council Member
Diana Lopez, Southwest Workers Union
Charles Schirmer, Project Verde
Mariana Ornelas, AGUA – Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas Christel Villareal, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association
John Carlos Garcia, District 7
Margarita Maldonado, District 8
David Wells, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club Charles English, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association
Alyssa Burgin, Texas Drought Project
Pedro Fernandez, Green Party
John Courage, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition

Also the coalition would like to announce the opening of its website: http://www.energiamia.org/.

Read Full Post »

Austin Energy May Cut GreenChoice Power Prices

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , , , , on August 3, 2009 |

greenChoiceAfter a rash of local and national press about the recent failure of Austin Energy’s GreenChoice program, Austin Energy has decided to re-evaluate their pricing structure.  The city may be able to reduce the cost of the program by as much as 25%.  Turns out Austin Energy was overly conservative in their estimate of how much it would cost to deliver wind power, so they can knock the price back down without taking a hit.  Roger Duncan, AE’s General Manager, has also suggested spreading out remaining transmission costs to all customers.

Though some non-GreenChoice customers may object to being saddled with this slight extra cost, GreenChoice customers have to pay the same amount as traditional customers for upkeep and maintenence of dirty energy sources, so it evens out.  The other option to make the who-pays-for-what game fair would be to charge GreenChoice customers a pro-rated maintenance fee for the percentage of fossil fuel and nuclear power they received — but in order to do that Austin Energy might have to go and raise everyone else’s maintenance fee to fill in the gap, so rates could go up anyway.  Spreading transmission costs sounds like an easier way to accomplish the same goal, and is consistent with “the policy of all 850 American electric utilities with a program similar to GreenChoice,” according to a memo from Austin Energy to the City Council. Plus, the switch would add less than a cent to everyone’s bill.

Roger Duncan will go to the City Council August 20th to ask for the new rate change and cost distribution.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »