Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

As you may have read elsewhere on our blog, we tried to attend the “Energy Citizens” rally in Houston yesterday but were turned away.

Even far-right teabaggers, brought out to the event by FreedomWorks and a promise of a free meal, weren’t allowed in, despite actually being sympatico with Big Oil’s agenda.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGSuYzg8z4]

The offending item that got one kicked out?  An American flag.  Why does Big Oil hate our freedom?


This is just the 30 second trailer– a longer, more in-depth interview with people who were not allowed in the rally will be posted in the next 24 hours.

Read Full Post »

energycitizenYesterday the Public Citizen Texas team drove down to Houston to crash the American Petroleum Institute’s Energy Citizen event.  Billed as a “grassroots” rally against the cap and trade bill currently before Congress, this event was nothing more than a company picnic.

About 2500 energy employees were brought by charter bus to the Verizon Wireless Theater, a private location that could be easily secured to keep undesirables out.  David, Ryan, and Andy were all denied access, but stealthily dressed in Banana Republic and spectator pumps, I was able to blend in with the crowd and slip into the hot dog line.

Inside the theater it became evident quickly what a polished, professional event this was.  Right at the door you could pick up a bright yellow t-shirt with a clever slogan on it like “I’ll pass on $4 gas”, “I’m an Energy Citizen!”, and “Congress, Don’t Take Away My Job!”  The same lines could also be found on bumper stickers and the same kinds of cardboard signs you would wave at a football game.

donttakemyjob

In the middle of the arena was a giant action center where employees could voice their disapproval of climate change legislation through a variety of mechanisms.  Six or seven computers were cued up with petitions to Sens. Hutchison and Cornyn, and attendees were invited to text JOBS to 363749(ENERGY) to get involved.  Drop boxes for postcards were also positioned in the corners of the room, and “activists” could sharpie their signatures to 8 foot tall “shame on you” or “thank you” letters to Congressmen that voted for or against the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

My favorite aspect of the rally by far, however, was the high school marching band and star spangled dance team.  When I asked one of the teenage dancers what she thought the rally was about, she told me she thought that it was about conserving energy.

I was able to interview several rally attendees, but the majority of folks regarded me with suspicion or didn’t want to talk to me.  Others clearly didn’t have much of an opinion on the bill other than what they’d been told, but one gentleman I spoke to was actually concerned about the special interest carve-outs in the bill for dirty coal.  Stay posted for the video of these interviews later today, with the working title “Energy Workers Say the Darndest Things.” Teaser:

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

After about an hour I started to run out out of room on my camera, so I moved toward the front doors to see if I could trade off cameras with Andy, who was still stationed outside.  Big mistake.  Once the chief security guard saw me make eye contact with a marked man, I was out of there.  He grabbed my shoulder and asked “what energy company do you work for?”  When I said I wasn’t with an energy company but was a member of the media, he said I was misrepresenting myself and summarily kicked me out.

I was a little disappointed to miss out on the great list of speakers, especially rodeo man Bill Bailey, who was master of ceremonies (irony, irony, irony, seeing as this rally was all hat and no cattle).  But speaking to other individuals who had been denied access was even more enlightening than listening to Big Oil preach their sermon.

This was such a fake, Astroturf event that they didn’t know how to handle legitimate grassroots support. A couple of women who had been to some of the teabagger events and townhalls came down, armed with American flags and excited to protest “crap and tax” — but even THEY weren’t allowed in.  Several others who had heard about the rally through Freedom Works, on right wing radio, or in the paper were also locked out.

Yesterday’s rally was the first of about twenty rallies that will be staged nationwide over the next few weeks.  Thanks to Greenpeace, we already knew Big Oil’s game plan: rally up a bunch of Astroturf support to kill cap and trade.  But now we know the full story — they don’t even want to hear the voices of their real grassroots.  These events are by invitation only, and all other members of the public — for or against climate legislation — will be shut out.  If you don’t work for the company, you’re not invited to the picnic.

Read Full Post »

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 »

It has been less than 24 hours since I received a copy of Austin Energy’s Generation Plan recommendation and there’s a lot here to like.  Before I get to the highlights, let me just say that those of you who spoke up, filled out the survey, played the sim game and demanded more renewable energy, energy efficiency, less dependence on coal, your voice was heard!

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

Read Full Post »

UPDATE:  Greenpeace has just obtained an internal API memo detailing their astroturf plans.  You can read the memo and Greenpeace’s reply here.  Job “whale” done, Greenpeace!

***

Most people have a good general conception of what a real grassroots movement looks like: citizens get outraged over some injustice or inequity and get organized and get active.  These campaigns are built from the bottom up.

Astroturfing a Texas Highway

Astroturfing a Texas Highway

And what happens when you don’t have a grassroots movement but want to make it look like you do?  Well, then you Astro-turf a movement in, paying hired guns to pretend to be “activists” who then show up to townhall meetings and other public forums. Fake grass- sent from top down, rather than something grown naturally from the ground up.  A lot of these protesters have been either astroturfed in or given specific instructions on how to disrupt these townhalls in an attempt to shout down opinions other than their own.

We in Texas know a thing about Astroturf, the name having originated as the name of the artificial turf used in the Houston Astrodome.  (Coincidentally, the first ever Super Bowl played on astroturf was also in Houston at SuperBowl VIII in 1974.)

Many have criticized recent astroturf campaigns on healthcare, climate change, and the infamous tea-baggers because of their coordination by Washington lobbyists and special interests.  In fact, Senator Dick Durbin (IL), the #2 Democrat in the Senate, Sunday told CNN’s John King,

“We have these screaming groups on either side. That isn’t helpful. Let’s be honest about this. . . this is clearly being orchestrated, and these folks have instructions. They come down from a Texas lobbyist in Washington.”

So what’s the difference between what Public Citizen does (educate, activate and organize citizens) and what the astroturfers do (hired guns, fomenting support based on misinformation for the purpose of financial gain)?  Many groups engage in grassroots organizing, from Public Citizen to the League of Conservation Voters to the NRA, and use their membership to engage in activism, and some of this leadership comes from our paid staff in DC or Austin, etc.  However, Public Citizen has a long history of never accepting donations from corporations or government grants, meaning we can always clearly represent only the interests of our membership without any conflicts of interest.

On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, these atroturf campaigns are actually schilling for major corporate interests who have a financial stake in climate change, health insurance, etc.  The most glaring example is ACCCE, the coal industry group that represents 48 of the largest coal electricty utilities in the US with a combined net revenues last year of nearly $200 billion.    ACCCE’s mission is to sell their false claims of clean coal technology.  Haven’t heard of ACCCE?  Well, maybe it’s because they used to be called “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices” but decided to “rebrand” since it became obvious that “balanced” energy choices meant all coal all the time.

Their ads became so ridiculous they became parodied like this, in this commercial from Oscar Winners Joel and Ethan Coen:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_U1Z0vezw]

Anyway, they’re up to their old Orwellian tricks again.

In the weeks before the House voted on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES),  ACCCE’s lobbyists forged letters to Congress, claiming to be representatives of minority and environmental justice groups such as NAACP.  (A huge tip of the hat to to Kate Sheppard at Grist who has been following this very closely– also follow Kate on Twitter for the best enviro updates this side of @ClimateHaiku)

Even more amazing was that these letters claimed that enacting climate legislation would hurt low-income communities, even though the national NAACP (and many, many other social justice groups) had come down in support of ACES.  No word yet how many fake letters they sent to members of Congress pretending to be average constituents, rather than important community members who could be easily verified, and we will probably never know the extent of the fraud they have perpetrated.

That is Astroturfing, my friends.

Another egregious example, coming soon to the theater near you, is that the American Petroleum Institute and National Association of Manufacturers along with other flat-earth anti-climate change legislation groups are teaming up to host townhall-style meetings in 20 key states to attempt to influence the passage of the climate bill in the Senate (see articles here and here).  So, the deep, deep pockets of big oil and big business are trying to buy themselves a grassroots movement.  Will they have any luck?

And then, as a corollary to astroturfing, we have the local example of Austin’s Congressman Lloyd Doggett, who has gained a lot of media attention because of the angry throngs showing up to mob him and yell “Just Say No!” to health care reform.

Depending on your view of Doggett, doggett supermanDoggett Devilyou may have shown up to his previous townhalls to lambaste, lampoon, or lavish praise on him.  I have been to these neighborhood office hours before to speak with Congressman Doggett (he is, after all, my Representative in Washington) and I have never seen anything like what happened two weeks ago.  Most people show up to politely engage the Congressman about a (more…)

Read Full Post »

Being an environmentalist in Texas, sometimes it feels like the whole world is against you.  There’s a common assumption that folks around here just don’t care as much about the environment as elsewhere, and that people don’t see climate change as all that much of a threat.  When I tell people that I work to protect the environment and combat climate change, the reaction is often “whew, in Texas? Good luck.”

But surprisingly, polls show that people in Texas are just as concerned about climate change as in the rest of the U.S. Two recently conducted 2009 polls — Lyceum Poll and the Houston Area Survey — show that Texans not only share similar views on climate change with the rest of the nation, but that there is just as strong a desire for regulation here as anywhere else.  Who’da thunk?

Results from the Lyceum Poll show that a slightly higher percentage of Texans actually supported a cap and trade mechanism than opposed it.  When asked the following question,

There’s a proposed system called “cap and trade.” The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. Companies that did not use all their permits could sell them to other companies. Supporters argue that many companies would find ways to put out less greenhouse gases, because that would be cheaper than buying permits. Opponents argue that this amounts to a huge tax on large companies. Would you support or oppose this system?

… 47% said they would still support cap and trade, while 44% were opposed.  The other 11% either didn’t know or didn’t want to say.  These results are pretty close to that of a national poll for the Washington Post and ABC News, which had a slightly higher margin of support for cap and trade.

When asked, “What about requiring utilities to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, even if this means that electricity rates will rise?”, respondents to the Houston Area Survey were 49% for and 45% against — pretty close to the results of the Lyceum Poll.  The Houston numbers dropped significantly from the last time that the survey was completed in 2007, when 66% were for and just 25% against.  Considering the current economic climate however, this isn’t particularly shocking.

Both Texas and national polls are showing, however, that the split between the “fors” and the “againsts” is increasingly falling along party lines.

So take heart, my fellow enviros.  You may think that you’re alone out there — but chances are, at least half of the state is probably on your side.  Our representatives might not be acting like it, but that’s probably because 9 times out of 10, they aren’t hearing from everyday citizens.  They’re hearing from business, industry, and the special interests that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.  Might be worth your while to drop them a line, tell them how you feel.  What’ve you got to lose?

Read Full Post »

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 MiaCPS has a meeting today at Firefighters Union Hall (8925-IH10 WEST) from 6:00-8:00 pm. Anyone from District 8 is encouraged to attend and speak for the cause. Each person gets three minutes of talk time and the Local Power/Energia Mia Coalition needs to have its concerns about the South Texas Projects Proposed expansion voiced by as many people as possible. This is especially true of our concerns about the proposed reactors’ heavy water consumption during times of drought (like this one), the proposal’s high cost and the high likelihood of costs over-runs, and the huge financial burden this means for San Antonio ratepayers.

Next week another CPS meeting will be held Tuesday, August 4 (District 2) from 6:00-8:00 pm at Freeman Coliseum, 3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Here are some other important Local Power/Energia Mia events:

August 10 – Mayor Castro’s Town Hall Meeting (Part 1) from 5:30-9:00 pm at the City Council Chambers (across street from City Hall). Questions that were given to the Mayor’s office from some environmental groups will be answered by CPS, who will have them a week ahead of time so they can’t “wuss out.”

August 12 – Town Hall Meeting (Part 2) from 3:00-5:00 pm, same place. This will be a chance for City Council members to ask their own questions of CPS.

We need as many people to turn out at both meetings as possible. City Council must know that we care about this issue and that we have numbers on our side. Get as many people as you can to go to this – we want people standing in the aisles. Invite those at your district meetings who spoke to oppose nuclear expansion.

August 12 – same night! – Texas Public Radio will have its own Town Hall Meeting on nuclear energy. They are requesting audience members to bring and ask questions of their panel. I will pass information on as it becomes available.

Future CPS presentations that need to be attended in force; plan the ones you will attend:

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Tuesday, September 15 (District 4)
Knights of Columbus
5763 Ray Ellison Blvd.

September 16 – San Antonio Clean Technology Forum’s panel discussion/luncheon with guest speakers. It will cost, but we need to show a strong presence, as this is the clean energy investment business community we have to persuade to oppose nuclear. More when we know more 🙂

Read Full Post »

Power companies’ plans to pursue new nuclear projects are damaging their credit ratings, which may mean higher costs will be shifted onto ratepayers. In a new report by Moody’s Investors Service titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing”, the firm raises concerns about investing in new nuclear plants with great risks and capitol costs at a time when national energy policy is uncertain.

Of the 17 proposed reactor projects Moody’s analyzed, two already have obligations rated as speculative or “junk”, and both are in Texas: NRG’s South Texas Project (“questionable credit quality”) and Energy Future Holding’s Comanche Peak (“generally poor credit quality”).

Exelon’s proposed two unit reactor in Victoria was rated as one step above junk status (between Baa1 and Baa3).

“If these guys are already having trouble with their credit ratings, why should Texans mortgage their future building new plants that even the builders can’t finance?,” asks Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office.

Good question.

Read Full Post »

If you missed Tuesday night’s episode of The Daily Show, you did not get to see John Stewart and guest Steven Chu (Obama’s Nobel Prize winning Secretary of Energy) discuss the Waxman-Markey climate bill and America’s energy future. For those who missed it here are some highlights:

Jon Stewart Jizz-Ams in Front of Children – Cap’n Trade
Steven Chu

I couldn’t agree more with point made by Jon Stewart in the first clip. The best intentions of the original bill were radically altered to accommodate the financial interests of big energy corporations. This highlights the need to strengthen the bill in the Senate. I also enjoyed Jon Stewart’s discussion of global warming denial with Secretary Chu.  Its amazing how misinformed our population can be, and unfortunately this includes many of our Representatives in Congress.

Read Full Post »

round up

Time again for the Texas Progressive Alliance weekly blog roundup.

Off the Kuff takes closer look at that story about Texas turnout in last year’s election.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson adds some context to what’s being said in Texas about Unemployment insurance, the stimulus, and Gov. Perry.

This week at McBlogger, Krispy Kreme takes a moment to tell of her personal experiences with folks desperately in need of adequate health care.

John Coby at Bay Area Houston thinks Clear Lake Hospital has a heart of Cold.

No matter what Governor Rick Perry says or hopes for, Texas is part of the federal union. Neil at Texas Liberal offers a video this week of him reading Federalist Paper #9 on the site of the San Jacinto battlefield. Federalist #9 talks about the need for a strong union and San Jacinto is where Texas won independence from Mexico.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that John Cornyn chooses to be an a**hole over Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation.

TXsharon is combining Principles of Community Organizing (POCO) training with a vacation in Colorado so several of her posting this week contained pictures of the Durango & Silverton train ride, clean air, huge deer and breathtaking beauty. But, be sure to check out the progress made from working on the Railroad in regards to land farming toxic drilling waste.

Over at TexasKaos, lightseeker explains why the language we use in defending Health Care Reform matters more than we may think. Hint: They want to have a discussion of Government takeover of health care. We should want to discuss the necessity and fundamental fairness of publicly assisted health care for all. We can win one of these debates, but probably not the other. Check it out…

Miss Hypocrisy, meet Mr. Ignorant. Kay Bailey pricked Rick Perry for snubbing stimulus money she voted against. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs serves.

WhosPlayin was on vacation all week, but still ended up spending some time reading the Health Care Bill and has written a summary of the ‘Public Option’ part of the bill, noting that it looks an awful lot like a PPO.

This week Teddy from Left of College Station covers the Bryan-College Station Chamber of Commerce resolution to oppose any national health care, and reviews what the resolution says and what the resolution means. Left of College Station also covers the week in headlines.

Read Full Post »

Dont Nuke The Alamo:  Local Power Coalition, opposes new Nuclear Reactors

Dont Nuke The Alamo: Local Power Coalition, opposes new Nuclear Reactors

Don’t Nuke The Alamo!  As we all know, San Antonio’s CPS energy is on the verge of investing in a third and fourth reactor for the South Texas Nuclear project in Bay City. In addition to the environmental and social concerns we have about nuclear power at Public Citizen, we also want to make it known that these reactors are a huge financial gamble. Our best independent studies on the topic show that it will likely be well over budget (possibly 100% over budget) and there is every reason to expect unplanned time delays and hidden costs.

Fortunately the citizens of San Antonio are working to voice their concerns about the project and encourage CPS to reconsider this investment. I recently attended the first meeting of Local Power (or Energía Mia), a coalition of various environmental and social organizations from the San Antonio area, to talk about ways we can voice our concerns about the proposal and get our Mayor and City Council to take action. For anyone interested, the next local power meeting will take place on July 28th at the San Antonio Progress Action Coaltion (SAAPAC) office. Plans were made to target local council members by participating in and producing Public Service Announcements, Forums, District Meetings, Right-wing talk radio interviews and radios ads, and letters to churches and neighborhood associations.

Anyone concerned about these issues is welcome to help and attend any events. SAAPAC head Cindy Wheeler expressed plans for the group to make a concentrated effort to identify the San Antonio residents who will experience a 5% or more rate hike on their electric bills if the reactors are built and help them voice their opposition.

The attendees made plans to attend the CPS Neighbors Night meeting series which will take place all around San Antonio on the designated nights at 6:00pm. At these meetings any interested person can sign up to speak. Here is the schedule for the remaining meetings:

Thursday, July 23 (District 1)
Tripoint Center (YMCA)
3233 N. St. Marys St.

Tuesday, August 4 (District 2)
Freeman Coliseum
3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Wednesday, August 5 (District 7)
St. Paul’s Community Center
1201 Donaldson

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Thursday, July 23 (District 1)
Tripoint Center (YMCA)
3233 N. St. Marys St.

Thursday, July 30 (District 8 )
Firefighters Union Hall
8925 IH-10 West

Tuesday, August 4 (District 2)
Freeman Coliseum
3201 E. Houston St.
(Held in Auction Barn. Enter through west gate off W Houston near railroad tracks. Parking available in Lot #9)

Wednesday, August 5 (District 7)
St. Paul’s Community Center
1201 Donaldson

Tuesday, August 25 (District 9)
Alzafar Shrine Temple (Terrace Room)
901 North Loop 1604

Tuesday, September 1 (District 10)
My Father’s House
3131 Nacogdoches Road, Suite 105

Wednesday, September 2 (District 3)
Holy Name Activity Center
6618 Fairlawn

Tuesday, September 15 (District 4)
Knights of Columbus
5763 Ray Ellison Blvd.

Read Full Post »

The following editorial from the San Antonio Express News is an excellent take on the issue of the South Texas Project nuclear expansion. Kudos to Carlos Guerra!

Expert offers uniquely Texan power solution

Carlos Guerra – San Antonio Express News

With a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from UC-Berkeley, Arjun Makhijani has followed energy issues and innovations for decades. But with his uncanny understanding of economics, and a willingness to put a pencil to what comes along, when he says something, you listen.

Or, at least, you should.

Makhijani’s most recent book, “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free” is now a must-read on emerging energy solutions. And last fall, he studied CPS Energy’s plans to participate in the doubling of the South Texas Project.

Among other things, the engineer concluded that the two new reactors would cost more than twice what was projected.

CPS’ latest forecasts now almost echo Makhijani’s.

And Wednesday, he advised CPS to closely re-examine its drive to expand the STP and, especially, its latest twist in the deal: to sell excess electricity on the wholesale market to offset the regular rate increases that would be made necessary to pay for the new reactors.

“Especially in a deep recession, when demand for electricity is going down throughout the country, and nobody has any idea when it will recover,” he said, “for San Antonio to say they are going to sell electricity on the open market at rates that will benefit ratepayers is gambling with public money.”

Makhijani did compliment our utility’s newfound commitment to promoting greater efficiencies and relying more heavily on wind energy. But he also offered alternatives to the pricey investment in nuclear power that he says would be better and safer — economically and environmentally — and yield better results more quickly.

“The combination of efficiency, storage and wind, and concentrating solar thermal energy would be the right mix,” he said. “And the pace at which you do that should depend on the economic circumstances. You shouldn’t be overbuilding anything, not wind, solar or whatever.

“In San Antonio, the first thing to do is to start making money on efficiencies so bills don’t go up for consumers,” he continued.

“That will lay the foundation for a solid electricity sector that will be modern and that can accommodate changes.”

And since CPS leads Texas in its commitment to buying wind energy, it should incorporate storage strategies so it can purchase excess electricity when it is cheapest, and distribute it to augment other electricity sources when demand — and other electricity prices — soar.

The Japanese, Makhijani noted, are already using large industrial sodium-sulfur batteries to do just that with wind energy.

But in Texas, storing energy as compressed air in massive underground caverns — as is done with natural gas — might make more sense. And it is a proven technology.

Then, when energy demand peaks, the compressed air is heated with small amounts of natural gas and used to drive turbines to generate electricity that can help meet the peak-load demands.

When you think about it, that would be a perfectly Texan solution. When temperatures soar and air conditioners are cranked up, we could solve our peak demand problems with natural gas and a lot of hot air.

Read Full Post »

Recently the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) denied the emergency petition of State Representative Sylvester Turner (D – Houston) and a number of advocacy groups including AARP Texas, Texas ROSE, Texas Legal Services, and One Voice Texas, to prevent dangerous electricity disconnections during Texas’ hot summer months.  This petition was designed to offer relief to elderly, medically frail, and low-income consumers and protect them from dangerously high heat — which causes deaths in vulnerable communities every year.

Just a few weeks ago, a 56 year old man in Houston named Herbert Gaston died inside his home as a result of “a combination of underlying medical issues and heat exposure.”  His air conditioner broke the day before.  On the day he died, it got up to 113 degrees inside the house.  His brother went to the grocery store for a couple hours, and when he came back, Herbert was gone.

It is tragic, but heat-related deaths such as this happen all the time.  In the period between 1999 and 2004, 258 Texans died with exposure to heat as the underlying cause.  In Houston alone, an average of 24 people die heath-related deaths every year.  These deaths are preventable, and Turner’s emergency rule would have provided a cushion to those at risk by making it illegal for retail electric providers to shut people’s power off when they can’t pay their electric bills.  Turner’s rule would have allowed consumers to stack their energy bills and pay them off over the next few months.

From Turner’s official press release,

The petition requests the PUC to establish basic market wide protections requiring utility companies to keep the power on if their customers fall behind on their bills but set up proper payment plans and honor them. The proposed rule also establishes a heat threshold protection, disallowing any electricity disconnections in an area when the heat index will reach or exceed 105 degrees Fahrenheit.

“The rule encourages customers to make payments and keep the power on so that their households can keep safe in the extremely hot Texas summer; but it also allows for some much needed flexibility in dealing with what is often for consumers much higher summer electricity bills. Industry is not in the business of turning the power off, and I’m not seeking to give electricity away. This is a win – win situation for consumers and the electric industry,” said Representative Turner.

“Much of Texas is currently experiencing triple digit temperatures and no relief is in sight. We are seeking to establish some basic protections for the safety and welfare of consumers. We can not afford to lose lives simply because someone fell behind on their electricity bill,” said Turner.

Representative Sylvester Turner’s Petition for Adoption of an Emergency Disconnection Rule [Docket No. 37142] was very similar to legislation introduced this session to provide basic consumer protection for vulnerable populations such as low-income communities, the elderly, and medically frail.  Unfortunately for Texans, Turner’s petition was denied before the PUC commissioners even listened to testimony.

Sylvester Turner, understandably, was incensed:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGqvb6pAzDE]

The commission argued that Turner’s rule was unnecessary because protections from electricity shut-offs already exist in PUC code (see Subchapter R, section g — disconnection of ill and disabled).  This rule provides protection to those that can prove a disconnection would be dangerous to their health with a doctor’s note.  Easy, right?  I mean, everyone has access to affordable healthcare, right?  Just go to your family doctor and ask him to make a call for you, what’s the bid deal?

I hope you sense the sarcasm.  Clearly not everyone has access to affordable health care — in fact, according to a report released this March by Families USA, 44 percent of Texans did not have health insurance, many for 6 months or more, in 2007 and 2008.  And the same people that don’t have health care are often going to be the same people having trouble meeting high summer electricity bills.  So what are those Texans without health insurance– nearly half of the state — supposed to do?  Go to the emergency room to get a doctor’s note for the PUC?

Commissioners also argued that since electricity rates are lower this year than normal, folks will be paying lower bills and there’s nothing to worry about.  Except, oh, I dunno… that whole “economic downturn” we keep hearing about!  Just because rates are a little lower than previous years doesn’t mean that its easier to meet bills this year than any other, because clearly all other factors are not equal.  Last year rates may have been higher, but unemployment was also 4.2% then, compared to 7.1% as of this May.

In my opinion, the Commissioners were incredibly insensitive in their reasoning.  One also argued that if Turner’s rule were to take effect, people could ostensibly pay zero dollars for their electricity during the summer and then be stuck with tremendous bills in the fall that they couldn’t pay… and then electricity providers wouldn’t get their money.

Turner said it best, and can save me the trouble — “The companies ought to be proud of you because you have argued their case.  For people who are more afraid of their electricity bills than they are of the heat itself, you have not argued their case.”

Thankfully, some power providers and local governmental agencies are undertaking voluntary programs to protect their customers from dangerous heat.  Reliant Energy in Houston is sponsoring and arranging rides to eight cooling centers spread throughout the city.  For specific information on these “Beat the Heat Centers”, or to schedule free rides to and from the Beat the Heat Centers, interested participants can call 713-497-2711.

Dallas County Health and Human Services has also launched a campaign to prevent heat-related deaths, and TXU Energy is working with those having trouble paying high bills this summer.  Dallas residents without working air conditioners should call Dallas County health officials on (214) 819-6001 or (214) 819 1848.

During the Public Meeting, Commissioners also raised the point that even if they had passed this rule, it would not apply to municipally owned utilities such as Austin Energy or San Antonio’s CPS Energy.

Austin Energy customers worried about falling behind on their energy bills this summer have a number of options.  Eligible customers can sign up for a deferred payment program to spread their bills out a bit, or look into the Customer Assistance program.  Folks that aren’t worried about their bills but are worried about Austinites at risk from shut-offs and heat danger can also contribute to this program on the return portion of your energy bill.  Eligible customers can also sign up for free home energy improvements to reduce energy use and save money.  Family Eldercare also has a summer fan drive to keep central Texans cool and safe.  Visit their website for more information on getting a fan or donating to the program.

San Antonio residents can look into two major programs provided by CPS Energy, their Emergency Assistance Program and the Residential Energy Assistance Partnership (REAP) to help disadvantaged elderly, disabled and low-income customers with small children pay their natural gas and electric bills.

Next time you check your energy bill, check and see if your electric provider offers an opportunity to donate towards those less fortunate and keep Texans cool.  For those on the fringes of our society, being able to pay electricity bills can be a matter of life and death.

UPDATE: According to Dave Lieber at the Fort Worth Star Telegram, “Under state rules, companies must offer customers deferred payment plans when asked to do so.” Any individual unable to pay their month-to-month bill should definitely contact their electricity provider and ask for this option.

Read Full Post »

After CPS Energy unveiled its optimistically low $13 billion proposal for South Texas Project reactors three and four, I decided to look into the history of the construction of the first two reactors. What I found was troubling, but it seemed to be pretty much in line with my understanding of problems with nuclear projects during the 70s and 80. Here is a brief time line:

1971: Houston Lighting and Power presents proposal for South Texas Nuclear Project, with an estimated cost of 1 billion dollars for the entire project.

1973: Construction begins, with contractor Brown and Root. A $1 billion cost is agreed upon and the first reactor is projected to be finished by 1980 and the second by 1982.

1979: Brown and Root Inspector Dan Swayze gives interview with CBS Magazine, discussing his decision to stop inspecting concrete pours after a 1977 incident at STP in which concrete workers at STP threatened his life and physically assaulted another inspector. “They beat the hell out of him” -Swayze

1979: Estimated costs rise to $2.7 Billion and completion of the reactors is postponed

to 1984 for the first and 1986 for the second.

1979: Three Mile Island accident. San Antonio reevaluates its role in the project.

1980: After 3,000 complaints reports of work deficiencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a report citing 22 violations and fines HL&P $100,000 and issues a “show cause order” requiring the company to explain why the project should be allowed to continue.

1980: HL&P voluntarily stops work after problems are discovered in the welding and concrete. The projected is rated below average by Ralph Nader’s Critical Mass Energy Project. It is ranked among the top 4 worst ongoing projects.

1981: HL&P fires original contractor Brown and Root (who had no previous experience with nuclear reactors) and replaces them with Bechtel Corporation. Estimated completion costs increase to $4.5 billion.

1985: Brown and Root looses a $750 million law suit, filed by Houston Lighting & Power, San Antonio City Public Service, Central Power, Light of Corpus Christi and the city of Austin. At the time this was the largest cash legal settlement in U.S History.

1987: HL&P receives low-power operating license for Unit 1 nuclear reactor.

1988: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts last minute inspection of facility after hundreds of allegations of poor construction, over 50 of which were made by plant workers through the Government Accountability Project. Among the allegations was a claim that roughly 20% of the plant’s safety valves were installed backwards. This was never corrected after it was concluded that the plant could still function with backwards safety valves.

1988: Completion is announced 7 years late and 500% over budget.

1989: City of Austin files lawsuit against Houston Lighting and Power for unexpected expenses and delays during the construction of STP. Texas Court in Dallas Rules in HL&P’s Favor.

Since 1990: STP and other nuclear plants spend an average of $45 million each year disposing of waste. To clarify that is average is per plant.

CPS energy is giving an optimistically low estimate of the total cost of the project.  Estimates that consider the cost overruns and construction delays that plagued STP and similar projects last time  peg the plant at no lower than $17 billion. This look at STP’s history provides a good example of what can happen when we don’t recognize the likely additional expenditures an expensive project like this will have and operate on an unrealistic time frame.  San Antonio is on the verge of repeating many of the mistakes of the past, and it is the citizens that will have to pay.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »