Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘City Council’

Now that the ball’s dropped, toasts made, fireworks popped and black eyed peas consumed, we’re feeling reflective today.  Faced with that eternally annual question, “Should Auld Aquaintance Be Forgot?“, I’m moved to such mental poetry as “Heck no, this year was too much fun!”

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

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

1. Energy Citizens

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

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

2. The 2009 81st Legislative Session

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Read Full Post »

The Texas Progressive Alliance is still somewhat amazed to be living in the year we make contact, and we hope we’re all still going strong when Odyssey Three rolls around.

Texas has most drilling, worst regulation. Texas made national news this week in the ProPublica investigative report and they used pictures provided by TXsharon @ Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.

WhosPlayin reports that the local city council is once again considering the question of whether to participate in 287(g) and force its vendors to use E-Verify to check for work eligibility.

BossKitty at TruthHugger found a poignant editorial on Al Jazeera: Weary Soldiers At Risk, They Know This – Why do foreign correspondents have more in depth observations than America’s own Corporate media who follows the money and toes the line for sponsors political perks that promise ’scoops’.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme thinks all kids should be given free, nutritious school meals. Just do it.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson discusses another worthless GOP plan for transportation in Texas, Kay’s transportation plan is a clunker.

The Texas Cloverleaf questions whether or not a Houston City Councilman-elect knows the difference between a campaign website and city resources.

Off the Kuff called out some political gamesmanship over the murder rate in Harris County.

Last week Teddy reviewed the best of the Left of College Station, and looks at the year ahead at Left of College Station. This week Left of College Station will begin coverage of the 2010 campaign season in the Brazos Valley, and report on human trafficking in Houston.

Candidate filings, including Gordon Quan for Harris County Judge and a list of the statewides, appears in PDiddie’s post at Brains and Eggs.

Bay Area Houston hopes the next decade will be better than the last.

Justin at Asian American Action Fund Blog covered Gordon Quan’s campaign kickoff including full video of Quan’s speech.

LibbyShaw puts together the latest throw downs exposing GOP hypocrisy and lies. Check it out : Rachel Maddow Busts Republicans for Cowardice, Hypocrisy and Lies.

At McBlogger, Mayor McSleaze noted with some interest that Marc Katz filed for Lt. Governor. Some, but not much. More important to him was a really nasty prairie dog attack.

Neil at Texas Liberal selected his wife as person of the decade and named his blog—Texas Liberal— as blog of the decade.

###

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

Read Full Post »

With just two days before San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds to move forward with the South Texas Nuclear Project two reactor expansion, officials announced yesterday that the cost estimate for the project had ballooned by up to $4 BILLION.  That means that the new price tag on the new reactors, up from $13 Billion, is now a whopping $17 Billion (and don’t forget that even $13 Billion was a big jump from the original cost estimate of $5.4 Billion).  As a result, the Council has postponed the vote until January.

This is a huge victory for environmentalists, social justice workers, and citizen activists who have been tirelessly organizing opposition to new nuclear reactors.  If these concerned citizens hadn’t gotten involved, the City Council would have voted to approve the bonds a month ago, with no option to renegotiate their contract or pricing.  Because citizens got educated and involved, City Council was forced to delay the vote until they had all the information.  And the information, as it turns out, is that the cost estimates that groups like Public Citizen and SEED Coalition have been predicting for more than a year (up to $17.5 Billion according to a 2008 study by Arjun Makhijani and as much as $22 Billion according to analyst Clarence Johnson), far from a Cassandra cry, have been right on the money all along.

For all the dirty details, be sure to read the San Antonio Express-News’ breaking article Nuclear cost estimate rises by as much as $4 billion and the San Antonio Current’s blog post Nuke Collider: San Antonio delays $400 million nuke bond vote over Toshiba cost surge.  And courtesy of the unstoppable Greg Harman at the Current, check out the following video from the emergency press conference CPS officials and the Mayor’s office held yesterday, a MUST WATCH:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwdivqvtjgc&feature=player_embedded]

What I find most interesting about this whole mess is that CPS insiders knew a week and a half ago that the costs were up by $4 Billion, but neglected to tell the Mayor or City Council until yesterday.  And even then, it didn’t come as a formal announcement — the cat was only let out of the bag because, as the Express-News reports, an aide of the Mayor confronted CPS about rumors of a cost increase.

CPS interim General Manager Steve Bartley said the utility’s main contractor on the project, Toshiba Inc., informed officials that the cost of the reactors would be “substantially greater” than CPS’ estimate of $13 billion, which includes financing.

He said utility officials found out about the increase “within the last week and a half or so.”

But the mayor said he only learned the news Monday night after an aide asked Bartley about rumors of a cost estimate increase.

Castro said he didn’t know whether CPS would have divulged the increase to the council before its vote Thursday had his aide not directly questioned utility management.

“One would hope otherwise, but the evidence seems to suggest that they were less than proactive,” he said.

Sounds like CPS was going to wait until after Thursday’s vote to share their special need-to-know information, and that if it weren’t for those meddling kids they would have gotten away with it too.

Any way you look at it, yesterday’s announcement is fortuitous for the City of San Antonio.  Now City Council has a better idea of the real costs they are looking at with the project, and hopefully will think twice about placing their trust in CPS Energy now that they’ve been burned by the utility’s untransparent business practices.  With two months time until the vote, City Council now has plenty of time to order an independent study to model various energy scenarios and present a slew of options (besides just “nuclear or nothing”) for San Antonio’s energy future — including a heavy mix of renewable energy and efficiency. An outside study to model alternatives would present City Council with the most cost-effective, least risky, most environmentally sustainable plan possible. CPS claims to have done a ‘thorough’ investigation of these options, but just as they conveniently underestimated the cost of nuclear, they have overestimated the cost of renewable energies such as wind, solar, storage, and energy efficiency to the point of absurdity.  With two months to work at it, there is no reason why San Antonio shouldn’t have a green plan to put up against the nuclear plan by January.  They nearly voted to approve the project this week without the full range of information.  San Antonio City Council can’t put themselves in that situation again.

But don’t take my word for it.  Check out the following statements from Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office and Karen Hadden, director of the SEED Coalition:

Cost Increase of South Texas Project Shows Nuclear Power Is Too Expensive, Too Risky

Statement of Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

We can’t think of any good reasons for the San Antonio City Council to continue with this project when there are far less expensive alternatives readily available. Investing in wind and solar makes much more sense and carries none of the risks – both the extreme financial risk that CPS wants taxpayers to bear and the health and safety risks inherent with nuclear power. If the City Council continues with this project, the average ratepayers will see their utility bills increase by 50 percent.

If San Antonio citizens hadn’t stepped to the plate, the City Council would have voted for the STP a month ago and the city would have been another $400 million in the hole with no option to renegotiate. But citizens got educated and got involved. Their involvement made the City Council delay the vote until they had all the information.

We know the San Antonio City Council is too smart to continue to support this boondoggle. Nuclear power is too expensive and too risky to use. It’s time for the San Antonio City Council to pull the plug on the STP expansion.

Statement of Karen Hadden, executive director, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition:

We aren’t surprised to hear that the latest cost estimate for the South Texas Project puts the price to build two new nuclear reactors at $17 billion, $4 billion more than what CPS Energy said in June and more than three times the project’s original $5.4 billion price tag. We’ve been saying for two years that CPS has been feeding the public lowball estimates that wouldn’t hold up to reality.

Read Full Post »

round upThe Texas Progressive Alliance is ready for the start of the World Series, and it presents to you its weekly highlight reel as we await the first pitch.

quizas of South Texas Chisme wonders about the US detaining a Mexican human rights activist.

WWJD on Carter Avenue? TXsharon wants to know if Chesapeake Energy or anyone in Fort Worth government has stopped to consider the answer to that question. Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.

Bay Area Houston wonders if the Hispanic community will dump their endorsement of Gene Locke.

WhosPlayin lost a fight with the Lewisville ISD, whose board voted unanimously to define media as print and broadcast only and give itself permission to shut out bloggers. (includes video of meeting)

The Texas Cloverleaf picks up on the “Pay to Play” system, alive and while with Rick Perry and the TABC.

Problems for the Democrats in 2010? Harry Balczak at McBlogger uncovers something that says that’s what we’re exactly heading toward.

Dembones at Eye On Williamson Posts on TX-31 Rep. John Carter’s latest hypocrisy Carter’s income disclosure problem spoils GOP tactic.

Progressive Coalition candidates for Houston city council (and a Socialist running for mayor) are the subject of PDiddie’s post at Brains and Eggs.

Neil at Texas Liberal suggested that voters in Houston consider Progressive Coalition candidates running for Houston City Council. It is hard to see how voting for Democrats year-after-year in city elections has been of great benefit to the people of Houston.

Over at Texas Kaos, libbyshaw provides a public service by providing a Republican hypocrisy score card. Check out her Texas GOP Hall of Hypocrites. You can’t tell the hyprocrites without a scorecard. Wait, you can almost. If there is an “R” beside their names, the odds are better than even….

Off the Kuff notes that a settlement has been reached in a lawsuit between Democrats and the Harris County Tax Assessor’s office over allegations of voter suppression.

Read Full Post »

coal killsWith the Day of the Dead just around the corner, it’s the time of year to remember friends and family members who have died. That’s why we’ve decided to hold a demonstration at City Hall on Thursday at noon, wearing black, to recognize those who have died from complications related to living around the City of Austin’s coal plant.

Burning coal to create electricity has a high human cost. From childhood asthma to aggravated heart and respiratory problems, living downwind of a coal plant can take years off of your life. If you are a six year old or even a strapping adult with asthma and unlucky enough to live near a coal plant to boot, that is enough to send you to the emergency room on a regular basis. Individuals with heart conditions are in the same boat. And mercury emissions from the coal stacks that power our city find their way into waterways and are known to cause birth defects. A recently updated study by the Clean Air Task Force finds that our Fayette Coal Plant causes an average of fifty deaths each year.

City Council must take these considerations into account when planning our future energy mix. Why should others in the state of Texas die or live with crippling health problems when cleaner alternatives exist?

So come to City Hall at noon on Tuesday to show City Council your support for a clean energy plan that would phase out the coal plant as quickly as possible. Wear black in some way, and meet at 11:50 in the lobby so that we can coordinate. Parking at city hall is free on council meeting days. Please RSVP or contact Ryan Rittenhouse at 512-477-1155 with any questions.

Please also spread the word to similarly concerned friends and invite them to the “Austin has a dirty secret” facebook group so that they can be in the loop for future events or demonstrations.

Read Full Post »

CPS has dropped the ball on alternatives to nuclear

By Arjun Makhijani – Special to the San Antonio Express-News

CPS Energy is asking its board and the San Antonio City Council for permission to sell $400 million of bonds to follow the $276 million CPS Energy has already spent to get an option to buy a nuclear pig in a poke.

Yet, the price that Toshiba, the company that would build the plant, would charge won’t be fully disclosed until 2012; a “baseline” cost estimate will be disclosed this winter. A commitment of such a vast additional sum is premature, at best.

First, CPS’ electricity demand projections are suspect. Its projected annual growth rate would increase from about 1.5 percent during 2009-2020 to about 2.4 percent after that. Yet, stringent building and appliance efficiency regulations are in the works nationally. Carbon prices are likely to rise steeply after 2020.

CPS’ assumption about an increasing growth rate makes neither market sense nor common sense. The risk to San Antonio would not be as serious had CPS done a careful analysis of the options. It has not. It only considered coal (a poor risk) and natural gas as potential alternatives.

CPS did not consider compressed-air energy storage, in use on a large scale both in Alabama and Germany. An investment of $400 million could convert the 1,250 megawatts of wind energy that CPS has or plans to acquire into about 400 megawatts of baseload capacity. CPS estimates a cost of $9,000 per kilowatt for a concentrating solar thermal power plant with heat storage, yet utilities are signing contracts (or purchased power agreements) for half this amount or less today. Google’s green energy chief, Bill Weihl, recently stated that solar projects typically cost $2,500 to $4,000 per kilowatt, plus $1,000 for storage.

Moreover, these costs are coming down. CPS did not consider combined heat and power, which is commercial, biomass used in an integrated gasification combined cycle plant, or elements of a smart grid that could convert intermittent renewable capacity into dependable capacity for loads like washing machines and air conditioners. It doesn’t appear to have considered recent drops in natural gas prices.

In brief, CPS has dropped the ball on alternatives. The argument that CPS must meet urgent deadlines to preserve its nuclear option should not rush the board or the city. NRG, CPS’ 50-50 partner in the project, can hardly proceed without CPS. Without CPS’ stellar bond rating and money, NRG, with its junk bond rating, would be far less likely to get federal loan guarantees.

Indeed, in my view, without CPS, NRG would not have a viable project. During the Clean Technology Forum in San Antonio on Sept. 16, Mayor Julián Castro promised the public that CPS’ investment decision will be made on merits.

However, this cannot be done now, because CPS has not put the options on the table that would enable a comparison on the merits. An independent expert panel could probably do a study for City Council in six months, possibly less. It would be unwise to risk $400 million more without it.

Arjun Makhijani is president of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. He has published two studies on CPS nuclear costs.

Read Full Post »

Tonight, August 10, is Mayor Castro’s Town Hall Meeting, where he wants to allow the community to tell city council and himself what they think about going the nuclear route. This is so important to attend. It will be at the City Council Chambers downtown where Flores and Commerce meet (map below).

Sign-up to speak is 5:00-6:00 pm, meeting is 6:00-9:00 pm. Castro has already burst CPS’ bubble by saying he does not want to be a 40% owner in the project — he would prefer a 20% share. It is highly likely that the mayor has made this compromise in response to citizen’s protest.

But local activists are saying (and I would agree) that any nuclear is too much.  Even if San Antonio only goes with 20%, the environmental damage will be done, the water will be stressed, and the national “nuclear renaissance” will have begun. It still doesn’t make economic sense for SA, will bring no jobs here, and wastes city resources that could go to energy solutions which are lighter on the environment.

Energía Mía‘s message is, “We don’t want any part of nuclear for San Antonio; we don’t want 40%, we don’t want 20%, we don’t want any percent. If the project’s a bad one at 50%, it’s still a bad one at 20%. It’s just 30% less bad.”

Plus, if San Antonio only buys in at 20%, who are they going to get to cover the rest of the project?  Everyone knows how risky this investment is — that’s why Austin took a look at the numbers and said: No, thank you.  NRG certainly can’t foot the bill for this themselves — especially not with “junk” bond ratings!

Various community groups have entered their questions in advance and will have an opportunity to respond to CPS’ answers.  Tonight the mayor will hear from: Sierra Club, Public Citizen Texas, SEED Coalition, Consumer Energy Coalition, COPS/METRO, members of the business community, and the Hispanic, Chinese, and Greater San Antonio Chambers of Commerce.  Each city council person will also have a chance to ask a question, and the public will have a short period of time at the meeting’s close to make a short statement.

mayor town hall map

Read Full Post »

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 »

Last week San Antonio’s CPS released their cost estimate for the proposed South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion, and we found their numbers naive optimistic ignored history wanting.  To find out why, check out this Guest Column, printed in today’s San Antonio Express-News, from Public Citizen’s own Energy Policy Analyst Matthew Johnson.

Matthew Johnson: Why not cheaper, safer sources of energy?

Matthew Johnson: Why not cheaper, safer sources of energy?

Nuclear reactors 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 »

Statement of Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

CPS Energy’s announcement today that it will cost $13 billion to build two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project (STP) is a naïve guess when compared to independent assessments that offer more realistic estimates for financing and construction. San Antonio already has spent nearly $300 million just for an accounting of this project’s potential cost, but it appears that even that amount could not buy the city an accurate study.

Former Office of Public Utility Counsel Director Clarence Johnson and nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Arjun Makhijani have estimated that costs will range from $17.5 billion to $22 billion.

Even Wall Street underwriters are pinning new reactors at a cost closer to what Johnson and Makhijani have estimated. Wall Street realizes the true potential cost and risk of nuclear power – which is why they refuse to invest in STP unless it is able to secure federally guaranteed loans. That way, if the project goes under or the costs balloon out of control, the only investors who will lose a significant amount of money are the American taxpayers.

Estimates like the one CPS made today are non-binding. If the reactors cost more than CPS has estimated, San Antonio taxpayers will pay the difference. If NRG Energy is unable to provide a fixed contract for this deal, CPS and San Antonio should ask why.

The City Council can stop all this madness and save San Antonio from a bad deal that will pass costs onto ratepayers for decades to come. Council members have questioned the project in the past and have expressed skepticism. The unfortunate truth is that there will be no way to know how much the expansion will cost until the plant is online.  No one knows how much new reactors will ultimately cost to build, finance and operate.

City Council members have shown support for investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. They have shown incredible vision supporting the Mission Verde plan to develop 250 megawatts of solar and new wind contracts. Just this May, the City Council voted to allow CPS to fund energy efficiency efforts, known as the Save for Tomorrow Energy Program. These are the sorts of measures that San Antonio should be supporting – measures that can be deployed quicker and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear expansion.

Now is the time for the City Council to bring common sense and practicality back to the table. San Antonio can’t afford another nuclear boondoggle; the City Council has the opportunity to say “no” to these new nuclear investments. Only it can protect San Antonians from bearing the overwhelming economic burden of building costly, dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactors.

Read Full Post »

Time to show your support for solar, and your opposition to new nuclear power!

On Thursday, Austin City Council will take up the issues of nuclear energy and solar energy. We can’t think of a better picture to illustrate the fork in the road we face when it comes to Austin’s energy future.

Item 3 on the City Council agenda: Austin Energy will appropriately recommend, again, that the City of Austin not invest in expansion of the South Texas Project. Austin Energy hired the pro-nuclear consulting firm Worley Parsons to examine the proposal, which concluded that Austin’s share of the proposed 3rd & 4th reactors would cost around $2 billion (that’s only 16% of the total, btw). Our solid credit rating would likely decline due to the large amount of debt the city would have to issue coupled with the high risk of cost overruns and schedule delays typically associated with nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the addition of 432 megawatts of baseload nuclear power does not fit with Austin’s projected electric demand forecast. This deal didn’t make sense in 2007 or 2008. It makes even less sense in 2009.

New nuclear power economics are frightening (several cost estimates put new nukes in a category by themselves), and it’s a down right nasty way to make electric power. Uranium mine sites plague groundwater sources, there is no plan in place to deal with the waste, and Texas can ill-afford to devote its precious water resources to running a radioactive water boiler.

We don’t need to go down the nuclear path again. We’ve learned from the mistakes of previous councils. Remember, Carole Keeton McClellan [Strayhorn] was mayor of Austin (1977-1983) when the city trapped itself in the boondoggle that was the first two units at STNP. Read the Austin Chronicle article from 2006 on her (scroll down to “Nailed to the Nuke”).

She is running for mayor again, which means this becomes a radioactive campaign issue. Where do Leffingwell and McCracken stand on the issue? Stay tuned.

Better options exist. Come out and voice your opposition to new nuclear power.

solar-array

Item 16 on the City Council agenda: Austin Energy will recommend that Council approve a plan to invest in 30 megawatts of solar power from the proposed solar plant near Webberville. This project is a good start down the path toward a renewable energy future for Austin. The 25 year $250 million contract with California-based Gemini Solar Development Company will provide Austinites clean, renewable power from one of the largest photovoltaic arrays in the world. Solar beats new nuclear power on cost, environment and meeting peak demand.

Solar power may seem expensive, but compared to what it costs to run natural gas plants to cover the same peak period and its associated environmental impacts, it’s a winner.

Some have raised objection to the fact that the solar panels are not local. Buying local is always preferable, but it’s not always feasible. There are no Texas companies that can currently manufacture panels for this sized plant. And while a California company has gotten the first contract because of California commitment to solar, local contractors and products can be used to construct and maintain the facility. Austin will still own the land too. We hope that with more plants like this one, solar companies will get the message that Texas is open for business.

We expect a large pro-nuke/anti-solar crowd, so come out to City Council this Thursday, Feb 12, sign up to voice your support for solar power. Tell City Council you want more!

Council convenes at 10 AM.

Read Full Post »

Austin City Council will soon deliberate on the recommendations from the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Task Force: a group of stakeholders charged with coming up with ways to make more homes and businesses in the city more energy efficient.

The central recommendation of the Task Force is to require energy audits to be performed on all commercial and multi-family (think apartment buildings) properties within two years of implementation of the ordinance. Single-family homes would have a similar requirement, but it would take effect when a home is put up for sale.

Energy audits (which cost about $200-$300) are performed by Austin Energy certified professionals and include a visual inspection plus duct testing to analyze a building’s energy efficiency. Building owners or prospective buyers could then take advantage of a voluntary program of energy efficiency upgrades, that are loaded with rebates and incentives provided by Austin Energy.

This is good news for Austin consumers because Austinites have a right to know about the energy efficiency of a home, and ways they can save money. Housing affordability is not just the mortgage. It’s utilities too. For example. if you were a prospective home buyer, which house would you choose if these were the same price and right next to each other?

Which one would you choose if you knew that the first house paid $200 in monthly utilities and the second one paid $100? Energy audits make this information available so consumers can make more informed decisions like the one you just did.

But what about renters? Renters can’t make energy efficiency improvements beyond changing a few lightbulbs because they don’t own the property they live in. Concurrently, apartment building owners, don’t have a great financial incentive to make energy efficiency improvements because they don’t pay the utility bills.

That’s why, if after two years multi-family building owners are not taking advantage of the energy efficiency incentives from Austin Energy, City Council should make efficiency upgrades a requirement for multi-family properties. By strengthening the task force recommendations this way, Austin will be acting in the best interests of ratepayers…

…oh yeah, and reducing greenhouse gases.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts