Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘CPS’

SAN ANTONIO – The newly formed Re-Energize San Antonio Coalition called on CPS Energy to meet a set of conditions before following through with an October rate hike.

Describing the hike as an increase that will “unfairly burden residential taxpayers,” coalition members called on CPS to take steps to reduce pollution, waste and costs for consumers.

The coalition presented its demands in a petition handed off to the utility during the Monday, Sept. 9 CPS Rate Case Input Session held at the TriPoint Grantham Center.

“We oppose the rate hike because it promotes unsustainable growth, driven by dirty energy, on the shoulders of the poor and working class folks who already pay the most for energy costs relative to income and quality of housing stock,” said Dr. Marisol Cortez, scholar-in-residence at the Esperanza Peace & Justice Center.
(more…)

Read Full Post »

A critical court ruling today rang the first chime in what could be the death knell of the so-called “nuclear renaissance,” starting with the failed expansion of the South Texas Project (STP).

This afternoon’s ruling by 408th District Court Judge Larry Noll that CPS Energy can safely withdraw from the proposed STP expansion project without losing all its investment offers the utility and the city of San Antonio the cue they’ve been waiting for to exit the national nuclear stage. Combined with the NRG Energy CEO’s announcement during a shareholder and press conference call this morning that NRG would “wind down the project as quickly and economically as possible” if CPS withdraws or STP does not receive federal loan guarantees, this news marks a major blow to those who claim nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. The expansion project calls for two new nuclear reactors at a site with two existing reactors.

slide 8 of NRG's "STP 3&4 Nuclear Project and CPS Litigation" presentation given at shareholder and media conference call Friday, January 29, 2010 8:00 a.m. ET

These events give credence to the contention made over the past five years by opponents of nuclear power that it is a needlessly expensive and risky way to meet future energy needs.. In less than a year, the price of the STP nuclear expansion ballooned from around $5 billion to more than $18 billion. Given this case study of nuclear power’s failure, we must call into question the federal government’s decision to increase federal loan guarantees to support oversized, untenable projects that are already proving too risky for private investors.

Public Citizen calls on both CPS Energy and NRG Energy to stop throwing good money after bad with their nuclear expansion plans and halt the project. Thankfully, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro intervened by putting the project on hold before costs jumped too far out of San Antonio’s reach. Given the court’s announcement that the city’s interests are protected, we hope San Antonio will take the next responsible step and bow out entirely.

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

###

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

Read Full Post »

*Update: Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current just published a fantastic and very thorough recap of the twisted nuclear saga. Check it out!

Here’s part 2 in this year’s first annual Year in Review: Top Texas Vox Stories of 2009 series. Part 1 is just a hop, skip and scroll down.

3. San Antonio Nuclear Debacle/Amores Nucleares Telenovela

This year has been a doozy for nuclear power, with the highlight of course being the San Antonio situation.  Over the last 12 months San Antonio has ridden a wild wave of cost estimates, community meetings, protests, scandals, and misinformation.  But I’m getting ahead of myself. Remember when…

Last January, CPS Energy committed to spend $60 million more on the proposed expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Project, a decision which at that point brings the city utility’s total expenditures on units 3 & 4 to $267 million. Not long after that, Austin City Council took a look at participating in the expansion project but said “No way, that’s much too risky of an investment for us.” San Antonio decided that something magical (but mysterious) was different for them, despite our prediction in late April that the proposed reactors could actually cost as much as $22 Billion.  Mum was CPS’ word on a cost estimate at that time, but by June they announced that $13 Billion was a good, round number. We worried at this point that CPS was being overly optimistic, ignoring the history of the South Texas Project and other nukes around the nation and independent reports, but those concerns largely fell on deaf ears.

Then over the summer, CPS Energy launched a massive public outreach campaign, with meetings in every district — but kind of botched it.  Despite activists’ protests that CPS’ cost numbers were innacurate, the utiltiy refused to release their information or back up numbers, and many San Antonio citizens left the community meetings feeling disenchanted with the process and suspicious of CPS.

As a rising tide of activists and concerned citizens grew, eventually they formed the coalition group Energía Mía and worked together to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. The group launched a string of protests and press conferences highlighting the many flaws of nuclear power and the San Antonio deal in particular.  Everyone was all geared up for a big showdown the last week in October, but then the cowpie really hit the rotating bladed device (let’s call it a windmill). For the next part, I’m going to pull from a previous post where I likened the whole situation to a geeky, policy version of a telenovela.

Previously, on Amores Nucleares:

With just days before San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds for new nuclear reactors, it was leaked that the project could actually cost $4 Billion more than CPS had been saying all summer (according to Toshiba, who would actually be building the plant). The vote was postponed, there was an impromptu press conference, and it came out that CPS staff had actually known about the cost increase for more than a week — Oops! Oh, and the “leak” wasn’t that CPS came out with the truth, an aide from the mayor’s office only found out after confronting CPS about a rumor he’d heard. But how did the mayor’s office find out? NRG, CPS’ partner in the project was the “Deepthroat”, because they were going to announce Toshiba’s $17 Billion cost estimate at a shareholder’s meeting soon after the city council vote and thought, geez, that could look really bad for CPS! Meanwhile, CPS reps flew to Japan in a hurry to figure things out. Steve Bartley, interim GM for CPS, resigned. Furious that CPS had hidden the ugly truth from City Council, the mayor demanded the resignation of two key CPS board members, and got City Council to vote unanimously that they get the boot. Chairwoman Aurora Geis agreed to go, but Steve Hennigan said “No Way, Jose.” THEN CPS completed an internal audit of the whole shebang to figure out what-the-hell-happened, which found that Steve Bartley was to blame, and everyone else was only guilty of failure in their “responsibility of prompt disclosure”. Then it came out the project could be even more way way expensive than anyone thought (except of course Energia Mia, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, the Center for American Progress, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and analysts Arjun Makhijani, Clarence Johnson, Craig Severance, and Mark Cooper to name a few). And then those crazy cats all started suing each other.

So in the end, they told folks all summer long that the plant would cost $13 Billion, even though insiders knew since late June that it could very well be $4 Billion more. Latest update is that the plant could really cost $18.2 Billion! On December 31st, Toshiba provided CPS with another new estimate, which the utility will use to come up with their own new cost estimate mid-January. City council is slated to vote sometime after that, once and for all, on $400 million in bonds to continue the project.

But clearly, enough is enough. So if you live in San Antonio, tell City Council to stop throwing good money after bad, and to cut their losses before its too late. Tell them to vote “no” to nuclear bonds and start the year off fresh and free from the “ghost of nuclear projects past.”

###

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 »

sasaysno

JOIN THE LARGEST COMMUNITY ACTION YET! Say NO to NUCLEAR

Community Demonstration!
Wed Oct 14th
4pm – 8pm
City Hall
{103 Main Plaza,78205}
..next to Main Plaza downtown SA

Come to the demonstration! BRING 3 people with you!
BRING: street theatre props & political costumes, signs, puppets, bikes, hats, banners, CPS suits, etc!
Download flyers and more information at www.esperanzacenter.org

Read Full Post »

Great news about the legal fight against STP.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel admitted four more of the contentions (all water related) brought by SEED Coalition, bringing the grand total to 5 contentions admitted for a hearing with 7 still pending.

This is more than anywhere else in the country.

This increased uncertainty *should* make CPS and San Antonio City Council think twice about going forward.

Look! A Press Release!  (fully continued after the jump if you want to get into all the legal contentions)  As always, for more info go read everything at NukeFreeTexas.org

For Immediate Release: September 30, 2009

Contacts: Karen Hadden,  SEED Coalition,

Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy

Robert V. Eye, Attorney for Intervenors

Citizens Gain Ground in STP Intervention Over Water Concerns

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Admits

Four Additional Water Related Contentions for a Hearing

Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project (STP) continues with another success. Yesterday the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel ruled that South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) had failed to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of radioactive contaminated water and water availability, issues or “contentions” raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP. The Order is of national significance since STPNOC is the first in the nation to request licensing in 30 years.

“Citizens intervening in the South Texas Project’s licensing process gained significant legal ground yesterday when the ASLB Panel ruled that four additional contentions be admitted for a hearing,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition, one of the Intervenors. “Intervenors now have a total of five admissible contentions, with seven contentions related to fires and explosions and losses of large areas of the plant still pending.” The licensing process is likely to be delayed as a result of additional contentions. It was delay and construction problems that led to the first reactors at STP coming in six times over budget.

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Bay City based South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE) are Intervenors in the case. Attorney Robert V. Eye went before the ASLB Panel in June and argued the admissibility of 28 contentions challenging the license application for two additional reactors, Units 3 and 4, at the South Texas Project.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

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 »

Tonight at 6 pm is the final CPS hearing regarding the proposed nuclear reactors. The trustees will vote at their next meeting, Oct. 5th, on whether to participate in the proposed two additional nuclear reactors and spend an additional $400 million. This could be the last chance for citizens to directly address CPS on this extremely important issue.

Nuclear reactors come with serious financial, health and security risks, and are not the answer to San Antonio’s energy needs. We are increasingly concerned about the misinformation, spin and fuzzy math used by CPS to defend its risky nuclear proposal. CPS Energy knows that safer, more affordable options already exist today. These better energy choices could build green jobs locally.

WHEN: Today – Monday, September 28th at 6 pm (Come at 5 pm to sign up to speak)

WHERE: Lobby of Villita Assembly Building, 401 Villita Street, San Antonio

Hope you can make it out!

For more info visit: www.Energiamia.org

Energía Mía includes members of Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Southwest Workers Union, Sun Energy, Former San Antonio City Council members, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition, SEED Coalition, and Public Citizen.

Read Full Post »

Hey San Antonio! There will be a protest against nuclear power tomorrow at lunchtime downtown outside of City Hall.  Join us and the rest of the Energia Mia coalition and make your voice heard!  Details below.

WHAT: Protest against CPS Energy’s pursuit of more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project. Not only is nuclear power the most expensive form of energy, it’s the most water intensive and it comes with enormous security, safety and health risks.

WHEN: Thursday, September 10th, Noon

WHERE: 114 W. Commerce, Outside of the Municipal Plaza Building, City Hall Complex

WHO: Concerned students, Members of Energia Mia and others.

Energia Mia includes members active in Southwest Workers’ Union, the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Project Verde, the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills and Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Associations, AGUA, the Texas Drought Project, the Green Party, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, Environment Texas and Clean Water Action.

WHY: Nuclear reactors come with serious health and safety risks. Exposure to radioactivity leads to cancer and genetic damage and after fifty years there is still no solution to storing radioactive waste. San Antonio needs drinking water. Vast quantities of water should not be wasted to cool nuclear reactors. Safer, more affordable energy choices exist today.

Spending billions of dollars for nuclear reactors is throwing money away that should be used for energy efficiency and renewable solar, wind and geothermal power, creating green jobs in San Antonio. Nuclear power would raise electric rates much more than other energy options, at a time when people are already struggling to pay their bills. The nuclear reactors should be halted now.

For More Information, Contact: Alice Canestaro, Energía Mía (713.480.8013) or Amanda Hoss, Esperanza Peace and Justice Center (210.228.0201)

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 »

miaAs many of you already know, the nuclear battle is getting pretty heated in San Antonio these days.  That’s why a new citizen’s group, Energía Mía, has recently formed.  But they can tell you their intentions better than I can:

Citizens are uniting in efforts to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. Speakers from many diverse organizations and businesses relayed their concerns about nuclear power as part of the newly formed Energia Mia network and are working to increase visibility and awareness of the problems of nuclear power.

“Energía Mía urges all citizens in San Antonio to get involved now and contact the mayor and city council. The rate hikes that would come from more nuclear power are unacceptable. They would create a severe economic hardship on many people and local businesses” said Cindy Weehler. “We have set up a new web site, www.EnergiaMia.org to provide information to the public and let people know how to get involved.”

According to the San Antonio Express-News, their membership includes representatives from

…the Southwest Workers Union, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party and the San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition.

Alongside fundamental concerns about water, security, radioactive waste, and health and safety risks, the group is concerned about the financial effect the project could have on the city and the rate hikes that CPS has said will accompany STP’s expansion.  CPS has already said that 5-8% rate hikes will be needed every two years for the next ten years to pay for this project, and that electric rates could increase nearly 50% as a result.

The good news is that all the noise these activists are making is starting to have an impact.  Already, Mayor Julian Castro is having doubts.  And apparently, “at every public meeting, city and CPS officials have run into a buzz saw of objections from ratepayers and business owners concerned about higher energy costs.” Some folks are even calling for a referendum on the issue — or at the very least, an honest debate and presentation of viable alternatives (that won’t cost $100 dollars a head).

Way to rouse that rabble, San Antonio.  You deserve answers, and for your concerns to be heard in a meaningful way.  If you agree with these folks (and if you’re a regular reader I bet you do!), sign their petition!

Read Full Post »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Older Posts »