Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘CPS Energy’

San Antonio Nuclear Show Down: VIDEO from KSTX Town Hall on Energy

Posted in Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 3, 2009 |

Last week we invited folks to attend KSTX’s Town Hall on Energy in San Antonio.  This event featured Michael Kotara, Executive Vice President for Energy Development, CPS Energy and Mayor Julián Castro, Lanny Sinkin, Executive Director, Solar San Antonio and co-founder of Citizens Against Nuclear Power, and Public Citizen’s own Tom “Smitty” Smith, whitehat extraordinaire and lifelong agitator of the nuclear bad guys (because, as Smitty likes to repeat “you’ve got to agitate to get the dirt out“).

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

[vimeo 6304731]

Full video after the jump! (more…)

Read Full Post »

Proposed South Texas Project Reactors Pose Increased Water Use and Radioactive Contamination Risks

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2009 |

San Antonio, TX —  Nuclear power is the most water intensive energy source available. When San Antonio and all of Texas are suffering from extreme drought and are increasingly in need of sources of drinking water, pursuing more nuclear reactors doesn’t make sense, especially true since cheaper, safer alternatives such as energy efficiency, wind, geothermal and solar energy are available. All use significantly less water than nuclear reactors.

Dr. Lauren Ross’ comments are timely in that the Texas drought continues to worsen, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is still considering nine water-related contentions submitted in opposition to additional reactors by SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and STARE, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy.

“Nuclear reactors consume vast quantities of water,” said Dr. Lauren Ross, environmental engineer and owner of Glenrose Engineering. “The proposed STP reactors 3 and 4 would withdraw 23,170 gallons per minute from the Colorado River. The two proposed reactors would increase forced evaporation by an additional 37,400 acre-feet per year. The water withdrawal required from the Colorado River to replace evaporated water for all four reactors would be about 74,500 acre-feet per year.”

“Water withdrawal for STP’s nuclear reactors can be a significant fraction of the total river flow. Peak water use so far occurred on September 16, 2001, when the water withdrawal was 48% of the total Colorado river flow near the reactor site,” said Dr. Ross. “From January 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 there were 69 days when withdrawal for existing STP reactors was equal to or greater than one quarter of the entire river flow.” With four reactors and an increase in the surface water demand, the river flow in the future could go even lower than it is now.

Estimated groundwater use would more than double from an average of 798 gallons per minute for the existing facility over the last five years to a level of 2040 gallons per minute for all four reactors, according to Dr. Ross, but STP wants to wait on analyzing groundwater availability until after the permit is issued.

The year 2008 was one of the driest years on record for Central Texas. Dr. Ross’s most recent research shows that in 2008 water use by LCRA’s firm water customers plus four irrigation operators was more than twice that of the Highland Lakes inflows for the same period, so losses are not being replenished. Moreover, STP’s authorized withdrawal is more than one-third of the total Highland Lakes inflow for 2008.

Water versus Energy

The San Antonio Water System recently filed suit for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion. The suit claims that the water-sharing project was killed by the river authority in order to make sure there would be enough water for power plant deals in Matagorda County. At the same time CPS Energy, the San Antonio municipal utility, seeks to be a partner in the proposed nuclear reactors for Matagorda County. STP’s annual permitted withdrawal from the Colorado River is 102,000 acre-feet per year, incredibly close to the amount in the canceled LCRA/SAWS water agreement, 102,500 acre-feet per year (average).

“Will we reach a point where San Antonio will have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?” asked Alice Alice Canestaro-Garcia, visual artist and member of EnergÍa MÍa. “It makes no sense to build two more reactors, which together would use enough water to fill 1,440 swimming pools in one day.”

Increasing Radioactive Contamination

South Texas Project’s license application fails to evaluate the increasing levels of groundwater tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can be dangerous if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin. Tritium emits Beta radiation that causes cancer, cell mutation, and birth defects. “Tritium has been detected in two of the pressure relief wells that collect water leaking from the unlined bottom of the existing main cooling reservoir. Concentrations of tritium have been increasing in both wells, and these concentrations could rise if two more nuclear reactors are built at the site,” said Dr. Ross.

A state water permit proposed for the site fails to address radionuclides such as tritium, and doesn’t require monitoring for total dissolved solids, some metals or the chemicals added by the facility, such as biocides, sulfuric acid, and anti-scalants. There are also no sulfur or sodium limits for the wastewater discharges, even though these are significant components of the water that would be released back to the Colorado River system.

The application’s Environmental Report relies upon a dilution factor of 10 to meet discharge standards, but fails to provide information about how much the waste discharge loads would change with two additional nuclear reactors. It fails to analyze the consequences of the load increases into a system with only a small change in the dilution factor, since the storage volume would increase only 7.4%.

The reactor application admits that “5,700 acre-feet per year leaks through the unlined bottom of the main cooling reservoir into the underlying Gulf Coast Chicot Aquifer” and 68% of it is recovered. The rest migrates underground, seeping into nearby surface water bodies, into pumped wells or the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.

“Failure to monitor and regulate leakage through the bottom of the main cooling reservoir constitutes a failure to protect groundwater and surface water from plant operations,” said Dr. Ross.

For more information, visit www.EnergiaMia.org

Read Full Post »

San Antonio Nuclear Showdown TONIGHT

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2009 |

boxingUPDATE: The streaming audio from last night’s event was, unfortunately, very hard to listen to — but folks who weren’t willing to wade through the feedback can watch our video of the town hall in its entirety, which we should be able to post in the next couple days 🙂

Tonight KSTX will host a Town Hall on Energy in San Antonio to provide the forum we’ve all been waiting for — an honest and open debate of whether or not SA should invest in two new nuclear reactors and the safe, clean alternatives that SA can choose to meet its future energy needs.

The Clean Technology Forum will provide an opportunity for a similar opportunity for this discussion — but at $50 a pop, only the most well-heeled San Antonians will be able to attend.  KSTX’s Town Hall, by contrast, will be free and open to the public.  Folks who would like to attend in person should plan on being at the McAllister Auditorium at San Antonio College (SAC) from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm — but if you can’t make it, never fear.  KSTX will be streaming the conversation live from their website www.tpr.org, as well as carrying the town hall on the radio at 89.1 FM. You can also submit your question on Facebook or Twitter — three cheers for interactivity!

Should be a good show — maybe even a bit of a sparring match, judging by the panelists.  In one corner we’ve got: Michael Kotara, Executive Vice President for Energy Development, CPS Energy and Mayor Julián Castro, who supports the nuclear option even though he would rather San Antonio own 20% rather than 40% of the new reactors.  In the other, Lanny Sinkin, Executive Director, Solar San Antonio and co-founder of Citizens Against Nuclear Power and Public Citizen’s own Tom “Smitty” Smith, whitehat extraordinaire and lifelong agitator of the nuclear bad guys (because, as Smitty likes to repeat “you’ve got to agitate to get the dirt out“).

Texas Vox will be on hand to videotape the town hall, and you can follow our tweets live from @publiccitizentx.  Be sure to look for a follow up blog post and video in the next couple days!

Our regular readers already know how we feel about the issue at Public Citizen: San Antonio citizens can’t afford the huge 50% rate hikes that would result from involvement in the proposed nukes at South Texas Project. The billions that San Antonio would sink into the nuclear money pit should instead be spent in San Antonio, creating local jobs in energy efficiency, retrofitting homes and businesses, and developing clean renewable energy technologies including solar, wind and geothermal power.

Hope you can make it out to the event, listen in, or follow up on our post and videos tomorrow!  Look for event details and panelist bios after the jump.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Austin Energy’s Generation Plan: More Renewables and Efficiency, Less Coal?

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 18, 2009 |

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 »

Local Power/Energia Mia Update

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 30, 2009 |

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 »

Express News Editorial Gets It, Why Doesn’t CPS?

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2009 |

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 »

South Texas Nuclear Project: The Early Years

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2009 |

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 »

CPS’ Reactor Cost Estimate Naïve; Ignores History and Independent Reports

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

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 »

Citizens Oppose South Texas Project Expansion before Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 19, 2009 |

Oral Hearing Set for June 23rd-June 24th in Bay City, TX

Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors in Texas continues. On June 23rd-24th an oral hearing will be held before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on the Citizens’ Petition to Intervene in South Texas Project (STP) Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and South Texas Association for Responsible Energy are petitioners seeking to intervene in the proposed expansion of South Texas Project.

“Building two more nuclear reactors at STP is not in the best interest of the local community,” said Susan Dancer, a local wildlife rehabilitator. “Pursuing the most expensive and most water intensive energy source in a time of extraordinary drought and economic recession makes no sense. The local community will get stuck with more radioactive waste and bear heavy infrastructure costs if the proposed reactors get built. The existing reactors have not solved local economic problems.” Dancer chairs the Bay City based organization South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE).

Attorney Robert V. Eye will represent the petitioners before the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and argue the admissibility of the 28 contentions citizens filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 21st. These contentions point out the inadequacies and the incompleteness of South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company’s (STPNOC) combined operating license application (COLA) to construct and operate South Texas Project Units 3 and 4. NRG Energy and San Antonio’s municipal utility CPS Energy are both applicants for the proposed reactors, which fall within STPNOC.

“NRG has failed to comply with new federal regulations regarding aircraft impacts,” stated Mr. Eye. “These new regulations are very specific and require the applicant to plan for catastrophic fires and/or explosions that would cause the loss of major critical functional components in the plant. After 9-11, an aircraft attack on a nuclear power plant is a real and credible threat. Moreover, fire hazards represent about half of the risk of a nuclear reactor meltdown. NRG’s noncompliance with these regulations puts citizens around South Texas Project in a dangerous position, which is completely unacceptable.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Solar Tint: the Fig Newton for my Energy Efficiency Blues

Posted in Efficiency, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on June 8, 2009 |

While I’m still a little grumpy and out of sorts because the Lege didn’t pass any major energy efficiency legislation this session, I feel a little better after our office got some solar tint put on our windows on Thursday.  My office used to be a heat box.  The tint is really impressive.  I can feel the difference already.

Window Tint 6-4-09

Andy and Sarah's office, After & Before

Our utility bill will go down now, because we’re using less energy to keep the office cool.  It will also make our office more comfortable until we take the ultimate step in worker productivity: business hammocks.

If your business is in Austin, Austin Energy has a rebate for solar film or solar screens.  CPS Energy in San Antonio’s got ’em too.  Check to see if your utility offers a rebate.  If they don’t, maybe someone should tell them their customers want one, eh?

Read Full Post »

Hey San Antonio, Your Help is Needed!

Posted in Efficiency, tagged , , , , , , on May 20, 2009 |

A message from Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, and Environment Texas:

Your help is needed right away to put energy efficiency into place!

Please call or email your city councilmember today to tell them you support STEP – the new energy efficiency program for San Antonio!

Tomorrow, San Antonio City Council will decide on how CPS Energy can fund their energy efficiency programs known as STEP (Save for Tomorrow Energy Plan). CPS Energy has set a goal to save 771 Megawatts of power through energy efficiency programs by 2020.  This would be one of the most aggressive efficiency goals in the country and we support it!

Energy efficiency is the cheapest energy resource CPS Energy can invest in.  By spending money on weatherizing low income homes and providing rebates for people to purchase high efficiency appliances, CPS avoids having to purchase more expensive energy that would cost everyone more. In addition, people who take advantage of these programs will begin saving money on their utility bills immediately, offsetting the cost of the programs!

Call or email your city councilmember today to tell them:

-I support energy efficiency and urge you to approve STEP

-I want public accountability for these programs through quarterly reporting including information such as the amount of money spent on and energy saved from each program

-I want to be sure that CPS spends the money they collect for STEP on energy efficiency and solar rebates, not for other purposes like coal or nuclear plants!

Mayor   Phil Hardberger (210) 207-7060   phardberger@sanantonio.gov

District 1   Mary Alice P. Cisneros (210) 207-7279   district1@sanantonio.gov

District 2   Sheila D. McNeil (210) 207-7278   district2@sanantonio.gov

District 3   Jennifer V. Ramos (210) 207-7064   district3@sanantonio.gov

District 4   Philip A. Cortez (210) 207-7281   district4@sanantonio.gov

District 5   Lourdes Galvan (210) 207-7043   district5@sanantonio.gov

District 6   Delicia Herrera (210) 207-7065 district6@sanantonio.gov

District 7   Justin Rodriguez (210) 207-7044 district7@sanantonio.gov

District 8   Diane G. Cibrian (210) 207-7086 district8@sanantonio.gov

District 9   Louis E. Rowe (210) 207-7325 district9@sanantonio.gov

District 10   John G. Clamp (210) 207-7276   district10@sanantonio.gov

If you don’t know who your councilmember is, find out here.

If you are able to, show up at City Hall tomorrow and talk to City Council about STEP.  It is agenda item #5 and should be up before lunchtime.  If you would like to speak, though, you have to sign up in person between 8-9 AM (114 W. Commerce).  If you can’t sign up in time, come by and be there for support!

Read Full Post »

Proposed Nuclear Projects in Texas Could Cost $22 Billion

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2009 |

Impressive nuclear headlines in the papers these days, largely as a result of a new report released by our office entitled: “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas: A Consumer Perspective.  The report finds that the proposed expansions of nuclear power plants in Bay City (South Texas Project) and Glen Rose (Comanche Peak) could cost $22 billion, boost the cost of electricity for consumers and curtail investment in energy-efficiency programs and solar power.

The headline in the San Antonio Express News yesterday morning, just below the banner no less, read: Nuke Plan May Cost $22 Billion

This morning the Fort Worth Star Telegram also ran an article titled Anti-nuclear group: Comanche Peak expansion could cost $27.6 billion

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog also reports: Projected nuke power’s price tag inflating.  

In addition to a real cost estimate for nuclear power plant expansions in Texas, the report also compares the cost of nuclear power to the cost of alternatives such as wind, solar, and energy efficiency.  I’d encourage anyone who complains about the expense of renewable energy but claims that nuclear power is “cheap” to take a gander at the following graph: 

estimated-installed-cost-per-kw-11

Wow.  Even on the low estimate end, energy efficiency costs just a fifth of what we would spend to get that kind of power from a nuclear plant, and wind and solar both come in well under that cost of nukes.  Take that, naysayers!

A major concern brought up in this report is that the massive capitol outlays for nuclear power options may drain available financial resources for making advancements in deploying more cost effective alternative resources.  In San Antonio, this could mean that CPS Energy chooses to partner with the South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion at the expense of Mission Verde, Mayor Phil Hardberger’s aggressive plan to green the city’s infrastructure, businesses, energy sources and technology.

“This new report indicates that we’re going to have to decide now which energy future we want for San Antonio,” said Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson. “If CPS becomes a partner in the South Texas Project expansion, we are simply not going to have the financial resources to front Mission Verde. We can either choose the most expensive option possible and send our jobs to Bay City and overseas contractors, or pay a fraction of the cost to create thousands of jobs here at home and power the city with clean, green energy.”

For more information on how consumers could get stuck with the check if the nuclear plant goes over-budget or can’t meet its construction schedule (as they are notoriously wont to do), check out our press release.

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog reports,

Prior to deregulation in 2001, ratepayers were drained of $5 billion in capital costs for the nukes in North Texas and Bay City, according to Johnson’s “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas.”

Also, much of the overruns associated with Comanche Peak and STP have been borne by electric consumers in Texas’ deregulated market since, who “continue to pay off at least $3.4 billion for nuclear assets through transition charges, as well as $45 million in annual payments for nuclear decommissioning,” Johnson writes. 

Additional associated STP costs have also been passed along by AEP and CenterPoint to their customers.

Those interested in the report may also download either the full report or a short fact-sheet detailing the report’s major findings.

Along these same lines, turns out today is the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)’s national call-in day to end coal and nuclear subsidies. (more…)

Read Full Post »

CPS and San Antonio: You can’t both be right…

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 2, 2009 |

Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current broke this story a few days back and I just feel like we have to comment:

As Washington strains under the weight of industry and environmental lobbyists seeking to influence the outcome of what would be our first national climate bill, CPS Energy has been quietly working the angles on Capitol Hill to keep the coal power the city has come to rely on cheap for consumers in the short term. So-called “cheap” power is the mandate the utility operates under, after all.

Too bad that mandate is now at odds with the survival of the earth as we know it and, quite possibly, our survival as a city and a nation.

…

Responding to an Open Records request submitted by the Current, a CPS Energy legal staffer wrote that the City-owned utility has spent $91,700 lobbying in the past year “in the attempt to influence U.S. climate policy.”

According to Zandra Pulis, senior legal counsel at CPS, the utility has also spent about $67,657 in membership dues to the Climate Policy Group, an industry group it joined in September of 2006 that lobbies Congress against limiting carbon emissions under cap-and-trade legislation. An effort that, to this point, has been remarkably successful.

…

All told, CPS has spent $2.56 million on lobbyists (since 1999) working the statehouse and the Capitol, according to Pulis.

That’s right — CPS has spent millions of YOUR dollars on lobbying, much of which has gone to try to argue climate change isn’t happening.

Look, I understand that CPS has a mission to produce inexpensive electricity for San Antonio residents and business.  That’s a good thing.  But the facts are these:

1- Climate change is happening.  But even if it wasn’t, everything we need to do to solve it is something that we would want to be to doing anyway.  We need to start living with the fact that political consensus has developed in Washington.  Sooner or later, we’re going to have to  start paying for our greenhouse gas pollution, so we’d better start figuring out how to get our energy from non-polluting sources. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Could this be Texas’ solar session?

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 5, 2009 |

At last!  I can fill you in on Monday’s fantastic solar press conference at the capitol!

Public Citizen Director Tom "Smitty" Smith and Senator Rodney Ellis

Senator Rodney Ellis and Public Citizen Director Tom "Smitty" Smith

Public Citizen, Environment Texas and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club hosted a statewide round of press conferences this week to roll out our solar report, Texas Solar Roadmap — which of course can be downloaded at www.cleanenergyfortexas.org. Our report highlights how a robust solar program would help put Texans back to work, reduce peak energy prices, curb climate change, improve air quality, and position the state as a world leader for solar production. The full report is a pretty good read, but if you’re short on time I suggest the condensed version, Wildcatting the Sun.

Our press conference in Austin was particularly exciting because we were in such great company. Senators Troy Fraser, Leticia Van de Putte, Kirk Watson, Rodney Ellis, and Representatives Mark Strama and Rafael Anchia all appeared and championed the solar bills they have introduced thus far.

anchia

shapiro

Rafael Anchia’s HB 278 and Florence Shapiro’s SB 427 would require the state’s electric utilities to support the development of 2000 megawatts of solar and other on-site renewable technologies by offering direct incentives to consumers and businesses.

This is right in line with Public Citizen’s distributed solar goal, outlined in both Wildcatting the Sun and Texas Solar Roadmap . According to our report , such a standard could lead to installations on as many as 500,000 roofs in Texas by 2020 at a cost of about 98 cents per month per Texan (Polls have shown that 81% of Texas voters are willing to pay up to a dollar a month to encourage solar power. What about you?). This investment would create an estimated 22,000 jobs and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide emissions by 29 million tons, the equivalent of taking 4.3 million cars off the road for a year.

Anchia stressed that this should be Texas’ solar session because it would answer two of our major challenges: air quality, and global warming.

solar_power_lege_09_presser_0041Senator Fraser was the first legislator to speak, proclaiming that this would be Texas’ solar session. Chairman of the Business and Commerce Committee, Fraser is well positioned to be an effective solar champion. As such, Fraser was particularly proud to forecast a sunny session for solar power. He joked that there are so many solar bills being filed this session, they are going to have to lay them all out at once and have a “solar day” where they can pick out the best bills and key components of each (this is the second time I’ve heard him say this though, so he may be serious. If so, you better bet I’ll be there with bells on!)

Fraser also said that he found the idea enumerated in Kirk Watson’s bills — that Texas was very successful in promoting wind power but missed out on manufacturing opportunities — particularly in need of our attention.

Fraser’s big solar bill is SB 545, which

would create a five-year program for distributed solar generation incentives offered through the state’s transmission and distribution utilities. The incentive program would be funded by a nominal monthly fee on residential, commercial and industrial customers.

Check out his press release from last week, when that bill was filed, for more information. Or if you’re feeling really geeky, read the bill. Watson has also filed SB 546, relating to the state goal for energy efficiency. This bill sets stepped goals for how much of the state’s growth in energy efficiency will be met by efficiency, culminating in a goal of getting 50% load growth through efficiency by 2015.

solar_power_lege_09_presser_0061Senator Van de Putte was then called up to champion CPS Energy’s new distributed energy commitment and her own solar in schools bill, SB 598. This would set up a pilot loan program to retrofit public schools with PV panels and other efficiency measures. Solar on schools is a pretty smart idea, because during summer months when the lights are off and their electricity use dips way down, they could make a lot of money pumping of energy back into the grid.

Senator Watson, a member of the Business and C0mmerce Committee and my Very Own senator, has three solar bills introduced so far. (more…)

Read Full Post »

San Antonio: Mission Verde, CPS Energy, and (Real Ultimate) Solar Power

Posted in Energy, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 3, 2009 |

coverI’m embarrassed.

Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current beat me to covering my own press conference.  And he did a way better job than I ever could have done.

The only explanation is that Greg Harman is Superman.  Or, that I am one very busy media coordinator who needs to re-align her priorities (from now on, the internet wins!).

I’m so ashamed, it doesn’t even seem worth it to write anything myself.

Save me the effort, and go to his post at the San Antonio Current Queblog.  Read about how within the span of two weeks, SA’s CPS Energy pledged to transition to a decentralized power model (ie, energy created on site rather than at a power plant).  Learn how last Thursday, Mayor Hardberger unveiled his visionary Mission Verde Plan to make San Antonio a truly sustainable city.  Proceed to Harman’s excitement over the sea change at the Legislature, such that fully 15 solar bills have been filed this session.

And then check out his fantastic video, photos, and audio clips.  It almost feels like you were there!  Watch our very own David Power, solar advocate, announce how the solar industry can provide Texas’ next big job boom!  Smile as Bill Sinkin and his bow tie refer to solar energy as a full grown child no longer in need of coddling, but still looking for our support.  And listen to County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson trumpet that Texas has reached a critical mass and perfect storm for extensive solar power in the state of Texas to finally become a reality.

Hey hey, looks like I can steal his video from youtube.  I LOVE THE INTERNET.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDFfv9Scwfo]

You should still go to his post though, because it is wicked awesome and I can’t steal his audio clips.  Or rather, don’t know how.

Also check out the San Antonio Express-New’s coverage: Nonprofits say boosting solar capability in Texas could create jobs. We don’t “say” so, we know so.

Ten “cool” points if you caught the Real Ultimate Power reference.  And by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Check out our official press release after the jump. (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »