Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘green choice’

Austin Energy May Cut GreenChoice Power Prices

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Dispelling Green Choice Myths

Posted in Energy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 23, 2009 |

greenChoiceSince the Austin American Statesman published a couple of articles on the less-than-stellar sales of Austin Energy’s Green Choice program, many media outlets have picked up the story and the takeaway message is something like “liberal Austin finds out the hard way that renewable energy is too expensive”. It’s really regrettable that this message is permeating throughout the country because it’s just not true.

Austin Energy’s sales of the most recent GreenChoice batch have been low, but I hope that folks will understand that the blame lies not with wind energy itself but some serious underlying problems with the rate structure of this program and the way the energy market is regulated in Texas (hint: it isn’t).

The high cost of GreenChoice highlights the failure of the deregulated market. Consumers are now unfairly burdened with the transmission costs to get wind energy from West Texas to the center of the state. Wind has to pay a toll to drive the power transmission highway, but coal, gas, and nuclear get a free ride. Not all utilities charge similar transmission costs, and in many places that would be factored into the simple cost of doing business, but in Austin consumers are asked to foot that bill. Then there’s the fact that coal, gas, and nuclear power currently have priority on the transmission grid.  If the wind can provide 300 MW of energy at a given time and coal can dispatch 300 MW, but there is only room for 400 MW of power to run through the lines, coal gets to move 300 MW and wind can only move 100 MW.

Another problem with Green Choice is that in addition to paying for 100% wind, customers are forced to pay the maintenance and capitol costs to upkeep Austin’s dirty power sources. That just isn’t fair – folks shouldn’t have to pay a premium for clean energy and then be asked to foot the bill for polluters too.  Folks argue that GreenChoice customers should pay a portion of the upkeep for traditional dirty power sources when the wind isn’t blowing, but they shouldn’t pay the same *full* capital and maintenance costs that average customers pay. If anything, GreenChoice customers should be offered a pro-rated charge for those costs, so that they only pay the maintenance costs for when they are actually getting power from those dirty sources. Right now, Austin Energy is asking GreenChoice customers to pay an Equal share of maintenance and upkeep for an Unequal share of power – not fair.

Then there’s the fact that Austin Energy got a bad deal on this contract. They bought into a ten year power purchase agreement when natural gas prices, and energy prices in general, were at an all time high (remember $4/gallon gas?).

Austin Energy could easily restructure this program so that it is more affordable. GreenChoice wouldn’t be so expensive if wind was operating on a level playing field with fossil fuels. Austin Energy can make that happen.

Read Full Post »

City Delays on Solar Plant Vote

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 13, 2009 |

austin-skyline-bannerAs expected, the Austin City Council made the decision to delay the vote on Austin Energy’s proposed solar plant until March 5th.  Council Member Mike Martinez wanted to put it off longer, but since the bid for the plant will actually expire just seven days after this March meeting, the council agreed unanimously to have the final vote in three weeks time.

The foremost explanation for this delay was to give more time for the public participation process… though I think it is important to note that the “public” we’re referring to here is chiefly the city’s largest industrial rate-payers.  The general Austin public has already shown its colors on this issue.  According to recent surveys conducted by Austin Energy (and presented yesterday morning by Roger Duncan, general manager of the utility), Austinites want much more solar.  At 30 MW, the proposed solar plant would be the largest utility-scale photovoltaic array in the nation, and the 6th biggest solar plant in the world.  From where I’m sitting, that looks like just what the doctor ordered.

Large-scale users are up in arms because, since they use so much more energy, they think they’re going to be particularly hard hit by any slight rate increase.  Due to information that surfaced during this meeting, I am inclined not to feel terribly sorry for these folks.  If you’ll just stick with me here, everything will be illuminated.  I promise it’ll be good.

The council had already decided to delay the vote before they even entered the chamber, but listened to presentations and public comment anyway.  First on the agenda was Roger Duncan, general manager of Austin Energy.

Roger started out by laying out the basics of the proposed solar plant and how it would fit in with the City’s strategic energy plan.  The City plans to get 100 MW of its power from solar energy by 2020.  The first goal in this process was to install 15 MW of solar power by 2007.  We missed that stepping stone — Roger said we currently have 1.5 MW of solar installed on rooftops throughout Austin.  The next goal in line is to get 30 MW by 2010.  If the proposed project is approved, and built within the expected 18 months, Austin will be right on schedule to meet that goal. (more…)

Read Full Post »