Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘paul robbins’

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 »

Nuclear Falls Out at Austin City Hall

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 12, 2009 |

Hip-hip- HOORAY! After a series of informative, provocative presentations and public comments this morning, the Austin City Council voted unanimously to DECLINE participation in the South Texas Nuclear Project’s expansion plan.

Austin has a 16% stake in the current South Texas Nuclear Project, and has been questioning for months whether it should be a financial participant in new plans to double the capacity of that plant.  Months ago a consultant firm, Worley Parsons, was hired by Austin Energy to investigate whether this would be a good idea for Austin’s future.

First to present was Roger Duncan, general manager of Austin Energy.  He gave a presentation on the consulting firm’s recommendations.  We learned the following:

  • The proposed expansion would generate an additional 436 MW for the City of Austin.  Estimated cost: $2 billion.
  • Under a worst case scenario (of cost overruns, delayed construction, etc), power generated from the new boilers would cost 13 cents/kwh.  Under the best of circumstances (everything was beautiful and nothing hurt), electricity would cost 6 cents/kwh.  The firm’s most realistic, expected scenario would price out at around 8 and a half cents/kwh — however, it should be noted that Worley Parsons is a pro-nuclear consulting firm, so these are likely the most conservative of estimates.

The consulting firm concluded that with only a 16% stake in the project, Austin Energy would have insufficient owner protection from the scheduling, cost, contractor and regulatory risks involved in the project.  For example, if significant cost overruns did occur, Austin Energy would not have any vote or say in the matter of how to proceed.  Furthermore, large capital costs would be associated with the project throughout 2016 — but none of that cost risk would be within Austin Energy’s control.  The firm also warned of a potential downgrade of Austin Energy’s bonds because of the extended time period of debt issuance without cost recovery.

Because of the significant amount of unacceptable risk associated with the the expansion project, Worley Parsons recommended that Austin NOT participate.  As an Austin Energy spokesman Mr. Duncan announced that the utility had reached the same conclusion with the additional reasoning that Austin has no need for the 432 MW of base-load power that the project would eventually supply.  We wouldn’t even know what to with all that power.  Austin Energy also expressed concerns (rightly so!) that the nuclear waste issue remains unresolved. (more…)

Read Full Post »