Main Content
The City Council will hear a proposal next week to begin weaning Austin off coal and onto greener sources of energy, restarting a two-year civic debate amid signs that any decision Austin leaders make will be closely scrutinized by state lawmakers.
The "Generation and CO2 plan" will not get a final vote for weeks, possibly months, council members say. But Mayor Lee Leffingwell's office is planning a town-hall-style public forum in late February, with a final vote perhaps a month later.
The plan, from Austin Energy, calls for the city to replace some of the electricity generated by a coal plant in Fayette County with power from sources that produce less pollution. The sources would be mostly wind, but also some solar and wood waste. Austin would end up increasing its portfolio of renewable energy from 11 percent now to 30 percent by 2020. Austin Energy is also planning to invest heavily in measures that would allow the city to use its electricity more efficiently.
Council members reached Friday were generally supportive of the plan, but some said they are trying to balance factors such as costs, environmental obligations and the possibility of intervention by the Texas Legislature.
The proposal follows nearly two years of public discussions about where Austin should get its electricity in the future — and to what degree Austin should attempt to address global warming, which many scientists say is exacerbated by large-scale coal burning
The proposal has passed through several advisory boards and commissions, which backed the plan. The sometimes-intense public discussions faded to a whisper over the holidays. But in a measure of how sensitive the topic is, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst directed the Senate's Business and Commerce Committee this month to begin examining the cost and sources of electricity generated by city-owned utilities, including Austin Energy. The directive included the possibility of setting a "justifiable" cost for electricity and requiring a vote of a utility's customers to go beyond it. Such directives are generally used to shape legislation in upcoming sessions. The next session will be in 2011.
State Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, the commerce committee chairman, said the directive came because although much of Texas' electric market was deregulated in the late 1990s, the Legislature has done little to examine how well the city-owned utilities that were allowed to maintain their monopolies are serving their constituents.
By contrast, he said, the Legislature in recent sessions has looked into the operations of privately owned utilities, as well as cooperatives such as the Pedernales Electric Cooperative. "It's my intent to look at the municipal system as a whole," including such cities as San Antonio and College Station, Fraser said. "It's really nothing more than a continuation of what we've been looking at."
Roger Duncan, general manager of Austin Energy, has said that the energy-generation proposal would raise bills and that the utility could have suggested cheaper alternatives. But doing so, he said, would either sacrifice some environmental benefits or expose the system to blackout risks.
Austin Energy calculated the plan would raise bills about 22 percent over the next decade, although Duncan said it's difficult to predict how much the cost of coal and other fossil fuels will rise or what innovations will happen with renewable energy. The average residential electricity bill in Austin is now about $98 a month.
Environmental activists have been pushing city officials to adopt the plan, saying the city should consider adding even more renewable energy and cutting Austin's ties with the Fayette coal plant entirely.
A coalition of large businesses, hospitals and the Catholic diocese counter that Austin Energy should not be pursuing that much renewable energy when it is already planning to raise rates in the coming years for other reasons, including higher construction and maintenance costs. They say the City Council should delay a vote until the city knows more about what its new rates will be and whether the federal government will begin taxing or limiting the use of coal.
Despite the disagreement, two city advisory commissions and a specially appointed task force recommended adopting Austin Energy's proposal with minor variations. Opinions varied widely enough, however, that the nine-member task force wound up issuing three minority reports.
Council Member Bill Spelman said he is comfortable with Austin Energy's proposal and plans to vote for it.
"It answers the major questions and strikes the right balance of price, carbon reduction and safety" in case coal or natural-gas prices skyrocket, Spelman said. "But realistically, most of the measures this calls for won't happen for at least three years, so I'm in no hurry to adopt it."
Council Member Randi Shade said she still has questions and couldn't say when she'd be ready to vote. Council Member Sheryl Cole said the same.
Mark Nathan, Leffingwell's chief of staff, said the mayor is planning a forum in late February so a panel of experts can answer council members' questions. Nathan said the forum will give the public another opportunity to understand the proposal before a final vote on it. City leaders have not decided whether the forum will be open to public comment.
"It's very complex," Nathan said. "This is a concept of interest to a lot of people ... and we want to take a moment to ensure everyone knows what it is and what it means."
Mark Nathan, chief of staff for Mayor Lee Leffingwell , mentioned an interesting goal last week for the upcoming public forum on Austin Energy's plan to add more wind and solar power.
The late February forum, which will precede a vote on the plan, will not be like the forum the city held on Water Treatment Plant 4, he said.
That treatment plant was a polarizing topic, with most of the city's environmental activists opposed, and the city's water utility and many businesses saying it's badly needed. That split shaped the format of the debate-style September forum, at which the "pro" and "con" camps sat at separate, opposing tables. (The issue was later settled by a 4-3 council vote approving site preparation for the project.)
The energy forum needs to be different, Nathan said. The topic — a proposal by Austin Energy to begin weaning the city off coal over the next decade and onto renewables — is more complicated, the chances higher of getting lost amid seemingly infinite data points. And public debate has not hardened into a do-it-or-chuck-it dynamic.
The forum's format has not been set, but look for panelists to be arrayed around something akin to a round table.
It is rare that two cities so close together consider their electricity plans for the next 10 to 15 years at roughly the same time. It is more interesting that the two largest municipal utilities in Texas take such different approaches.
Both San Antonio and Austin have well-established municipal utilities — CPS Energy and Austin Energy — noted for their commitments to renewable energy, efficiency and low-cost electricity for their citizens and local businesses. CPS Energy has made a commitment to meet 20 percent of energy demand from wind and solar energy, reduce energy demand through energy efficiency and to keep rates low, and is asking for City Council action on a major investment next month. Austin Energy has made a commitment for 30 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2020 and lower demand.
The difference? The two giants' process and conclusions.
Austin Energy's proposed plan emerged after public and stakeholder meetings, an online survey and an energy consultant had examined a dozen scenarios — including investing in a new nuclear plant. The proposal is a mix of modeled scenarios, and calls for 800 MWs of energy efficiency, 1,100 MWs of new renewable solar, biomass and wind energy, and 300 MWs of new natural gas plants, while burning 40 percent less coal.
Additionally, an independent planning task force has now requested that Pace run three additional scenarios.
In contrast, CPS Energy has announced there are only two choices: A. invest in 40 percent of a proposed nuclear power plant in South Texas at a cost of $5.2 billion; or B. don't, instead build and run expensive natural gas plants a lot more. CPS Energy's own estimates show that average residential rates would go up $40 dollars over the next 10 years to pay for the nuke and a little less to run the gas plants.
Cost assumptions differ widely in the two plans. CPS Energy is assuming less risk and lower costs for the new nuclear plant. CPS Energy assumes that a utility-scale solar plant would cost twice what Austin Energy does, that natural gas plants would be some 40 percent more costly to run, and that the cost of reducing energy demand through efficiency would cost three times what Austin Energy pays.
What might you get for $5.2 billion if you used Austin Energy assumed cost numbers? An analysis done by this author and Mathew Johnson, an energy efficiency expert at Public Citizen, found that CPS Energy could obtain over 2,700 MWs of capacity and 1,300 MWs of electricity from a combination of natural gas, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
Neither utility's plans are final and both require City Council action. Austin Energy has been more transparent, more willing to listen and less wedded to a particular outcome. San Antonio's City Council would be wise to say no or delay next month's decision on the risky, costly nuke proposal, and instead call for a full, open investigation of future energy choices.
September 22, 2009
Contact:
Ed Clark, W-322-6514
Pager 802-2000
An interactive Town Hall meeting will be conductedWednesday, Sept. 23, to discuss Austin Energy recommendations regarding how to power Austin through 2020.
The meeting begins at6 p.m. at City Hall, 301 W. Second Street. The public can watch the meeting live on Channel 6 and can e-mail questions tosmolen@foxsmolen.comor call in questions at 974-5597. Questions will be answered live.
The meeting covers Austin Energy’s generation and CO2 reduction plan through 2020. Austin Energy proposes to increase from 30 to 35%, the percentage of power provided by renewable energy resources, to increase from 100 to 200 megawatts (MW), installed solar capacity as part of that renewables portfolio and to increase from 700 to 800 MW, peak demand to be offset through energy efficiency and load shifting.
Meetings with stakeholder groups, which include large businesses, environmental groups, churches and non-profits, also are being scheduled, and presentations on the plan have been made to City boards and commissions.
More information is available athttp://www.austinsmartenergy.com/on the plan and the public participation process that has included nine town hall meetings to date.
Taking advantage of Austin Energy's incentives for energy efficient homes and businesses makes good financial sense. Rebates and loans are available to help Austin residents make environmentally friendly choices. In some cases, low and moderate income customers of Austin Energy can even receive free home improvements, even if they rent their homes rather than own them. By participating in one of a variety of incentive programs, homeowners can reduce their energy costs and save money while helping to keep Austin green.
Austin Energy has a longstanding and demonstrated commitment to saving energy and environmental responsibility. As a result, Austin Energy has partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to offer Energy Star rebates to qualified customers. These rebates, available on purchases of high-efficiency air conditioning and electric water heater systems, solar photovoltaic systems, solar-powered water heating systems, as well as certain energy-saving home improvements, are intended to promote the use of green technology and alternative energy sources.
The efficiency of air conditioning systems is measured by two different systems. The Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) provides a measure of a specific unit's energy efficiency over the entire cooling season, and as such is a more general assessment. The Energy Efficiency Ration (EER) measures the unit's efficiency under prolonged and constant use, as in the hottest days of summer. Austin Energy offers rebates for the purchase of new air conditioning models that achieve a SEER rating of 14 or higher and an EER rating of 11.5 or higher; some window air conditioners also qualify for these rebates. Split system air conditioners and heat pumps may also qualify if they meet these SEER and EER rating requirements. Rebates range from $50 for small window units to $650 for the most highly rated energy efficient air conditioning systems.
Solar photovoltaic technology rebates work differently than appliance rebates. Since these solar panels actually generate electricity, Austin Energy offers low-cost, no-fee loans for the purchase and installation of solar photovoltaic systems, and then gives a rebate per watt to its customers for energy returned to the electrical grid. This makes solar energy an affordable and financially sensible alternative for private homes. Photovoltaic cells create energy without polluting the environment, so they are a sound environmental choice as well.
Solar water heaters also qualify for rebates from Austin Energy ranging from $1,500 for new construction to $2,000 for installation in an existing home. These technologically-advanced water heaters also qualify for a tax rebate of as much as $1,000. Solar water heater systems must be certified by the Solar Rating Certification Corporation in order to qualify for these incentives.
To help customers decrease their energy consumption, Austin Energy also offers rebates for certain home improvements, such as adding insulation to attic spaces, air duct repair, adding caulking and weather stripping to windows and doors, and radiant barrier insulation. Low-income families can qualify to receive these energy-saving improvements free of charge as part of Austin Energy's Power Saver Program. In order to qualify, you must meet certain income guidelines, the home to be improved must be a single-family residence, and in most cases the house cannot be valued at over $150,000. Renters who have lived in the residence for at least three months can also qualify if the landlord consents to the improvements.
Other Austin Energy programs include the Power Partners program, which gives customers a free programmable thermostat in return for allowing Austin Energy to cycle electric power usage during peak consumption periods; the Refrigerator Recycling program, and other incentives to save energy. But perhaps the most important incentives are the environmental benefits of these programs. Together with Austin residents, Austin Energy is looking to the future and working to build a greener tomorrow.
During the 1970s energy crisis, San Antonio leaderswere outraged when a company owned by oilman Oscar Wyatt refused to honornatural-gas contracts at a time when gas was the only fuel that fired SanAntonio's power plants.
Wyatt's company jacked up natural gas prices, sending electricity billssharply higher. But city leaders' fury had little effect.
CPS Energy already had signed on as a partner to build the South TexasProject nuclear plant, but it would be 1988 before the plant started sendingpower to San Antonio.
It was a tough lesson learned. San Antonio and city-owned CPS Energy vowed tofurther diversify the fuels needed to produce electricity.
“We have gone from being 100 percent dependent onnatural gas to having a broad and diverse portfolio of fuels,” CPS ChiefExecutive Officer Milton Lee said.
Since the gas crisis, the city's utility has built massive coal-fed plantsand the nuclear plant, and invested in wind and solar energy.
The mix of power generation has allowed CPS to reduce electricity prices tosome of the lowest rates among major U.S. cities, Lee said.
Yet CPS leaders say more power will be needed for a growing city beyond thenext power plant, coal-fired Spruce 2, which will be finished next summer. CPShas pushed a plan to add two reactors to the South Texas Project at a cost tothe utility of $5.2 billion, a plan that has touched off a contentiousdebate.
The debate will turn in part on whether elected officials believe CPScustomers can afford the nuclear costs.
CPS and its partner, NRG Energy, have said they each would take a 40 percentstake in the nuclear expansion and look for a third partner to purchase theremaining 20 percent.
Mayor Julián Castro has voiced concern about higher rates, while suggestinghe'd like to see CPS purchase a 20 percent stake in the nuclear expansion. Thatwould allow the utility to take advantage of technological advances inelectricity generation.
But CPS says the harsh reality is that customers' bills will go up even ifSan Antonio decides not to invest a penny in the nuclear expansion.
Bills go up, then down
The utility says it will need a 3 percent increase in customers' bills nextyear, and additional boosts will be necessary for several years after that topay for reliability, environmental controls and smart meters, a technology thatwill help customers monitor their power usage.
The average residential monthly bill now is about $98.
If City Council votes to invest in a 40 percent ownership stake in thenuclear expansion, CPS bills will rise starting next year, and bill increaseswill continue every year until about 2017, when the nuclear addition iscompleted.
Lee said the utility would hold the line on future bill increases, withboosts of no more than 5 percent every other year, or roughly 2.5 percent eachyear. There would be a one-time spike next year of 4.8 percent if the councilapproves CPS' nuke plan.
But by 2022, CPS predicts something magical will happen as a result of moreelectricity coming to the city from the expanded nuclear plant. The average billwill begin to decline, starting with a drop of $2.76 a month in 2022 and fallingby $9.31 a month by 2025 and $20.31 a month by 2035. (The estimates include afuel adjustment charge that varies month to month.)
“Bills will drop because the fuel component of the nuclear plant will make itmore affordable than if we stay with natural gas or coal,” said PaulaGold-Williams, CPS' chief financial officer.
Critics of the nuclear expansion say spending billions to build more reactorsis a “bet-the-farm” risk the city and CPS customers can't afford.
New Jersey-based NRG estimated in 2007 that adding two reactors to the SouthTexas Project would cost $6 billion.
Earlier this year, NRG estimated the “overnightcost” to build the plant — if it could be built tomorrow — at $10 billion, whileCPS estimated the cost at $13 billion, including financing.
“This nuke has doubled in cost before any dirt hasbeen turned,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of the Texas office of PublicCitizen, a consumer advocacy group that opposes nuclear plants.
Smith pointed out that a $5.2 billion investment in the nuclear expansion ismore than three-fourths the value of all of CPS' $6.4 billion in assets,including power plants and transmission lines.
Gloria Mora, a leader with COPS/Metro Alliance, acoalition of church-based congregations, said the organization has been holding“civic academies” to brief people on CPS' plans.
“We are not ideologically opposedto nuclear power,” Mora said, “but the current (40 percent ownership) proposalis unacceptable. We plan to continue talking to our elected
officials and other community leaders to exploreother options.
“We are looking for reasonable protection for our ratepayers.”
A new ownership idea
CPS continues to push for a 40 percent ownership stake in the nuclearexpansion as a means of giving it equal footing with partner NRG.
“We want to control our own destiny, and a 40 percent ownership would give usveto power,” CPS' Lee said.
CPS seeks an equal voice because, even with a fixed-price contract, partnersmay have disagreements over such matters as how to handle construction delays —say the late arrival of a key component — and over operational matters such aswhen refueling outages should occur.
CPS now is mulling a variation of its plan to hold a 40 percent stake.
CPS leadership recently told the utility's board of trustees that it'slooking into forming a Joint Action Agency, an entity that would include CPS,possibly as a 20 percent owner, along with other buyers of electricity from CPS,who, collectively, would own 20 percent.
The Joint Action Agency would own 40 percent of the nuclear plant expansion.The agency would have a separate board and have an equal seat at the table withNRG.
“The other participants would pay their share for construction of the plant,as well as for operation of the plant after it's built,” said Mike Kotara, CPSexecutive vice president of nuclear development.
Members of the agency — CPS and possibly municipalities and cooperatives —would have voting rights commensurate with their ownership share, he said.
Just as corporations can have different structures, “cities can do the samething,” Kotara said. “This is a very workable plan.”
But because creating a Joint Action Agency requires an act of the Legislature“the real dilemma is the timing,” Kotara said, as the Legislature doesn't meetagain until January 2011.
But Smith of Public Citizen said forming a Joint Action Agency wouldn'tlessen the risk for CPS customers.
“It's the worst of both worlds,” Smith said. “The city would be responsiblefor its proportionate share of the debt, but it would lose control to a board ofutility managers who would be remote and couldn't be influenced by voters or theCity Council.
“On a decision of this magnitude, it wouldeliminate the owners of CPS from any real control,” he said. “And whoever thegeneral manager of the agency would be is the only one who would have a vote asto whether to continue to spend large sums of money.”
And Smith and other nuclear critics say a lesserinvestment in the nuclear expansion — say a 20 percent stake at a cost of about$2.6 billion — is too risky.
The estimates given by CPS and NRG “are way, way under budget,” said KarenHadden of the SEED Coalition, an Austin-based consumer advocacy group. She saidcost overruns remain a big concern.
Delays and cost overruns are plaguing a nuclear reactor being built inFinland, she noted. After four years of construction and problems with defects,the reactor's $4.2 billion price tag is over budget by $3.3 billion, the NewYork Times reported last week.
The reactor was to start producing electricity in the summer, but Areva, thenationalized French company building it, isn't now saying when it will befinished, the Times said.
CPS often has said it has mitigated risk because the two reactors to be addedto the South Texas Project are Advanced Boiling Water Reactors to be built byToshiba, which has built four such reactors in Japan. Also, the reactor has beenpre-certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The French-built reactor inFinland is of a different design.
Construction risk
Construction risk is the single largest risk inthe building of nuclear plants, experts say.
After 1979's Three Mile Island accident, everynuclear plant in the country had to scramble to react to the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission's dramatic design-change requirements, said Chris Tierney, vicepresident of the Kenrich Group, a national consulting group that works withutilities to assess costs.
“This time around, the industry is much better prepared to mitigate againstdesign changes,” Tierney said. “For example, there are just a small number ofdesigns that will be implemented across the country. Instead of having more than50 plants, most of which had their own custom designs, you have a handful thatwill be rigidly adhered to at plants across the country.”
Pre-approval of the reactor design, such as NRG and CPS have, means “thedetailed design is substantially complete in advance of breaking ground on theplant,” Tierney said. “That removes a tremendous amount of risk that existed inthe first go-round of nuclear construction.”
Also, by year's end, CPS and partner NRG believe they'll have better idea ofthe cost of the expansion. By then, they hope to have a fixed baseline costhammered out with Toshiba to build the two new reactors.
The agreement with Toshiba won't spell out the final price, NRG ChiefExecutive Officer David Crane said last week. But it would set a baseline fornegotiating the final fixed-cost contract that's expected to be signed in 2012,assuming that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues the project a permit.
AnAustin Energytown hall meeting Tuesday night presented recommendations on increasing Austin’s renewable energy use through 2020.
Roger Duncan, Austi Energy’s general manager, presented the revised generation plan and a carbon emissions reduction plan. The 2009 plan makes some amendments to the 2008 draft and proposes to increase the percentage of power provided by renewable energy resources to 35 percent.
The utility’s carbon reduction plan in 2008 called for 30 percent of the city’s total power production to come from renewable resources.
Austin Energy plans to make Austin’s homes and businesses more energy efficient by reducing their consumption from 700 to 800 megawatts by 2020. It also plans to reduce direct emissions to 20 percent below 2005 emissions.
“I don’t know if this plan will prevent catastrophic climate change. Certainly, we’re already experiencing climate change in the country and in the world,” Duncan said. “But I feel strongly about this plan and I think it’s aggressive.”
The plan includes a commitment to 1,000 megawatts of wind generation and doubling solar energy output to 200 megawatts by 2020. The recommendation decreases the use of the coal-burning Fayette Power Plant by 40 percent.
The price customers will pay for reliable electric service will rise about 2 percent a year making the average residential bill each month about $21 higher by 2020, according to Duncan’s presentation.
The meeting came after a year-long discussion on energy generation.
“We’ve gone through an extensive public participation process of eight town hall meetings, such as this one, conducted surveys and stakeholder meetings and have had over 11 different focus groups formed,” Duncan said.
This has included about 20 different groups such as the Austin Board of Realtors, the Real Estate Council, various chambers of commerce and 30 different community leaders across the city.
Results of the public participation process have shown that people want more energy efficiency, more solar, more wind and less coal consumption. Public opinion shows people are split over nuclear power and ambivalent about gas, Duncan said.
Currently, Austin Energy powers Austin buildings and homes with 32 percent coal, 25 percent nuclear, 12 percent wind and 31 percent natural gas.
By 2020, Austin Energy hopes to power Austin with 26 percent wind power, 22 percent nuclear power, 23 percent coal power, 3 percent solar power, 7 percent with biomass and the rest natural gas.
“To avoid the worst impacts of global warming, we’d have to shut everything down next Tuesday,” Duncan said. “We have to evaluate the practical aspects of how much renewable energy we can put into place into what time frames.”
One audience member asked if there was any way of completely eliminating energy production from the burning of coal.
“To eliminate existing coal and nuclear energy would produce a skyrocketing cost,” Duncan said. “We don’t know of any physical way that we could replace the energy we get from coal.”
Other sources of renewable energy discussed included mixing wood pellets with coal or even shredded tires. Waste energy is also another possibility for future energy conservation endeavors.
“Austin has a reputation for being very progressive, and I think the general trend is a shift worldwide in increasing concern about these issues,” said Erin Hickok, an Austin resident and community development representative at Austin EcoNetwork, a network organization of people interested in events and resources related to Austin and the environment.
Hickok said she wants Austin to be a leader in renewable energy.
“I applaud the points in the presentation that focus on increasing energy efficiency because it’s moving Austin in the right direction,” Hickok said. “But I firmly believe that we can and should do better to get rid of coal much faster.”
The next steps in the energy process include a risk analysis and more town hall and stakeholder meetings with interested groups. The Electric Utility Commission and Resource Management Commission make their own recommendations later this month, while a city council public hearing takes place Oct. 15.
A coal-fired power plant in Fayette County is quickly becoming ground zero in a debate about Austin's energy future.
The city's electric utility is proposing to use about a third less of the coal-generated power from the plant by 2020, replacing it with wind and solar energy. That would be a prelude to getting off coal entirely someday.
Austin Energy acknowledges the proposal is fraught with legal and practical questions. But a coalition of environmental groups is calling for the city to go further and get out of the Fayette plant entirely by 2020, contending coal will soon become more expensive and is "immoral" because of its pollution.
Roger Duncan, Austin Energy's general manager, said at a Tuesday meeting that the city could not wean itself entirely off coal by 2020 and still keep the lights on.
One audience member asked if Austin Energy had calculated all of the Fayette plant's societal implications, such as health problems and deaths linked to pollution from it. As Austin Energy's proposal is vetted, will those costs be factored in and presented to the public?
"We're not including the entire societal cost," replied Duncan, an environmental activist in his younger days, "because we can't figure it out."
Austin's municipally owned energy company wants 37.6 percent of the city's power to come from renewable energy by 2020.
"I think anybody in the country would take a look at this a say, 'Wow,'"Austin EnergyGeneral ManagerRoger Duncansaid.
In front of about 75 people, Duncan laid out AE's plan to reach its new goal of 37.6 percent renewable energy by 2020.
"It's an extremely aggressive plan," Duncan said.
Besides adding more renewable energy, the plan would also reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.
If Duncan and AE reach their goal, carbon dioxide levels should drop to 20 percent below 2005 levels.
Currently, the Fayette Coal Power Plant is the biggest producer of carbon dioxide emissions in the city. Last year, the coal burning plant -- located about halfway between Austin and Houston -- was responsible for 70 percent of the city's carbon dioxide emissions.
The price tag to raise renewable energy and lower carbon dioxide is about $2.67 billion. That is, if the city builds and owns everything needed to reach the goal.
Duncan said to reach the goal, the average residential customer will see about a 22 percent increase in their monthly bill. In today's money, that would be roughly a $21 increase.
Commercial customers would see a 19 percent increase and industrial customers would see roughly a 12 percent increase.
"I think most people understand we have to make some big changes, and I think for a lot of people, they're going to be relived it's only $20 a month," environmental activist, Robin Rather, said.
According to Duncan, right now about 2 percent of AE customers pay for all of AE's renewable energy. He continued to say that to reach the new goal, 2 percent cannot pay for everything.
A breakdown of the plan by source:
Wind
Currently AE gets 12 percent of its energy from wind from wind farms, mostly in West Texas, not owned by AE
Increase wind capacity to 1000 MW by 2020-AE
AE wants to buy wind farms so they don't have to pay the middle man
Solar
- Currently the city gets zero energy from the sun
- The new goal is to double previously set goal from 100 MW to 200 MW
- Promote solar thermal hot water use
- Develop incentives and strategies for local manufacturing
Biomass
- Currently the city gets 0 percent from biomass, but the city has agreed to buy $2.5 billion (100MW/year) worth of biomass from a yet-to-be-built plant in East Texas
- Add an additional 50 MW by 2020
- Look into changing portions of Fayette Coal Power Plant into biomass
Natural Gas
- Currently 11 percent of Austin's energy comes from natural gas
- Build combined cycle gas turbine at existing power plant, adding 200 MW by 2020
Coal
- Currently coal plants generate about 32 percent of the energy here in Austin
- AE's goal could reduce Fayette Coal Power Plant capacity 40 percent by 2020
- Possible talk of closing or selling the plant by 2020, depending on what LCRA wants to do (they own the other half of the plant)
Nuclear
- Currently the city gets about 11 percent of its power from the South Texas Nuclear Project
- AE recommends continued participation in Units 1 and 2 at the STNP
Toward the end of a Tuesday evening public meeting, local environmental activist Robin Rather asked Duncan, "Is this everything that we need to be doing?"
Duncan answered, "I feel strongly about the plan. I feel very aggressive. I go to sleep well at night thinking that we've thrown everything into this that we can."
The plan will need council approval. AE officials said they plan to bring it to the city council some time in October.
Austin Energywill make a recommendation to City Council this Friday on their future generation plan through 2020. According to their website, "an important component of the planning process is input from the community" -- but as of April, only about 300 people had filled out Austin Energy's survey. Through the survey, you can give Austin Energy a quick gut reaction of what kind of an energy future you want: one with more coal and nuclear (boooo, hisssss, cough cough cough), or a non-smoking future fueled by renewable energy and efficiency (cheers, jubilation!). We need as many Austinites as possibleto fill out this surveyand send the message loud and clear: say goodbye to our dirty energy past and look to a brighter energy future!
According to Austin Energy's survey, Austinites get about a third each of their power from coal, nuclear, and natural gas, and about 10% from renewables. Looking at theirdraft generation plan, they are looking to change that mix to 26% from coal and nuclear power, 44% from natural gas, 5% from biomass, 22% from wind, and 3% from solar by 2020.
That plan may be an improvement from what we've got now, but it doesn't show near the vision and leadership that Austin Energy ought to provide. Imagine what kind of a message it would send if Austin Energy actually tried to divest itself completely from coal -- and shut down the Fayette Coal Plant!
That's right folks, Austin -- that Central Texas shining star of wierdness, environmental stewardship, and progressive politics -- has a dirty secret. We own half of a coal plant, along with LCRA. And 16% of the South Texas Nuclear Project!
GHASP! Skeletons in the closet.
Ghasp indeed -- and skeletons in the closet for real. We all know how bad coal is, and the Fayette plant is spewing toxic emissions into the air every day on our behalf. A total of 44 people die early deaths as a result of these emissions every year.
But Austin Energy's expected proposals don't put a priority on shutting down Fayette. That's why local environmental groups like Powersmack and Public Citizen are launching a new campaign to try to convince Austin Energy and the City Council to shut down Fayette. Don't sell it -- don't pawn those emissions off on someone else. Shut. It. Down.
James Hansen, one of the top climate scientists and greatest climate change advocates of our time, has said that the number one thing we can do to stop global warming is to stop using coal. Better, cleaner alternatives exist. We're not looking for a silver bullet here, but through a mixture of aggressive solar, wind, geothermal, and energy efficiency -- we can kick the habit.
But the first step is to admit we've got a problem. So fill out the survey, and tell Austin Energy you want your power to come from MUCH LESS coal and nuclear and MUCH MORE renewables and efficiency.
If a city as polluted as Los Angeles can commit to stop using coal by 2020, so can we.
Let's walk the walk.
The council is scheduled to vote Thursday on the project. It would be built and managed by Gemini Solar Development Company and be among the largest solar arrays in the world. But Martinez said that with the city about to embark on budget cuts stemming from the weakening economy, now is not the time to approve such an expensive project. Austin Energy would pay $10 million a year for 25 years.
Austin Energy would enter into a 25 year contract with San Fransisco basedGemini Solar Development Companyto generate 30 megawatts of power. Austin currently generates 2,900 megawatts of power.
The City of Austin currently owns a 16% share of STP, located in Matagorda County, Texas. The other owners of STP are CPS Energy (40%) and NRG Energy, Inc (44%). The STP is a two-unit nuclear facility with 2,725 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity.
Austin’s effort to utilize alternative energy sources is gaining momentum, according to city officials.
Last week, Mayor Will Wynn and Austin Energy General Manager Roger Duncan announced the “Austin Smart Energy” public participation process, which will work with the Austin Climate Protection Program to get the public involved in the city’s move to reduce its coal and fossil fuel usage with alternative sources like solar, wind, biomass and hydropower.