Clinton, "Wind in 2 years, Solar in 4"
Two years ago a small team of about four Austinites got together to protest the Austin Energy generation plan on economic, public health, and urgent environmental grounds.
We were unknown, self-appointed citizen experts; the kind City Hall hates to love. To their credit we had numerous meetings with executive staff at the Hall and Austin Energy re: our vision for Austin's future economic success in relation to the Gen Plan.
Our fundamental thesis: A 2010- 2020 generation plan that is not grounded in getting out of Austin's clunker coal plant and replacing it with clean electricity generation, according to an economically opportunistic timeline, is a failure. There it is in plain English.
In Bill Clinton's new book, "Back to Work," the President cites price parity between coal and wind as arriving in two years (domestically), between coal and solar in four years.
The Gen Plan models we provided Austin Energy and City Hall showed alternative strategies for "covering baseload" electricity needs attributed to Austin's Fayette coal plant, generating local jobs growth, matching cost of service increases to utility customers, reducing health care costs and risks, significantly reducing environmental costs and risks, and exploring new business models for Austin Energy as electricity generation becomes more decentralized in the years ahead.
Maybe it's time to revisit these ideas more closely?
- chris_searles's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Matt, great to hear from you
...and I appreciate your comments.
Quick Responses
The coal plant currently runs ~80% capacity factor. The 2010-2020 Gen Plan "calls for" about 20% less coal use by 2020. Importantly, that plan in no way defines actual implementation of this ramp down goal. The Gen Plan essentially stacks more renewables on top of our current base. That was the win for the environmental community. All we were trying to say in 2009/2010 was that quitting coal made economic sense. Your statement "If anything may be called a failure, it would be if AE, city council, and citizens did not do their due diligence in adapting the plan to take advantage of emerging energy market dynamics" -- might include all of us, even Austin's environmentalists and task force members.
However, Times Have Changed
We're doing as you say now. I'm thrilled to see Cyrus leading the charge today with a model that shows transitioning away from Fayette coal by 2016 to be economically advantageous. Weis is open to it, believing we'll have to convert the plant to Nat Gas.
More Importantly
I hope you've seen Mayor Leffingwell's recent statement re: working "aggressively" to set a date to make Austin coal-free. THAT makes sense. http://www.austineconetwork.com/blog/huge-victory-austin-environmentalists
I unwaveringly appreciate your work.
Sounds like we were both right.
Chris, your characterization of the gen plan is unfair
I take exception to your calling the plan a failure. It is a good plan because the largest resource acquisitions are efficiency and renewables. It would exceed CO2 goals of Waxman-Markey had that legislation passed Congress. Moreover, if implemented properly, the gen plan puts AE on a path to divestiture from Fayette. It would allow AE to operate FPP at ~60% capacity by 2020. Yes, that's far from ideal. I agree. But remember the strategy that was incorporated into the plan: review and revision. Just what you call for in your final sentence.
Many people in the environmental community tried to strengthen the plan by modeling the shuttering or sale of Fayette. We could not get enough support for those scenarios. We tried. We did get good stuff in there though.
Cyrus and I fought to include a provision in the task force recommendations to re-visit the question of quicker divestiture every two years. Review and revision are inherent in the plan.
Now that solar module prices have experienced such a dramatic drop, and AE has secured most of its 2020 renewable energy goals through new wind PPA's, we are in prime position to revisit the generation plan and push for more renewables and efficiency, as well as examine quicker Fayette divestiture.
If anything may be called a failure, it would be if AE, city council, and citizens did not do their due diligence in adapting the plan to take advantage of emerging energy market dynamics. Austin can shed Fayette quicker, but it's up to you to make sure the gen plan is a success.
I appreciate that you are trying to push Austin's leaders to act quicker, but it's offensive to the people in the environmental community who worked incredibly hard to get what we got in the plan.
-Matt Johnson
Yes it is!
I would love to hear what the city's response was to your plan! It seems to me like we should have adopted it immediately.