Misunderstanding Austin's Electricity Planning, pt. 1

These notes are observations compiled from the last several months of activism regarding Austin Energy's Generation Plan, 2010-2021. . . Our community will engage in town hall discussion on the subject Feb. 22, and KLRU is featuring a round table on the subject around Feb. 18. Here's some insight into "how we got here" --

(Part 1 of a 2 part series.)

Unfortunate Exclusions
Invites: Austin Energy and City Council left out a few fundamental players, last year, when they made appointments to the citizen body responsible for reviewing electricity generation planning, 2010-2021. (1) Just ask "Carol B" at Texas Rose. The "Rose" in Texas Rose stands for "Rate Payers Organization to Save Energy." Neither Carol, nor any other low income advocates, nor any small business advocates, neighborhood advocates, citizen advocates, health advocates or etc were invited to participate in the citizen scenario review process. Whoops. The review board was made up of 2 clean energy advocates, 2 environmental advocates, 2 corporate business employees, 1 building manager's advocate, and the chairs of the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Commission (which are also volunteer citizen review boards). These appointments were a great start, but not a fair cross-representation of the whole community. Of course, how does one fairly represent the whole community?

Info: Furthermore, the folks who sat on the citizen review task force were shocked and frustrated to no end by resistance Austin Energy's staff showed in answering some of their questions. It's probably completely unintentional, but AE has yet to explain why certain info is secret in Austin that may not be secret in other cities or electricity markets.

And meanwhile -- the more financially oriented thinkers in the review process were further exasperated, because they were never given some essential framing for the way utility scenarios are traditionally carried out. Now this may or may not be true -- but apparently energy utility planning is modeled entirely off of proxy data, even in private companies. Not sure why. Colin Meehan of Environmental Defense tells me that when he worked in a consulting firm that performed scenario modeling services for large utilities some years ago -- all of the projects were run off proxies, that indeed using "proxy data" is industry standard. But here in Austin, without explanation to the citizen reviewers, this squishy data catalyzed distrust about AE's financial know how and many of the reviewers are unconvinced that the fiscal projections they were shown have any basis in reality. Thus, hundreds of "bill impact" questions remain. . . If only Austin Energy known to explain "proxy data" to their citizen reviewers and prioritize a clear reveal on bill impacts.

Communication Breakdowns
Meanwhile, we are fortunate to very talented and committed staffers at City Hall and the utility who are doing their daily best to manage a flurry of incoming requests from a wide variety of concerns and knowledge bases. We might need a few more resources here. . . And, ironically, it's the things I've heard our leaders say off-hand that are defining some of today's anger.

Leadership Ain't Easy: Roger Duncan's infamous late Summer quip, "We need coal to keep the lights on," was quickly rescinded after local environmentalists (like me, the Sierra Club, and a number of UT student leaders) responded incredulously. Mr. Duncan was of course referring to the idea that unless people are willing to pay more for their electricity -- coal is an unfortunate fact of life. But it made him sound pro-coal to those of us who don't know him. (2) Another example, Mayor Leffingwell's recent remark, "We don't have to do anything for the next two years," has also upset local enviros because it sounds like he's fleeing the scene. But the Mayor is probably referring to a very complicated series of ideas, i.e.: given that the current plan so many environmentalists are endorsing doesn't call for any strategic changes in Austin Energy's electricity generation policy for at least the next three years, and the fact that the City has some relatively clear environmental policies in place, and the fact that Austin Energy is in serious financial trouble, and the fact that the Mayor's office is currently managing fears regarding deregulation (Austin Energy is a citizen-owned monopoly responsible for generating about a third of the City's operating revenue) -- it would appear the Mayor might be trying to say (without alarming anyone), "please be patient - the green plan you're supporting is already effectively in place, and I plan to continue operations carrying that out while we sort out AE's financial viability issues." But, again, that's not what it sounded like.

Unfortunate Assumptions
Earth-lovers like me: Another fact. Enviros like conspiracy theories. Corporations are evil and the government is full of spiritually-dead self-preservationists. Duh! . . .  I don't know why, but we're quick to assume the worst about those who don't share our priorities. And that's true of just about everybody. Humanity is under an awful lot of stress, right now. So, we're often driven to assume that when someone is not sharing something, they're hiding something. That may or may not be true.

Maybe it's because I've been the squeakiest of hinges in the local blogosphere, insinuating that Austin Energy was addicted to fossil fuels and blindly ignorant of coal's community costs, but I haven't had as much trouble getting my questions answered as I thought I would. Mr. Roger Duncan, General Manager of AE, has been welcoming and supportive of any efforts to help AE move off of its most destructive habit (burning coal), and he's a busy guy. I imagine there are others like me who would assume the worst before trying to build a relationship with their accused...

Suffice to say, there's a lot to know about electricity -- and personal contact, effective communication, and getting your questions answered are more fun than abstract darkness.

##

This is part 1 of a 2 part series. Read complete blog here. Thanks.

##

 Local & Related: Austin Climate Leadership Petition

##

Notes
> (1) aka, The Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force
> (2) We can replace coal today - but it would require more Nuke or Natural Gas to cover the bases. More wind is coming online fast,
but here in Texas we're waiting for transmission lines to be laid out to the Gulf, South Texas, and West. AE has already committed
its rate payers to some pretty expensive Bio Mass, but that's not due to come online till at least 2012, and its total supply is very small.
Geothermal would be an excellent replacement resource, but nobody's building any right now. Wave and hydro are in the same position.
(Question: smarter to finance geo or water-driven electricity plants, instead of biomass?) Energy Efficiency is the way forward for now,
but keep in mind, AE doesn't like to spend money en masse incentivizing things that reduce its revenue en masse -- and coal is ultimately
what's there at the "base" -- even when your building is 99% energy efficient, to provide electricity when the sun goes down and the wind
stops blowing. So, replacing coal means going to a less impactful form of thermal generation: nukes or natural gas. Nuke rates in TX are
about twice as expensive, unavailable at the moment, carbon neutral and full of potential catasrophe. Natural Gas rates in TX are about
3 times as expensive, but incredibly volatile, about half as carbon heavy -- and linked to numerous other environmental concerns such
as aquifer damage.

##

• chris_searles's blog
• Login or register to post comments