By Axel Gerdau for PowerSmack.org
The debate over Austin’s energy future is getting louder. Energy experts and consumer rights activists are taking a firm stance against criticism voiced by predicament advocates and state legislators against Austin Energy’s generation plan proposal. Their argument: The utility should do more, not less, for green power in order to help the city save millions of dollars over the next twelve years.
During a press conference at City Hall on Wednesday, September 23, representatives of Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, and utility watchdog PowerSmack.org argued investments in efficiency measures and renewable energy technologies would pay off quickly. “Such investments will create jobs locally and reduce health care costs by decreasing air pollution from power production”, said Cyrus Reed, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club and member of a mayor-appointed task force, which advises City Council.
In the days prior to the press conference some community members had criticized Austin Energy’s plan as too costly and too green as it exceeds the minimum goals for renewable energy set by local legislators.
Ron Walker, chancellor for the Catholic Diocese of Austin, voiced concerns that Austin Energy’s proposed plan would hurt the elderly and the poor, who couldn’t afford any rate increases. And state Rep. Elliot Naishtat, D-Austin, had told the Austin-American Statesman “combating global warming is necessary … but it is incumbent on Austin Energy to make sure we don’t end up balancing the green-energy budget on the backs of the poor.”
Yet the notion that clean renewable energy is more costly now and will remain the most expensive option in the future is fraught, said energy consultant Mike Sloan, publisher of PowerSmack.org. “Contrary to conventional wisdom, Austin Energy’s lowest cost electric resources for 2008 were actually efficiency and renewable technologies. Nuclear power came in third. Coal and natural gas finished fourth and fifth on the list.”
Discussing costs and potential bill impacts, Sloan added that independent consultants hired by Austin Energy had in fact determined a mix of energy sources yielding the “lowest bill impact” over the next 11 years. “And that scenario included even more renewable energy than the proposal we are debating now. Meanwhile the fuel cost for coal went up 73 percent last year alone and the total cost of coal power has tripled over the past ten years”, said Sloan.
In the years ahead fossil fuels are expected to further increase in price as global demand for coal, gas, and oil is on the rise. At the same time, the federal government in Washington along with governments around the world is working on legislation that would set limits on greenhouse gas emissions – and thus make dirty fuels such as coal even more expensive to burn.
Austin Energy’s General Manager Roger Duncan also emphasized the importance of green power during a town hall meeting in City Hall the same night. “Wind is cheap. We need to get as much of it as we can … And we must continue to make energy efficiency our number one priority,” said Duncan. While predicting the exact bill impact of the utility’s proposal and other scenarios is difficult, one thing is clear, Duncan added. “The cheapest solution today won’t be the cheapest solution in 2018.”
Austin’s City Council will debate the utility’s proposal in the weeks ahead. A vote on the city’s energy future until 2020 is expected before the end of the year.
