Monday as I was scanning media around Texas I found an interesting article at the Austin American-Statesman regarding the problem facing the poor and elderly as a result of Austin’s decision to fore go further investment in STNP and opt for renewable energy. It appears that after the cost figures were calculated based on the decision that Austin’s poor and elderly would have a hard time paying their utility bills due to the expected cost increases. Advocates for the low-income residents have been in discussions with Austin Energy to try to plan for how to meet the needs. “We help a lot of people who can barely afford to keep the lights on now,” said Ron Walker, chancellor for the Catholic Diocese of Austin, which calculates electric bills could rise 50 percent in the next five years. What if San Antonio drops investment in STNP? What would happen to our low-income residents and who would pick up the costs?
Throughout this debate on whether CPS should invest further in STNP this issue has never really come up in the debates. Most of the people in the room just don’t want any investment in nuclear. They cite dangers from accident at a plant that has one of the best safety records in the nation. They talk about cost overruns and reference 30 year old project data as their basis when looking at a firm that has brought four plants online on time and on budget. They bring up a lot of things that just aren’t so. Still, you have to hand it to them. They are persistent.
My first question is if they really understand the cost of renewable energy. When they pay their utility bill are they buying windtricity through CPS’s allocation program and paying the premium for electricity? When I was paying CPS directly I did and saw an increase in my electric bill. My commitment to renewables was such that I continued the program. However, I challenge any who disagree with STNP investment to step up and allocate their entire electric bill to windtricity. It’s possible and would give them a taste of what the cost would be.
The problem is that when these people get in the room and speak are they really speaking for the low-income residents of the city? I know they are advocates for them since COPS/Metro Alliance is one of the biggest opponents. Heck, let’s lump the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center in there for grins. Graciela talks a mean talk but I would enjoy seeing both her utility bill and that of the Center for the past year to see if windtricity shows up in the costs.
This issue hasn’t really been dealt with in the US since I don’t know of a major utility that has opted for 100% renewables or even investments around 30% or above. In the UK where there is a strong commitment to renewables they are addressing it with a compulsory social tariff to offset the costs for the poor. The tariff would be levied on the more affluent ratepayers in a sort of Robin Hood approach to spreading the costs. I’d like to see that pass here in the states while the health care debate is going on. Talk about a tea bagger revolt.
So, while I have full commitment to San Antonio’s continued investment in renewables I’m also pragmatic and understand the ramifications of not investing in STNP. One big reason is visible from my window on the 12th floor. The other day I was looking towards the southeast where a friend lives. I can see the McDonald’s sign a few blocks from his house in the Highlands neighborhood. Just past it I saw a smokestack with smoke billowing from it pretty heavily. When I asked him what that was he told me it was the coal-powered CPS plant at Calaveras Lake. Scary.
San Antonio continues to grow at a strong pace and the energy needs of the city will be large. Renewables are already in the mix but a lot of infrastructure is missing to help support further investment. Transmission lines are needed that will have a larger footprint than what we have or will have coming from STNP. The technology is unreliable for sustainable periods and needs further innovation. That’s why I support Mayor Castro’s compromise position of 20% investment instead of 40%. It still keeps energy costs low and allows for capital to be made available for renewable investments in the future.
