At this point only a few of the costs are known or even quantifiable, particularly the transmission and fossil fuel costs to the system. In looking at Austin Energy's report, the cost for new transmission to bring more wind to Texas will be less – about 0.7¢/month for the average customer in 2015. If fossil fuel prices don't increase more than they have over the past six years, the General Fund Transfer costs associated with fossil fuels might be only 0.4¢/kWh by 2015. Of course, that's assuming that Austin Energy stays smart and doesn't put too many more eggs in the fossil fuel basket.

The rate increase doesn't really have a direct relationship with Austin Energy's forward-looking generation plan because rates are based on historical costs, not future costs. Still, in recognition of increased conventional utility costs, Austin Energy has developed an investment plan that will use zero fuel sources such as wind, solar and energy efficiency to contain future costs.  Some people discuss Austin Energy's plan by comparing it to our current costs, as if by doing nothing we will ensure that gas prices won't rise 300 percent again and Texas power prices remain at their lowest point since 2001. The comparison to current costs is important as a place marker, but I think it's more informative to look at what could happen down the road if Austin Energy makes no changes.

As our analysis shows under a "business as usual" scenario, following the historical trends of the last 10 years, average residential power prices in Austin could increase another $60 per month excluding carbon costs. This is due largely to an increasing dependency on fossil fuels and buying electricity on the Texas deregulated marketplace. Similar proposals to "save money" would only do so in the near term at the expense of future exposure to volatile fossil fuel and deregulated market prices.   

The Austin Generation Task Force – whose members include Austin's business, environmental, and industrial communities – acknowledged those risks in a milestone vote last week. The board voted unanimously on several recommendations to the city council, including increasing energy efficiency goals, and developing a solar market in Texas to bring at least 300 MW of distributed solar to the city by 2020. While members couldn't come to an agreement on a specific quantity for Austin Energy in 2020, all members strongly reaffirmed Austin's commitment to a solar goal.

All of this is to say that it's important to keep future plans in the perspective of future costs, and avoid the trap of comparing them to present costs. Most forecasters acknowledge that as our economy recovers, the price of oil and natural gas will resume its upward climb. With carbon regulation sure to happen one way or another, the cost of coal will increase as well, leading to an overall increase in fossil fuel prices for a utility that already shells out plenty for those fuels. Energy efficiency and renewable energy have a proven track record of saving Austin customers money over time, even if they have some upfront costs.

I commend Austin Energy both for its clean energy leadership and its recognition that to save customers from dangerously high future costs, some upfront investment is needed.

This announcement is just the latest example of how jobs continue to pass Texas by since the legislature failed to pass the two signature renewable energy bills this past year.

It's kind of like Detroit in the '70s and '80s: While the old, established industry was busy building bigger cars with bigger engines, Japan became the world leader in automobiles by providing more reliable cars at a lower cost with higher miles per gallon. Now Texas is at risk of becoming another Detroit as companies in the state continue to look for more expensive sources of fossil energy, while another "sleeping giant" positions itself to build the world a cleaner, cheaper alternative.

It's a real shame too. This past session, state Senator Kirk Watson introduced the "Made in Texas" incentive for renewable energy, which found its way into almost every piece of renewable energy legislation. Both Senator Watson's renewable energy goal bill (SB 541) and Chairman Fraser's solar subsidy bill (SB 545) would have created the kind of marketplace needed to keep wind and solar jobs in the U.S., with an extra incentive to bring them to Texas.

These are the kinds of ideas we need to make a reality if we truly want to stem the tide of energy importing and ensure that Texas remains a strong energy exporter well into the 21st century.

Energy vampires are the appliances and electronics that continue to use our valuable electricity in standby mode even when turned off. Chargers without anything attached to them represent just some of the culprits. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that five to 10 percent of electricity used in this country goes to standby power, adding up to as much as $10 billion per year in extra energy costs. DOE predicts that percentage could rise to 20 percent by next year.

There’s no trick in dealing with home energy vampires, but lots of treats: better energy efficiency in your home, lower electricity bills, and enhanced electric reliability now and in the future.

Some simple ways to slay these home energy vampires don’t even require a wooden stake:

1. Know the vampires. Any appliance that displays a clock while otherwise not in use, such as a microwave or cable box, continues to consume electricity while in standby mode. Also, look for chargers that are not charging anything, for example, those for cell phones, PDAs, MP3 players, and electric toothbrushes. If you’re not sure whether a device is an energy vampire, if it has a glowing indicator or standby light, it’s sucking your electricity.
2. Unplug the vampires. When you’re done using a device, unplug it. Got a toaster or microwave? All of those kitchen appliances on your countertop can be unplugged when not in use. They may not be big energy vampires, but all those little suckers can add up. Also, devices with clocks use more energy than those that don’t. 
3. Consolidate and plug in. Plugging several electronic devices into one surge-protecting power strip is an easy way to shut things off. Computer systems, printers, scanners, and home entertainment systems can have all plugs combined into one power strip, which can then be easily shut off when not in use. And the strips can protect against power surges even when switched off – an especially nice feature with Central Texas electrical storms. 
4. Be an Energy Star. DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency jointly administer the ENERGY STAR program, which identifies appliances meeting strict energy efficiency guidelines. DOE estimates that if one in 10 American homes used only ENERGY STAR appliances, the U.S. would reduce carbon emissions by the same amount as planting 1.7 million acres of trees.  

Now these are tips we can all go batty over.

That individual citizens and communities have to spend thousands of their own dollars to analyze the effects of air emissions from a major industrial boom in North Texas speaks volumes about the laissez-faire mentality of TCEQ, our state environmental agency. The Barnett Shale accounted for nearly a quarter of the natural gas produced in Texas in 2008, and prior studies have shown that the associated emissions can be substantial. Yet – nearly a decade after the Barnett boom was sparked by new drilling technologies making shale gas production economical – TCEQ has never presented any analysis of the overall effect of this industry on human health or regional air quality.

Only now, in the face of mounting local public concerns, does TCEQ finally seem to be paying attention. Representatives boldly claim that “we're really going to get a handle on the air quality in that area.” In October, they sent a mobile monitoring team to sample air quality around DISH and other parts of the Barnett Shale. [We note that, ironically, TCEQ was not testing for some of the most toxic compounds detected in DISH.]

It’s a shame that in trying “to get a handle” on air quality impacts of Barnett Shale production, TCEQ hasn’t analyzed more than 10 years of its own air monitoring data collected throughout the DFW area. Since TCEQ hadn’t done so, we decided to examine the data ourselves and found strong evidence linking Barnett Shale gas and oil production with ambient levels of air pollutants in Denton County.

In brief, we analyzed TCEQ’s own air pollution monitoring data and found that the levels of key pollutants at the Denton airport correlated well with the amount of condensate produced by natural gas wells in Denton County. We also found that the monitor at the Denton airport had the highest levels of non-methane organic compounds of all the places in the DFW Metroplex where monitoring exists. Extrapolating these results to other parts of the Barnett Shale, we would expect that if monitoring were conducted in Wise, Parker and Hood counties, the observed pollutant levels should be similar to those in Denton County (due to high levels of condensate production in those counties).

We applaud TCEQ’s recent mobile monitoring campaign and its prior emissions assessment efforts. But TCEQ must quickly translate this and other data into actionable policy options, and quickly take steps to reduce emissions. In future posts, we will review what more proactive states like Colorado are doing and highlight the tremendous win-win opportunity of capturing these emissions – both to natural gas producers and Texas taxpayers.

So my question for all Texans is, "Why would we foolishly try to build even one more conventional coal plant?"

• The Heritage Foundation has received more than $57 Million from oil and chemical related foundations, including the Scaife Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Koch Family Foundations, as well as more than $500,000 from ExxonMobil. – SourceWatch.org, ExxonSecrets.org 
• Over the past 10 years, the Texas Public Policy Foundation has received more than $450,000 in funding from oil industry related foundations, including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Claude R. Lamb Charitable Foundation. – SourceWatch.org, ExxonSecrets.org 
• The American Council for Capital Formation has received $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil, and lists among its executives, those from the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Forest and Paper Association. – SourceWatch.org, ExxonSecrets.org 
• Michelle Foss, of the UT Center for Energy Economics stated in her report on the Waxman-Markey bill: "These model results do not incorporate any assumptions of specific benefits associated with ACESA.  For instance, CEE and CPA did not attempt to capture CEE Initial Report to Texas CPA, ACESA Impacts, job creation and output associated with growth in industries, such as those associated with renewable energy technologies." 

Among the academic experts not invited to participate in this panel, all with well-known expertise in climate science, economics, engineering and geology, are the following: 

Texas A&M University: Kenneth Bowman, Sarah D. Brooks, Ping Chang, Don Collins, Andrew Dessler, Robert Duce, Craig Epifanio, Rob Korty, Mark Lemmon, Shaima L. Nasiri, John Nielsen-Gammon, Gerald North, Richard Orville, Lee Panetta, R. Saravanan, Courtney Schumacher, Thomas Wilheit, Ping Yang, Renyi Zhang, Jen Irish, Jane Packard, Bruce Mccarl, David W. Yoskowitz, Paul Montagna

Rice University: Neal Lane, John Anderson,  

University of Texas: George Ward, Ian Duncan, Ginny Catania, Rodney Ruoff, Michael Moyer,  

University of Houston: Victor Flatt

Texas Tech: Katharine Hayhoe

Houston Advanced Research Center: Bill Dawson, David Hitchcock, Eric Biltonen

Let me know what you think. See the formal version here.

Dear Chairman Smitherman, Chairman Shaw, and Chairman Carillo,

I am glad to hear about your proposed joint meeting on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) and that you are interested in hearing from all parties. I would like to add my voice to those legislators around the state such as Senators Rodney Ellis and Kirk Watson, and Representatives Rafael Anchia and Mark Strama who are asking that this joint meeting be a fair review of the facts regarding the bill and the economic impacts of climate change on Texas.  I would also like to see this joint meeting rise above the recent politically motivated press releases and op-eds by some Texas politicians, which relied on so-called "studies" that admittedly and intentionally did not analyze the job and economic benefits of the ACESA. 

Any discussion among state agencies needs to consider the weight of evidence from a number of peer-reviewed studies showing the impacts of ACESA to be minimal and often positive.  Further, these studies need to be evaluated in the context of the threat of inaction to our economy as determined by Texas scientists at Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and SMU among others.

Below I list a number of studies and experts that you should consult to better inform your work.  These studies do what any fair and meaningful study would do: look at both the costs and the benefits of ACESA.  In particular, they illuminate the significant benefits that will accrue to Texas as a result of ACESA, which some state agency studies have pointedly avoided discussing or analyzing.  In addition, some of these studies examine the tremendous damage to Texas that will occur if we do not act forcefully to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases swiftly. 

The following studies, those studies’ authors, and a number of experts – many from Texas – should be consulted if the joint meeting is to have a legitimate level of scientific rigor.

Studies

• Estimating the Influence of Projected Global Warming Scenarios on Hurricane Flooding , by Dr. Jen Irish, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, which shows that a large part of the Houston-Galveston petrochemical complex maybe be underwater due to global warming, unless action is taken soon to limit emissions;
• The Impact of Global Warming on Texas,2nd Edition edited by Jurgen Schmandt, Judith Clarkson and Gerald R. North,  which shows broad wide ranging physical and economic harm to many parts of Texas from global warming;
•  The Socio-Economic Impact of Sea Level Rise in the Galveston Bay Region, by Dr. David Yoskowitz, Texas A&M, which used conservative estimates of sea level rise and found that 78 percent of current households will be displaced in Galveston County alone.
• American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy whose study Potential for Energy Efficiency, Demand Response, and Onsite Renewable Energy to Meet Texas’s Growing Electricity Needs which demonstrated that growing demand for in energy in Texas could be met by energy efficiency and renewable energy (the type of energy sources facilitated by a cap on carbon, such as contained in ACESA) while saving money over the business as usual scenario;
• The Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, which found that for every dollar spent on ACESA, approximately $2.29 in direct benefits is produced.
• Clean Power Green Jobs by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which shows that Texans will save $21 billion in natural gas expenses as a result of ACESA; and
• Studies from the Energy Information Administration, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency that account for the benefits of ACESA and show little net economic harm, in contrast to some of the result oriented studies from Texas state agencies that only consider costs to some industries.

Experts

• The entire tenured and tenured-track faculty at Texas A&M Department of Atmospherics Sciences, who have signed an open letter that is attached, which says unanimously that "climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society";
• Experts from the United Kingdom, including their consular office in Houston that can attest that a hard cap on carbon emissions similar to those in the ACESA have not had the type of harm on the UK generally or the UK oil industry claimed in the so-called "studies" cited by some Texas politicians;
• Experts from Shell Oil and BP that can tell you why they support federal legislation with a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases, such as contained in the ACESA;
• The Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas about the tremendous opportunity for the Texas oil and gas industry from the use of carbon capture and sequestration to enhance oil recovery that is promoted in the ACESA. 

I agree that the ACESA legislation bears scrutiny, but until now the studies prepared or cited by Texas state agencies have been disappointing in their limited designs and in many cases outright bias. Texans deserve a Joint meeting that genuinely seeks the truth, not a publicity stunt.   Environmental Defense Fund would be happy to work with you to develop a productive agenda and slate of speakers.

Sincerely,

Jim Marston

cc: Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones

Commissioner Michael Williams

Commissioner Buddy Garcia

Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein

Commissioner Donna Nelson

Commissioner Kenneth W. Anderson, Jr.

National and statewide polls tell the real story: Texans agree with the rest of the country on the need for strong federal action on climate change. Last week’s Zogby poll shows that 71 percent of likely voters favor the American Clean Energy and Security Act recently passed by the House of Representatives. In fact, according to Zogby, “two-thirds (67 percent) believe Congress is either doing the right amount (22 percent) or should be doing more (45 percent) to address global warming.”

Two other Texas polls were released last week showing that Texans’ support of climate change regulation mirrors the national perspective. As reported by Texas Climate News, the Texas Lyceum Poll and the Houston Area Survey both showed that a majority of Texans understand that human activities have led to climate change and that cap-and-trade legislation is instrumental in stopping further damage to our way of life.

It’s time for our Senators to stop listening to their lobbyist friends and listen to actual Texans who want to see cap and trade legislation happen.

The military has used scientific theories throughout history to ensure a strong sense of national security in a world filled with international upheaval.  They have used the theory of gravity to develop bullet trajectories and the science of aeronautics to land a man on the Moon.  So it should be some comfort to Texans that our Senators have historically deferred to the military on such issues as the preeminent experts in keeping our nation and resources secure.

All the more reason that it seems strange that Texas' Senators Hutchison and Cornyn are trying to play political football with an issue that both our public and our nation's best military minds see as a grave threat to our national security. 

We now know that the climate change and the national security threats arising from it have been a focus of National Defense University and military intelligence analysts for years.  They find that the costs of inaction will be serious, and not just in terms of direct impacts to our farmland and coastline. 

A report from the National Intelligence Council states that climate change poses serious threats to our military bases, relationships with other governments, and that these threats will lead to “strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations.” 

Even under such warnings directly from our military experts, Senators Hutchison and Cornyn are putting their political ambitions ahead of protecting national security by opposing immediate action on climate change.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” said Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and former head of Central Command in a recent military advisory board report on energy and climate for CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today . . . or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.” 

I thought our Senators claimed to be supportive of the men and women in uniform.

In Combs’s op-ed, she cites her agency’s “initial look at the cap-and-trade provisions” in the Waxman-Markey bill now pending in Congress and proceeds to lay out a worst-case scenario based on the most negative analyses from known opponents of a cap-and-trade program. Upon a close reading of this “initial look” (released as an official report), you’ll discover that the comptroller's office openly admits that it made NO ATTEMPT to quantify any of the benefits of cap-and-trade legislation even though every neutral study on the issue acknowledges significant benefits for Texas. Combs does cite a study from the Pew Research Center that we linked to in our earlier blog to show how well Texas is doing currently. If she were to actually read the study, she would see Pew's findings on the benefits of cap-and-trade, renewable energy goals and other policies contained in the bill before Congress, saying of such policies: “Pew’s analysis indicates such policies have great potential because they create significant incentives for both the private and public sectors to develop new technologies, infrastructure and processes for clean energy, efficiency and conservation.” 

A fair study would have noted that according to the Political Economy Research Institute, Texas stands to gain 153,000 renewable energy jobs from this legislation. And the comptroller could then have cited the $21.3 billion Texans will save according to the Union of Concerned Scientists by leveraging its position as the 20th century energy leader into the 21st century clean energy economy leader. An economy that will include new international markets that haven't been tapped before, installation and maintenance jobs that cannot be relocated, and the potential to lead in integrating high penetration of energy efficiency along with solar, wind, biomass and geothermal power, not to mention carbon sequestration. 

Rather than hurting clean energy, clean energy incentivized under a cap-and-trade system is our future, unless political lackeys continue with phony studies. Fortunately most people understand the difference between a balanced analysis and a one-sided report designed to defend the status quo. As the deepening drought in Central Texas should make clear, the status quo is not an option. A new “clean energy economy” will be one of the driving forces of the 21^st century, and with our abundance of wind and sun and high-tech brainpower, Texas should be at the forefront of it.  

Combs does a disservice to all Texans by stressing an overstated downside while ignoring the enormous potential upside for our state. If Texas’ leaders insist on playing defense, the benefits of this new economy will go to other states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Tennessee that aggressively pursue that potential.