Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

The Texas Progressive Alliance reminds you that early voting runs through this Friday at 7 PM for the primaries as it brings you this week’s blog highlights.

BossKitty at TruthHugger is amazed that anger is directed toward the Internal Revenue Service when Americans elect the very people who make the laws IRS enforces. Joe Stack targeted the wrong end of this chain. Taxpayers get end up owing money because they do not understand the laws their representatives make. Tax and Defiance – Short Sighted Protester, Joe Stack.

In times of depleting incomes, Republican Harris County Commissioner Steve Radack brags about his $2.3 Million tax funded soap box derby track.

Two Steps Forward One Step Back for Tainted Texas Air at Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.

This week on Left of College Station, Teddy reflects on the next 40 days of protest that are taking place at Planned Parenthood, and reviews a performance of the Vagina Monologues at Texas A&M. Also, a look at the poll numbers in the campaign to be the next governor of Texas, and a review of the week in headlines.

The Conservative Politicians Against Compromise convention picked an old-school nutjob as the presidential nominee in 2012, notes PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants to know why Republicans hate education so much? Why make community colleges unaffordable?

In Lewisville, the school district has revoked consent for a community organization use their parking lots to gather signatures for a petition drive on the weekend.

In what will come as a massive surprise, McBlogger endorses Hank Gilbert. Find out why here.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson shows that even without the severe decrease in sales tax receipts Texas would still be facing a budget crisis, Understanding the budget and Texas’ structural deficit.

Off the Kuff notes the humor of our Attorney General suing to protect the sanctity of divorce.

Libby shaw at TexasKaos does the accountability analysis on the GOP stimulus hypocrites. See her scorecard here; TX U.S. House Members Join Senators in GOP Hall of Hypocritical Shame.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

If I had a nickel every time we put out a statement saying something along the lines of “Governor Perry is blowing hot air about climate change”…I could probably only really buy a candy bar. Or a coke — a Mexican coke in a bottle, preferably, to be drunk as I eat a fried avocado taco on a Friday afternoon (mmm, thanks Perry).

But this week our dear Gov was at it again. Tuesday morning he joined Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples to announce a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) endangerment finding for carbon dioxide. We had plenty to say about it, which has already been posted this week, but I think that I like the way Forrest Wilder over at the Texas Observer put it best:

Perry is up to his neck in pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and he’s bringing Attorney General Abbott and Ag Commissioner Todd Staples along with him. The (“frivolous“) lawsuit today is neither a legal nor scientific document. It is a political one: poorly-reasoned, poorly-sourced and containing enough tin-foil hat conspiracies to block a Mexican border blaster.

Check out his blog post for the nitty gritty on the legal brief (“filled with footnotes, giving the appearance that it’s been carefully researched. But on closer inspection many of the references are to rightwing blogs, “studies” by armchair climate analysts, and obscure anti-climate groups like the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.”)

Luckily we heard about Perry’s press announcement with just enough time to sweep in and have the last word. Officing 3 blocks from the capitol does have its perks. Along with Sierra Club, we were able to stake out a good spot outside the Governor’s Press Room and hold an impromptu reaction press conference by the West Trashcan. With members of the press gathered around, Smitty (our director, of course!) and Eva Hernandez from Sierra Club gave statements crying foul on the Governor’s tomfoolery, and even issued a symbolic “citizen’s citation” to Perry for endangering the health of Texans and the climate. Perry didn’t come out to accept it himself, but did send a policy aide in his honor. Good thing too; we were worried we’d have to slip it under his locked and barred door (not exactly the climactic press moment we were looking for). Check out the video though, editing courtesy of our newest media intern Patrick! Don’t worry, you’ll get to meet him soon enough.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY50xHfOFTE]

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

You may have seen the political bloviating earlier this week when Governor Perry announced he would sue the EPA over their endangerment finding on CO2.   Or that Attorney General Greg Abbott signed on, as did Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples, who all ended up calling the science behind climate change flawed, saying:

The state’s legal action indicates EPA’s Endangerment Finding is legally unsupported because the agency outsourced its scientific assessment to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.

You may have also seen our response.  If you’re a regular reader here, I hope so!

Perry, Abbott, and Staples claim that the science is flawed on climate change, citing recent controversy surrounding the IPCC (a-hem, that’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gentlemen. Maybe the legal brief should be thrown out due to citation of a ficticious panel? We’ll call it INTERNATL-PANELGATE! We’ve really got ’em now!).  Too bad the controversy hasn’t affected the main thrust of the underlying science, only some of the claims. Too bad the conclusions of the IPCC have also been independently adopted and verified by the US National Academy of Sciences and the collected opinions of 13 US Gov’t agencies (like those liberals at the CIA and the USDA), collectively put together in the US Global Change Research Program. Despite its problems, the main conclusions of the IPCC’s report, that temperatures were increasing and climate was changing due to greenhouse gas emissions, remains intact.

Too bad Perry, Abbott, and Staples (or maybe more accurately Larry, Moe, and Shemp?) didn’t seek the advice of…oh, actual scientists, like maybe the Texas state climatologist?  Didn’t know we had a climatologist?  (Maybe Governor Perry didn’t either?) Well, we do, and before you dismiss him as some granola-chewing-Austin-based-hippie-liberal, he’s actually anything but.

Meet Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, of the Texas A&M Department of Atmospheric Sciences, appointed to the position of State Climatologist by noted liberal and hater of greenhouse gases George W. Bush. (hope you caught the irony there).

In a sweeping interview with Brad Johnson’s Wonk Room blog, he fired back against Perry’s allegations that the endangerment finding is flawed:  “Anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gas concentrations clearly present a danger to the public welfare, and I agree with the EPA’s findings in that sense.”

To be fair, Dr. N-G also specifically added a caveat to his comments, “Just to be clear, I do not “utterly dismiss” the Texas petition. I have contributed to pointing out errors in the IPCC reports in my own blog, and it is appropriate for the State of Texas to inquire how much of the IPCC findings will ultimately be called into question. Nor would my considered scientific opinion constitute adequate independent grounds for an EPA finding.”

Wow.  A reasonable climatologist, but one who supports the broad scientific consensus.  What scientific consensus is that, you ask?  Well, as a result of this interview, Dr. Andy Dessler (who we have long been a fan of here at TexasVox) and the entire A&M Dept of Atmo Sciences released the following statement:

Dr. Andrew Dessler, a climatologist at Texas A&M University and author of The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change, tells the Wonk Room in an email interview that the entire Department of Atmospheric Sciences agrees with the IPCC:

I, along with all of the other faculty in the department, agree with the main conclusions of the IPCC.”In 2007, the Texas A&M Department of Atmospheric Sciences issued a statement that global warming from emissions of greenhouse gases risks “serious adverse impacts on our environment and society” — the key basis for the EPA’s endangerment finding:

1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.When asked if the latest attacks on the IPCC affect their stance, Dr. Dessler responded that “the Department stands by its statement. You can quote me on that.”

You can read the entire interview here.  But, when it comes to this one right here, it’s Science 1 – Perry, Abbott and Staples 0.

Or maybe no one is keeping score, and we just chalk this up as more election year posturing?

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Photo Courtesy of Donna Hoffman at the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. Thanks Donna!

Dozens of businesses and nonprofit organizations as well as more than 200 citizens have formed Clean Energy for Austin, a coalition whose purpose is to push Austin City Council to adopt a clean energy plan. Specifically, the coalition supports the passage of Austin Energy’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan and recommendations of a city task force created to examine the plan. Coalition members support the plan because of its emphasis on renewable energy and efficiency, green jobs creation and careful consideration of Austin’s low-income residents.

To date, more than 70 businesses, 18 non-profit organizations and more than 200 individuals have signed on in support of the energy plan through www.cleanenergyforaustin.org.

The energy plan is a road map for how Austin Energy, the city-owned electric utility, will meet the city’s energy needs over the next 10 years. It includes a substantial investment in energy efficiency and a variety of renewable energy resources like wind and solar, as well as new more efficient natural gas plants. In addition to diversifying its generation portfolio, Austin Energy wants to create a self-sustaining market for renewable technologies like solar rooftops and parking lots by 2020.

“A good business practice is to keep your options open when selecting suppliers,” said Steve Taylor of Applied Materials, a semiconductor manufacturer employing more than a thousand Austinites. “This plan allows for a diversity of different energy options, so it protects businesses – and residents – from long-term price spikes for any single power source because other energy supply options will be available and abundant. This plan also enhances Austin’s efforts to create green businesses and green jobs for years to come.”

The plan is the culmination of a nearly two-year public process of gathering input from multiple stakeholder groups, including businesses, environmental organizations, and groups serving low-income communities. Four representatives from the mayor’s Generation and Resource Planning Task Force, which analyzed more than a dozen scenarios of where Austin could get its power by 2020, are members of the coalition: Phillip Schmandt, chairman of Electric Utility Commission, Cary Ferchill, chair of Solar Austin, as well as non-profit members Public Citizen and Sierra Club.

“The great thing about the plan is its flexibility,” said Matthew Johnson, clean energy advocate with Public Citizen. “If costs for any resource type rise or fall dramatically over the next 10 years, Austin Energy would have the ability to change the plan, and do so with the help of community stakeholders. That’s the beauty of a diverse portfolio of resources. If Austin were locked into building a new coal or nuclear plant, our fate would be sealed.”

Energy efficiency, generally recognized as the cheapest energy resource, would be the main component of the plan. Austin Energy would take a more proactive and coordinated approach to reach low-income households with free weatherization to help lower their electric bills.

“Low-income communities need the most help with paying utility bills,” said Sunshine Mathon, design and development director of Foundation Communities, an Austin-based nonprofit affordable housing organization. “Austin has a long track record of having the lowest bills in Texas because of its commitment to conservation programs that help people lower their bills. My hope is that with the passage of this plan, those programs will not only expand but coordinate with other programs like bill assistance, neighborhood housing and community development.”

Coalition representatives also said that the plan reduces financial risk associated with overreliance on fossil fuels. The plan would enable Austin Energy to ramp down the Fayette coal plant more often, protecting the utility from pending carbon regulation.

“Whether or not you support greenhouse gas regulation, reducing the amount of carbon emissions that Austin is responsible for makes economic sense,” Johnson said. “That’s in addition to the improvements in air quality Austin and the surrounding region would experience. It’s a win-win.”

Austin’s City Council could vote on the plan in March, according to Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. He has scheduled a Feb. 22 town hall meeting on Austin Energy’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan. Coalition members urge the public to visit www.cleanenergyforaustin.org and sign on as well as attend the town hall meeting to show their support.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

UPDATE: Here it is. Great job KLRU, KUT and the Statesman for putting together a great show on an important topic!

http://www.klru.org/aai/

Unable to  embed unfortunately.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Public Citizen participated in developing an energy plan for Austin to cut carbon emissions, use more renewables, and promote energy efficiency. And because we did, I’m about to be famous!

Pay no attention to that girl trying to steal my spotlight

Recently, I was one of several energy experts interviewed about the plan for a special program called “Austin at Issue: Energy for the Future”—a joint project of KLRU-TV (Austin’s PBS), KUT, and the Austin American-Statesman.

Watch “Austin at Issue: Energy for the Future” this Thursday, February 18, at 7:30 p.m. on KLRU or listen at 8 p.m. on KUT 90.5 FM.

City Council should vote on the plan to brighten Austin’s energy future sometime in March. To educate Austinites about the plan, the mayor is holding a town hall meeting on Monday, February 22, from 6 – 8 p.m. at the Palmer Events Center.

We need to show support for investment in renewables and energy efficiency that will bring new green jobs to Austin, and move us away from old dirty energy sources.

So do your homework by watching or listening to Austin at Issue, or visit www.cleanenergyforaustin.org, and come on out to the Mayor’s town hall on Monday. Look for the Public Citizen crew and stand with us to support Austin’s clean energy future!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Perry Flaunts State, Federal Law in EPA Lawsuit

Statement from Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas Office and Ken Kramer, director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club

This morning Governor Perry attempted to show Texas voters that he is bigger than both Texas and federal law by enacting a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) endangerment finding for carbon dioxide, but instead just further highlighted his failure to protect Texans’ health and the safety and long term stability of our economy and climate.

Instead of suing the EPA, Perry should be taking proactive steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build up our clean energy economy.  Our governor likes to brag about all he’s done to promote wind and energy efficiency and the emissions Texas has avoided as a result, but at the same time he is hammering through a second Texas coal rush that will negate all that hard work and add 77 million tons of CO2 to Texas’ already overheated air.

Perry’s blustering behavior has actually caused Public Citizen to file a lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for its failure to regulate global warming gasses. Texas law clearly requires that “air contaminants” be regulated, and defines contaminants as follows:

“‘Air contaminant’ means particulate matter, radioactive material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any combination of those items, produced by processes other than natural.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 382.003(2).

Perry has proudly demonstrated willful ignorance of this portion of Texas law time and time again, and has ordered state agencies such as the TCEQ to ignore it as well. For this reason and his actions today we are issuing our Governor a Citizens’ Citation to cease and desist endangering the health of breathers, the economy and the climate in Texas by continuing to permit coal plants and other large sources of CO2.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

The Austin American Statesman’s article this morning about Austin’s 2020 energy plan leaves a few things out that are crucial to understanding the costs and benefits of adding more energy efficiency and renewable power to Austin’s generation portfolio. Judging from the rather depressing comments section, many readers took away the unfortunate misconception that poor Austinites will have to sacrifice for green energy goals. I’d like to clear that up today.

Few things irk me more than when people fail to see the connection between improving social welfare and protecting the environment.

The notion that green power has to come at the expense of low-income households needs to be eradicated. Social welfare and protecting the environment are not conflicting or exclusive goals. By cleaning up the way we produce electric power and making homes more energy efficient, we can do much to improve the quality of life in Austin. And by making homes that can be heated and cooled with less energy, we can save low-income families money on one of their biggest monthly expenditures AND keep Austinites healthy and safe during bitter cold and dangerous summer heat.

There are a few key points that need to be part of the public discussion about the energy plan which have largely been absent from the public radar. I’d ask any Austinite doing their homework for the Mayor’s Town Hall on Monday to take these issues into consideration:

The Plan is Flexible

As part of the Generation Resource Planning Task Force, I voted with all other members of the Task Force to include a provision that Austin review the plan every two years in case any one resource option became too costly (recommendation 3a-b). That way, AE would have the ability to adapt its plan and go with something cheaper. This is a ratepayer protection and cost control mechanism that will protect all customer classes and should be included in the public discussion about the plan. As my friend Cyrus Reed at the Sierra Club puts it astutely: the plan is a roadmap, not a straightjacket.

That’s the beauty of a diverse energy portfolio. Austin would not have this ability if it were locked into building a new nuclear plant or coal plant (like CPS Energy is).

Energy Efficiency is part of the plan

Public discussion of this plan tends to focus on supply-side renewable resources, but the biggest component of the energy plan is energy efficiency. If it met its goals, Austin would achieve 800-1000 MW of energy savings by 2020. The next highest new resource addition would be wind (~562 additional MW when taking into account 203 MW worth of expiring wind contracts). 800 MW of efficiency represents 55% of all the resource additions that encompass the Resource & Climate Protection Plan (note that 100 MW of gas, 100 MW of biomass, and 30 MW of solar that are due to come online over the next three years are not part of the plan).

Efficiency achieves carbon reduction objectives and affordability objectives. Thus, the biggest component of the energy plan will help keep bills low. It’s also worth pointing out that if we do not achieve the efficiency goals, we will need new supply-side generation in order to keep the lights on–800 MW worth. Without efficiency, bills are sure to go up much higher because all supply-side options are more expensive than efficiency.

Comparisons give perspective

Let’s talk about bill impacts on the poor. Take a drive down I-35. San Antonio’s utility, CPS Energy predicts they will need to increase rates 40% by 2020 and that does not even include the future cost increase for natural gas or costs for investing in the proposed expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Plant, which has risen from ~$6 billion in 2007 to $18 billion today before license application are adjudicated or construction begins.

No one is advocating for environmental protection at the expense of the poor. That is flat-out a false choice. This plan won’t do that because of the protections that will be put in place, the overwhelming focus on energy efficiency and AE taking a more proactive and cooperative approach to services for those struggling to pay their utility bills. In order to make electricity more affordable for people, it is up to us as a community to adopt a pragmatic approach to realizing and achieving the complimentary goals of social welfare and environmental protection. After all, you can’t have one without the other.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

The Texas Progressive Alliance wishes you all a happy Lunar New Year, and brings you the first Year of the Tiger blog roundup.

Justin at Asian American Action Fund Blog notes that Houston is the first locale President Obama named in his Lunar New Year Greeting. Could there be a political meaning behind it?

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme marvels at the jackassery presented to voters on the Republican ballot. No, we’re not talking about the candidates. It’s the propositions that disenfranchise voters, turn Texas into Colorado Springs or California, and humiliate pregnant women.

Fake Consultant, over at TexasKaos, gives us a tale from the health care frontier. He points out that even in the little things the present system is fundamentally broken. Check it out here.

From TXsharon: How Oil and Gas industry bullies turned an ordinary, honest man into a modern day hero. Read it on Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS.

WhosPlayin is watching candidates file for the 2010 Lewisville ISD School board election.

Contrary to what the Star Telegram keeps repeating, the Texas Cloverleaf reminds everyone that there is a Democrat running in CD-26.

“Why I’m supporting Dr. Alma Aguado for Texas governor” is PDiddie’s endorsement in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. Read more at Brains and Eggs.

MeanRachel endorses Bill White and Linda Chavez-Thompson in the two top spots on the Democratic primary ticket.

Adam at Three Wise Men lays out our blog’s endorsements for the 2010 Texas Democratic Primary.

Off the Kuff says there’s a smart way to do budget cuts and a dumb way to do budget cuts, and we need to do it the smart way.

Neil at Texas Liberal endorsed Hank Gilbert in the Democratic Primary for Texas Commissioner of Agriculture. The post includes a picture of a Longhorn steer, a watermelon, and of a Channel Catfish.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson posts on the coming budget woes and that we can’t balance the budget on the back of the poor again, the 2011 budget cannot be balanced like in 2003, not this time.

This week at McBlogger, Mojito takes a look at a Travis County JP race and find the challenger lacking.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

I sure hope you don’t have any plans for the evening of Monday, February 22nd, because it is going to be the social event of the season (and by season, I mean this 6-week period of rain and cold we’re getting due to that pesky groundhog’s shadow prediction — curse you Punxsutawny Phil!). From 6-8pm Austin’s Mayor Lee Leffingwell will host a town hall meeting on Austin Energy’s proposed energy generation plan. We need you to come to show your support for clean energy and energy efficiency in Austin.  All the cool kids are going to be there — just check out the list of stars on the Facebook event page.

The town hall will be an opportunity for Austinites to learn more about the Resource & Climate Protection Plan that I geeked out about last week. For those of you keeping score, I’m a fan of the plan because it will significantly reduce our carbon emissions, increase the diversity of our energy portfolio (with, a-hem, renewables), and sets us on a path to divestiture from the Fayette Coal Plant (Austin’s somewhat secret shame). But don’t take my word for it — more than 60 local businesses, 16 non-profit organizations, and over 200 individual supporters support it as well. To join them, visit CleanEnergyforAustin.org and add your name to a letter supporting the energy plan put forth by Austin Energy as well as the additional recommendations of the Austin Generation Resource Planning Task Force (which our boy Matt was a member of, along with other stakeholders such as the Building Owners and Managers Association and Freescale).

I certainly hope you can make it out to the meeting February 22nd from 6-8pm at the Palmer Events Center. Look for the Public Citizen crew and stand with us to support Austin’s clean energy future!

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Rice farmers in Matagorda County, Texas have united to stop the development of the White Stallion “clean” coal plant in Bay City. As Heather Menzies reported in the Bay City Tribune, local farmers have formed action groups with Public Citizen Texas’ Ryan Rittenhouse and Tom “Smitty” Smith to rally public  opposition to the plant’s extensive environmental hazards and intensive water usage.

The coalition plans to write and call state Senators Glenn Hegar and Joan Huffman in order to demand that their community’s interest be protected. If built, the coal plant will consume a substantial portion of the remaining water supply from the river basin. If there isn’t enough water, the rice farmers won’t get any, and there won’t be a rice crop. And when the Lower Colorado River Authority is already prepared to declare the 2009 drought the worst in 50 years, should significant water supplies be given to new coal plants?

Yet many local politicians and candidates feel that the coal plant’s construction and operation will create much needed jobs in a county that is starving for economic development.  On Wednesday, February 10th, the State Office of Administrative Hearings will began adjudicating the contested air permit case of White Stallion Energy Center, LLC. The hearing offers another case indicative of the greater fight against fossil fuel industries that money and muscle their way to booming profits at the expense of everyone. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Public Citizen and Area Legislators Urge State to Deny Air Pollution Permit

HOUSTON – Area legislators joined Public Citizen this week in urging environmental agencies to deny the White Stallion coal plant its air permit because if built, the facility would degrade air quality in Houston.  The emissions from this proposed power plant would exacerbate the problem of smog in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont region, which already is in violation, or “non-attainment,” of federal ozone standards and may soon have to meet higher standards as the result of a new proposal to strengthen the federal ozone rule

“The proposed White Stallion coal plant would harm the health of the people of Matagorda County, degrade the environment, and stifle economic development and tourism throughout the region,” said Ryan Rittenhouse, coal energy analyst with Public Citizen’s Texas office. “We are pleased to see Texas legislators step up to protect our citizens, the environment and Texas’ economic future.”

White Stallion’s air permit hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings begins today and will last through Feb. 19. That office will make a recommendation to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

The air pollution permit is the first step; the project still will need a wastewater permit from the TCEQ and an additional permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

If granted an air permit, White Stallion will increase emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), the principle component of ozone, by more than a third in Matagorda County, where the plant will be located. That translates to more than 4,000 tons per year of NOx that would blow into the Houston area, dramatically increasing ozone levels in the non-attainment region.

“The proposed White Stallion coal plant will be less than 17 miles from the Houston/Galveston non-attainment region. Coal plants such as this one are one of the largest, individual sources of smog-forming pollutants,” said State Rep. Ana E. Hernandez (D-Houston). “Particularly in light of new EPA ozone standards, why should we allow a coal plant to be built on our doorstep? It will only make it that much harder for us to clean up Houston’s air pollution.”

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled that the TCEQ has not been adhering to the Clean Air Act in its issuance of new air permits, but the TCEQ has failed to change its permitting process.

For this reason, Texas legislators, including Reps. Hernandez, Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) and Kristi Thibaut (D-Houston), sent appeal letters this week to Dr. Al Armendariz, regional administrator of the EPA, urging the agency to step in and provide much needed guidance and oversight to the TCEQ. Their letters asked that the White Stallion power plant not be given an air permit to begin construction until the EPA ensures that constituents will receive the full public health protections of the federal Clean Air Act.

“I urge TCEQ and the EPA to deny the permit authorizing the White Stallion coal plant to be built in Matagorda County. Texas’ air quality must be improved for the good health of every Texan. The goal of clean air and clean water can be obtained by a commitment to reducing air contaminants,” Farrar said.

Despite the fact that a new coal plant could hinder Houston’s ability to meet federal regulations, the TCEQ refuses to predict or consider air impacts that are outside the non-attainment region. In fact, the TCEQ executive director filed legal briefs arguing that evidence showing White Stallion would contribute to ozone problems in the Houston area is irrelevant to the decision of whether to grant the White Stallion air permit. The TCEQ similarly refuses to consider cumulative impacts when granting an air permit, such as the fact that the 30-year-old Parish coal plant is only 50 miles northeast of the White Stallion site and also within the Houston/Galveston non-attainment region.

White Stallion would also pull 36,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River every year. Increased activity from the two barges required to deliver coal every day would contaminate the water with toxic runoff and erode the embankments.

The proposed plant would be located along a 100-year floodplain and would store coal ash waste on site. In the event of extreme weather, that toxic waste could easily wash into public waterways.

“The proposed White Stallion coal plant would dump thousands of tons of toxic pollutants into our air and water every year, when this region is already in non-attainment for clean air,” Thibaut said. “Furthermore, construction of this plant would remove 36,000 acre-feet of water each year from the Colorado River, which serves many drought-stricken areas of our state. As the elected representative for thousands of my constituents who would be affected, and as the mother of a small child, I cannot stand by as our air and water quality are further eroded.”

If the project is granted its air permit, advocates still have a chance to challenge the permit in state court and to reform the TCEQ through the sunset review process.

“The TCEQ is one of a number of state agencies that are about to undergo sunset review at the Texas Legislature. The sunset commission has the power to reform this agency and insist that any permits issued in the future adhere to the Clean Air Act,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “With this process, Texas has the opportunity to ensure that the health of Texans and their environment are protected more than the profits of energy corporations.”

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Back in the movie/musical “Oklahoma”, we got a musical lesson that the farmer and the cowman should be friends.  They seem to have bridged that divide rather well in the intervening decades, but today the question remains whether the farmers and ranchers and the climate should be friends.

Agricultural Commissioner Todd Staples certainly doesn’t think so.  On his Twitter account last week, he asked “How could anybody involved in agriculture think the proposed Cap &Trade legislation is good for Texas?”

Well, we’ll tell you.  It’s a combination of solving the climate crisis which will disproportionately hurt agriculture in Texas, not using faulty studies cooked up for partisan purposes (which Staples does) and about the jobs and savings to everyday Texas families, which helps everyone  whether you’re a farmer or not.

First, no other industry is so exposed as agriculture to the impacts of climate change. Agriculture is almost completely dependent on relatively stable patterns of rainfall and temperature to get a good yield.  Climate change threatens not only how much rainfall we get, but also how we get it.  Predictions are that some areas may actually see more rain, but in fits and starts with large storms that flood and then wash away topsoil rather than absorb moisture.

Texas is still in the midst of one of the worst droughts in its history. Australian scientists have linked 37% of this drought to anthropogenic climate change. Recent drought has brought record breaking agricultural losses to Texas both this last year in 2009 and in 2006,  when billions of dollars in crops were lost and cattle had to be culled in mass numbers because feed and water was too expensive and they were dying in the field from the heat.  Some are even asking if this prolonged drought is actually just the beginning of “the new normal,” a frightening prospect for anyone with a farm or ranch in West, Central, or South Texas where drought has been the most extreme.

The USDA’s study of impacts of climate change on agriculture, as part of the consensus opinion of 13 federal agencies, is that Texas stands to lose up to 35% of its agricultural yield from just 2 degrees of warming.  And that’s not all — check out this press release from the USDA:

The report finds that climate change is already affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, and biodiversity, and will continue to do so. Specific findings include: (more…)

Read Full Post »

Last Thursday Austin Energy General Manager Roger Duncan briefed Austin City Council on the utility’s Resource and Climate Protection Plan.  This plan is the culmination of 18 months of input from the public, the creation of a generation resource task force of various stakeholders to review various energy plans and make recommendations, and support and input from both the Electric Utility Commission and the Resource Management Com­mis­sion — but it still isn’t the end of the line for the plan.  The generation plan will also be the subject of a city-wide town hall meeting February 22nd, and city council is expected to vote on some version of it in March.

The energy plan that Duncan (who will be retiring soon and we wish him the very best) presented  sets Austin on a path to reduce our carbon emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and get a total of 35% of our energy from renewable resources. It will meet council’s renewable energy goals, move Austin Energy towards becoming the leading utility in the nation in terms of clean energy and global warming solutions, and re-affirm the city’s commitment to the Climate Protection Plan, which has the laudable goal to establish a cap and reduction plan for the utility’s carbon dioxide emissions.  It is a flexible, living document that will allow council to evolve and adapt as conditions change. AND it will reduce the capacity factor of our Fayette Coal Plant to 60% and gets the ball rolling on figuring out the best way to shut it down(which you know makes me happy). Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, doesn’t it?

As we’ve come to expect over the years from our award winning utility, Austin Energy is taking an especially responsible and forward-thinking role with this new plan.  I’ve formed this opinion for a few reasons:

  1. They’re adopting aggressive renewable energy and efficiency goals as part of a larger, smart business plan.  Austin doesn’t need a new generation plan because we’re going to be strapped for energy by 2020; Austin Energy could rest on their laurels and do nothing for the next ten years and we’d be fine buying up excess energy on the open market as its power purchase agreements expire and gas plants age.  But if they did that, by the time 2020 rolled around Austin would be way behind the technological curve and very likely be stuck with higher rates as a result.  Austin Energy has picked up on the national trend that the traditional fuels we rely upon, such as coal, are quickly becoming financial liabilities even as solar and wind are becoming more and more cost effective.  This plan will allow the utility to reposition itself  for 2020 going forward so that in ten years we will have made the preparations necessary to take full advantage of the coming clean tech boom rather than be left scrambling and dependent on outdated energy sources.
  2. Austin Energy and the task force that helped formulate this plan were very careful to balance considerations of reliability, affordability, and clean (in terms of the environment and human health).  The city has the responsibility to make sure that everyone who lives here can afford their utility bills.  It doesn’t do any good to make the switch to a new clean economy if we do so on the backs of those that can least afford it.  But that couldn’t be farther from the case with this plan; this isn’t green for some, this is green for all.  Compared to other options, this plan will minimize the impact for those least able to pay their electricity bill, supports in-house economic development and the hiring of local contractors, and ensures that everyone will have a chance to play a role in moving our city and economy forward.  There’s been a lot of focus and attention on the utility’s estimate that the plan will raise rates in 2020 by approximately 22% or $21 a month, but what’s missing from that discussion is that even if Austin Energy doesn’t do anything between now and 2020 rates will go up by 15% or about $14 a month.  So do the math — for an extra $7 a month in ten years, we can build up a clean local economy that minimizes impacts on low-income consumers and creates avenues to new employment opportunities, improves public health, AND puts Austin in a prime position to start lowering rates by taking advantage of cheap renewable energy. OR we can save families $7 a month compared to today on their utility bills but lose out on new jobs and leave every citizen in the city of Austin at the mercy of high fossil fuel costs and coming federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.  Austin Energy is not only looking at what is most affordable now, but what is most affordable in the long term. Coal may be cheap and reliable energy now, but depending on it in the long term will get us into trouble in terms of cheap and affordable in 2020.
  3. Austin Energy is not only reaching for the low fruit of emissions reductions and energy efficiency, they’re building high-tech ladders to get at the really juicy stuff at the top of the tree. Let me explain. There are a number of ways Austin Energy could go about reducing emissions.  The easiest of these would be to buy renewable energy credits, or RECs. RECs and offsets are in essence a mechanism for utilities, businesses, and governmental bodies to pay someone else to clean up and still get the credit for it.  They’re a good and have a positive influence on society at large because they do encourage clean energy investment and development, but not necessarily in a nearby community (in fact almost certainly not).  It might be easier in the short run to pay someone else to be clean up, but then we miss out on all the delicious creamy gravy that comes along with renewable energy development.  If you buy RECs you don’t get new jobs and businesses in your community.  If you buy RECs your own people are still breathing the same amount of pollution.  But Austin Energy is taking the initiative to really get at the heart of the problem by cutting the amount of pollution coming out of the smokestacks we own.  For that, they should be applauded.

This is just my own personal take-away from listening to various people discuss the recommendation plan and hearing Roger Duncan’s presentation to council. You can learn a lot more about the process and final recommended plan by visiting AustinSmartEnergy.com or CleanEnergyforAustin.org. Join us after the jump for some fast facts on the various components of the plan, but for the real nitty gritty check out Duncan’s own powerpoint presentation.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Check out the video and op-ed below by some of our Clean Air Texas coalition partners about the hearing in Houston tomorrow on the EPA’s new proposed rule to strengthen ozone standards. I’ll be at the hearing tomorrow, along with Ryan Rittenhouse, to represent Public Citizen and interview folks from around the state who’ve come to speak up for clean air.  If you plan on attending the rally, look for us and tell us your stories!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iCUHsJA4as]

It’s Time to Weigh in on Smog Limits

Imagine this conversation between a mother and child:

“Mommy, can we go outside and play?”

“Not today, dear, it’s just not safe.”

Most of us growing up in Texas didn’t wait for our parents to check an air quality report before venturing outside in the summer. But things have changed. Today, we know that rising temperatures bring rising ozone levels and as summer arrives we’re forced to restrict outdoor activities to limit harmful exposure.

Still, no matter how hard we try, we just can’t hide from poor air quality. We’ve got to clean it up.

That’s why we are encouraged that the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new limits on ozone “smog” pollution to protect human health. On Tuesday, the EPA hosts an all-day public hearing at the Houston Hobby Hilton to get your feedback on these proposed stronger standards.

Why should you care about ozone? Ground-level ozone triggers asthma attacks, sends children to the emergency room and can even kill. It’s a serious health threat — especially in states with warmer climates like Texas. When our abundant sunlight and heat “cook” our equally abundant emissions from traffic and refineries, it forms — you guessed it — too much ozone. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Also cross-posted at our Energy Blog:

President Obama announced this morning he was putting the government on a low carbon diet. Through a series of initiatives, he hopes to decrease energy consumption through efficiency and switching to alternative energy that is less carbon intensive.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Fun fact 1: The US government uses approximately as much energy as the entire country of Austria.

Fun Fact 2: Similar initiatives made by states have netted huge results. The state government of Utah, led by governor Jon Huntsman (who Obama named ambassador to China, you may remember), invested $1.5 million in energy efficiency for government agencies expecting a 10 year payback. They made it back in 3– and now they save over half a million dollars in energy costs a year. Efficiency is an economy of scale– and I’m willing to be the entire government of Utah would not even fill in one of the large federal agency buildings around DC.

Fun Fact 3: Texas has its own “No Regrets” greenhouse gas reduction strategy in accordance with the passage of SB 184, which Public Citizen supported: don’t forget that Sunday is the last day to submit your energy efficiency ideas to the state comptroller’s office. For more info see: www.TexasNoRegrets.org

I think this is a domestic spending freeze everyone can get behind.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »