Austin City Council wasting your money to support their political agenda (Howe: 2015, how much)

[Roadking2003]

They are spending millions on alternative energy sources with zero benefit to the citizens of Austin.
----------------------------
The Austin City Council has taken action to approve the purchase of a large amount of solar power, running contrary to their stated goals on affordability. City energy policies should be driven by affordability, economic realities and the need to deliver reliable electricity to customers. Instead, these policy decisions are being driven by social engineering.

City leaders have tried to make the argument that their recent solar purchases carry the cheapest cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power in the nation — and perhaps they are. However, the spot market prices for traditional sources of energy are much less than the long-term KWh cost of solar power.

Furthermore, the city’s outrageous cost per kWh (about 15 cents/KWh) for its Webberville solar plant and the nearly-never-used biomass plant — which costs around $54 million per year — have increased cost burdens paid by ratepayers. Both of these purchases, by previous councils, were based purely on the desire to be “green” without regard to the cost to the ratepayers of Austin Energy.

Workman: Austin

[sojourner77]

Speaking of taxpayer money wasted at AE, were you aware that the GM makes a BASE salary of $320K per year!?


Austin Energy's GM resigns to take Seattle post - Austin MonitorAustin Monitor


He is the highest paid public employee in Austin.

[hound 109]

They are spending millions on alternative energy sources with zero benefit to the citizens of Austin.
----------------------------
The Austin City Council has taken action to approve the purchase of a large amount of solar power, running contrary to their stated goals on affordability. City energy policies should be driven by affordability, economic realities and the need to deliver reliable electricity to customers. Instead, these policy decisions are being driven by social engineering.

Was there a vote by council ?

Was it unanimous? (I wonder if any of them voted against?) Thanks for sharing this.
.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

They are spending millions on alternative energy sources with zero benefit to the citizens of Austin.
----------------------------
The Austin City Council has taken action to approve the purchase of a large amount of solar power, running contrary to their stated goals on affordability. City energy policies should be driven by affordability, economic realities and the need to deliver reliable electricity to customers. Instead, these policy decisions are being driven by social engineering.

City leaders have tried to make the argument that their recent solar purchases carry the cheapest cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power in the nation — and perhaps they are. However, the spot market prices for traditional sources of energy are much less than the long-term KWh cost of solar power.

Furthermore, the city’s outrageous cost per kWh (about 15 cents/KWh) for its Webberville solar plant and the nearly-never-used biomass plant — which costs around $54 million per year — have increased cost burdens paid by ratepayers. Both of these purchases, by previous councils, were based purely on the desire to be “green” without regard to the cost to the ratepayers of Austin Energy.

Workman: Austin

The biomass plant doesn't cost 54 Million a year.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The biomass plant doesn't cost 54 Million a year.

If it cost 55 Million per year (or 53.5 Million per year)....then your statement would still be accurate.

If you know what it costs per annum, just state the number.
.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hound 109

If it cost 55 Million per year (or 53.5 Million per year)....then your statement would still be accurate.

If you know what it costs per annum, then just state the d*mn number.

That's the problem, we don't know how much it cost. Austin Energy is explicitly Not releasing the number, but this 54 Million number appears to be a completely phantom number, with no source.

They have said that what we're paying isn't close to the original contract, while 54 Million is.


They've also said that it's costing us 9-16 cents kwh.
Austin Energy close to signing

Certainly that's not great. But with either of those numbers, to ring up $54 M would mean the plant was running a significant portion of the time (like 1/3 of the year).

[Trainwreck20]

Well, we could just look at the immediate cost and pretend that things aren't going to change at all; in reality, coal is going to continue to climb in price, old coal (and natural gas) units will start to be prohibitively costly and need to be replaced (i.e. Decker), and the regulatory cost will continue to climb for traditional fossil fuel units. While this may not be the cheapest of all solutions right now, it could easily be less expensive in the not-so-distant future. And diversifying also helps keep the cost-basis from taking a drastic unexpected turn.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That's the problem, we don't know how much it cost. Austin Energy is explicitly Not releasing the number, but this 54 Million number appears to be a completely phantom number, with no source.

They have said that what we're paying isn't close to the original contract, while 54 Million is.


They've also said that it's costing us 9-16 cents kwh.
Austin Energy close to signing

Certainly that's not great. But with either of those numbers, to ring up $54 M would mean the plant was running a significant portion of the time (like 1/3 of the year).

Sorry about my fussiness. I thought you knew the number & were purposely being cryptic.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

And diversifying also helps keep the cost-basis from taking a drastic unexpected turn.

Exactly. I'm not a huge fan of the biomass plant, but it was always described as a hedge against natural gas costs. You don't expect hedges to always pay off, if they did, they wouldn't be hedges.

Same thing with this solar proposal. If natural gas stays low for the next _20 years_, well it might not look as well in hindsight. Of course, a 20 year drought in gas prices is probably doing worse things to the Texas economy everywhere else, so I'm not sure we'd really have that much to complain about.

Not that I really expect that, especially with US exports to Europe starting up.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

...with zero benefit to the citizens of Austin...City energy policies should be driven by affordability, economic realities and the need to deliver reliable electricity to customers. Instead, these policy decisions are being driven by social engineering. on the desire to be “green”...

There's that "should" again. Where's that written down, and by whom? Please spare me the diatribe by some suburban state rep. who's doing the pander for his whiny constituents. And, of all the utility customers NOT to care about: those just outside the city who don't pay taxes and don't contribute to the general tax base of the city they use. Those customers SHOULD pay our city owned utility a profit which we Austin voters can use as we choose. You don't get to tell a private utilitiy's investors what to do with their profit, do you?
But back to your original point: who says that lowest immediate cost is the only consideration? As others have pointed out: fuel prices go up and down and it might be wise to invest in generators that work on various fuels, especially some of the newer ones that promise to get us off the carbon teat. As an AUSTIN taxpayer and ratepayer, I approve of this type of investment and don't consider it "social engineering," nor is that necessarily a bad thing.
Have a nice night, courtesy of Austin Energy.