
Barreling
oil prices…
Loss of market confidence…
A turbulent
If folks in the late '70s didn't know the energy crash was coming,
well, go
figure.
We, however, have the pleasure of a longliner's vision, sans the easy-out of surprise factoring. Not to say, we know all, we just
have enough of the gloom in the mix to know enough to play it cool.
Witnessing the speculative shadowing of gold and oil values with
interest
rates post housing bubble has been the ultimate slow-speed dirigible
rupture and flame-sifted rapture. Seems only yesterday we found that
tear in the housing market's underbelly. Now there's a bloody mess
sinking into the carpet.
Is it a recession? Is it depression? Are you frosted by anxiety or
merely
overeager?
Whatever the flip or spin, we know the numbers and their ringmasters
are jittery as a
flea circus in a meth lab. So when the San Antonio City Council is
urged to
study their options before committing the city to a potentially $17
billion blackhole (or
worse, according to Moody's) undertaking for new nuclear plants
— one our own
utility has been apparently falsely promising at a $7 billion pricetag
while
failing to make its supporting documents public — it seems a
reasonable request.
Representatives of conservation and energy efficiency groups gathered
on the
steps of City Hall to make their case this morning.
"CPS Energy has a study, but they're not giving it to the public. We're
relying on information put out by the company called NRG that would
build the
nuclear plants that are proposed. Those estimates are way too low when
you
compare with any other source," said Karen Hadden, director of SEED
(Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition). "That's a
great
concern because if they're wrong and it really costs more, who will pay
for the
bills? Who will pay for cost overruns? We're afraid it will be the
ratepayers."
The Current
is fairly familiar with the City-owned utility's propensity for
playing their cards close to the chest… in a dark
corner… of a dark closet… at
the bottom of a well… of condensed ink. The utility has
fought every effort our
staff has made in an attempt to justify, or merely understand, CPS
figures.
Before council members vote up or down a request of $206 million to
help pay
for filing an application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and make
the design changes needed for the project, Hadden suggested an
independent cost
study be undertaken.
"Because the real information is not on the table," she said.
The group, which included Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute
for
Energy and Environmental Research, who recently spoke to a packed room
at the
Witte on his research into the potential of solar energy for the
country, urged
residents to attend a CPS Energy meeting tomorrow night and contact
their
council reps to make their questions and concerns heard.
While the City's utility has had a "paradigm shift" regarding how it
plans to pursue energy efficiency strategies, CPS is still hobbled,
Makhijani
said. They still aren't putting the same degree of honest analysis into
efficiency measures and the potential of renewable power.
However, honest appraisals are not possible because of CPS's decision
not to
release its energy study.
"From what is public, I am not at all confident that a full equal and
economical comparison has been made, because their own literature
indicates
they can achieve more than what a nuclear power plant would give them
in terms
of capacity — and they're not shooting for it," Makhijani
added.
"Their own literature" refers here to a study contracted out on the
potential of efficiency to provide for the city's continued growth, as
reported
to Current readers many months back as a part of the feature story CPS
Must
Die.
Makhijani added that the nukes CPS wants to build will be outdated by
the time
they are able to come online.
"My assessment of solar energy costs, along with many other
assessments,
including the official
Makhijani stands by solar's potential, supplemented by natural gas or
biofuels. At least this data is sitting in the sunshine. You can download
his book yourself and draw your own conclusions.
"It's also time for San Antonio City Council do what it was elected to
do,
and that was to oversee a utility to that seems to run independently
and as a
municipal utility should not," said Loretta Von Copponelle, of the city
Sierra Club chapter. "CPS makes no bones about keeping its Strategic
Energy Plan secret. Not even council people are privy to it, and
council is the
overseer of CPS."
For CPS's part, officers have said that only a fraction of its proposed
rate
hike is attributable to its pursuit of new nukes.
Which may be, for now.
---
The CPS Energy Board of
Trustees and the utility's Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC) will hold a public meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday, March 25, at
During the meeting,
CPS Energy customers will be able to obtain more
information about the rate request that would amount to less than 5
percent on
monthly residential utility bills. A proposed affordability discount to
help
minimize the financial impact on low-income customers also will be
outlined.
Customers then will
have the opportunity to make comment before the CPS Energy
Board and CAC. Registration to speak will open on-site at 5
p.m., and
speakers will be limited to three minutes per person.
However, an
individual may cede his or her time to another speaker, but no speaker
may
speak for more than nine minutes¿ total.
On March 31, CPS
Energy staff will ask the Board for approval of a combined
electric and gas rate request that would mean less than a $7 per month
increase
on the typical residential customer's bill of $135. CPS
Energy is
continuing to work with the City of
The proposed electric
rate increase will be the first time since 1991 that a
change in the rate structure would produce additional revenue to meet
CPS
Energy's financial obligations. An electric rate adjustment
in 2005 for
an additional 12 percent share of the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear
power
plant actually resulted in lower customer bills because nuclear fuel
produces
electricity at a lower cost compared to other fuels.
"Thanks to growth
throughout our community and sound financial management,
we haven't had to request many rate increases during the past two
decades," said Norma Soliz, CPS Energy senior director of regulatory
relations. "We wish we didn't have to request an increase
now, but
in response to our customers' requirements, we have committed to major
projects
that will help ensure reliable service and maintain our enviable
position of
having the lowest energy bills among the nation's 10 largest cities."
Soliz said CPS Energy
has made large financial commitments as part of the
company's Strategic Energy Plan to satisfy the growing community's
energy needs
for the long run. "We continue to add more than 1,000
customers
every month," she said. "Meanwhile, we're experiencing
significant price increases in steel, concrete and other commodities
necessary
to complete capital construction projects."
Revenue from the electric rate
increase will help pay for the following major
initiatives to serve CPS Energy customers:
* construction of a large coal-fired generating unit at Calaveras Lake and the installation of natural gas-fired peaking units at Braunig Lake that will produce affordable electricity;
* environmental commitments to the community and region including $500 million in emissions-control upgrades to existing power plants;
* $96 million in customer rebates and incentives as part of CPS Energy's more-aggressive energy-efficiency program;
* needed infrastructure such as electric substations and power lines; and
* a detailed study on the
possible addition of more nuclear-fueled
electrical generation.
"The study of
possibly expanding our supply of nuclear-generated
electricity will account for less than 1 percent of the proposed 5
percent
electric rate increase," Soliz noted.
Revenue from the gas
rate increase will help pay for construction to expand and
further improve the infrastructure of CPS Energy's natural gas delivery
systems.
"The recommended
increases are not about operations and maintenance
expenses, although we have made a concerted effort at CPS Energy to
control
costs," Soliz said. "For example, through attrition and
productivity improvements, we've been able to reduce our work force
from 4,300
to 3,800 over the past five years."
To offset the impact
of the rate increases on low-income customers, CPS Energy
will recommend an affordability discount for those who meet the
guidelines for
assistance programs such as REAP (Residential Energy Assistance
Partnership)
and Project WARM. Recipients must be at or below 125 percent
of the
federal poverty level and experiencing financial hardship.
"Greater
CPS Energy is the
nation's largest municipally owned energy company providing
both natural gas and electric service. Acquired by the City
of
For more CPS Energy
information, visit www.cpsenergy.com.
---
HERE'S THE SIERRA CLUB RELEASE:
CPS Energy
wants to commit to two new nuclear units at
Studies have shown a rise in cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear
plants,
and a decline when the plants are closed. Pregnant women and young
children
seem to be the most vulnerable.
CPS is saying that the two new units will cost about $4 - $5 billion
and be
on-line by 2016. This is highly unlikely. Moody's Investors Service has
calculated that a plant the size of what we'd be getting will cost more
in the
neighborhood of $16 billion. We ratepayers will be paying that. And the
plant
is likely to experience delays that make 2016 much too optimistic a
start up
date. Already the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has indefinitely
postponed
consideration of the application because of software concerns. And the
waste
disposal problem for all nukes is far from being solved.
There are safer, cleaner, eminently more viable alternatives to nuclear
that
will meet the demand of our growing population, and ultimately cost
less in
terms of both health and money. We need to convince CPS and our City
Council of
this.
CPS will hold a public hearing on the nuke Tuesday, March 25, 6-8 pm,
at La
Villita Assembly Hall. PLEASE ATTEND. PLEASE MAKE A STATEMENT OPPOSING
NUCLEAR
AND ENDORSING EFFICIENCY, CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY. We need
your help!
If the number of people who speak out is large, we cannot be ignored.
Hall is located at
http://search.cityguide.aol
For more information call Loretta, Conservation Chair, Alamo Group of
the
Sierra Club, at 492-4620.
Art blogs
Emvergeoning
Glasstire
Artlies
Incident Light
Art Beat (Express-News)
Other blogs
Meet New People (Darren & Jessica Guy)
100 In The Shade
Rhetoric & Rhythm
A White Chocolate Mess
Visit the Riverwalk
BexarCountyLine.com
SavorSA
Did we miss your favorite?
Email it to us