[Watchdogs] Renewables: Costly but necessary
TEXAS66 at aol.com
TEXAS66 at aol.com
Wed Nov 10 09:20:28 CST 2010
Thank you Merle. Although you can't tell by looking at me, I wasn't
around when Congress passed the Rural Electrification Act. However, I do know
that for folks willing and able to pay, there were even then opportunities
to purchase electricity from private generators.
Now, to your point. Were the cost of so-called "green power" or
renewables generation actually cheaper than that generated conventionally, then
you're right. I wouldn't be complaining as much because the PEC would be
providing us its members/owners with low cost electricity. However, it's not.
And, my experience tells me that such power will never replace that
generated by conventional or nuclear power, and it will never be cost competitive.
I'm just one member of the PEC. Unlike folks in privatized areas, I don't
have the option to choose who provides me power (compliments of the Texas
Legislature). So, I'm stuck with the PEC. The PEC can't compete now, much
less when they start getting into exotic energy generation, and they're
doing it on my nickel without my permission.
What's most irritating to me as an owner is that the PEC either cannot or
will not produce and provide the relative economics for its owners, so, if
given the opportunity, we could make an informed decision. I don't want to
conclude that they don't want anybody to know....but why else?
I'll close by recalling a comment once made by dandy Don Meredith, "If IFs
and BUTs were candy and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas."
Regards,
Ken Rigsbee
In a message dated 11/10/2010 4:48:05 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mlmoden at gmail.com writes:
Ken:
I pretty much agree with your position; however, I would not characterize
the advent of rural electric cooperatives in the late 1930's as the result
of investor-owned utilities (IOUs) not being able to afford to provide
service in rural areas. IOUs could have provided service in rural America and
charged rates necessary to make a profit. They CHOSE not to provide such
service leaving millions of rural Americans without benefit of electric
service. A responsive and responsible Federal government stepped-in to devise
a program to allowed these millions of rural Americans to receive electric
service.
Also, were the cost of green power to be half the cost of fossil fuel
power, I'm sure that we would be screaming that there is no need for member
approval, and that the Board should immediately secure such cheap power. Bill
Christensen makes the most persuasive argument, and that is those who
choose green power options which cost more than the current fossil fuel options
should be charged the difference. If a green power option does not cover
its additional costs, the rest of the members should not be asked to
subsidize it.
To the extent that green power options result in a reduction in demand for
LCRA power, that delays the day that a new electric generation unit must
be built by the LCRA (or some other power generator) at an incrementally
higher cost.
Merle
On 11/9/2010 9:21 AM, _TEXAS66 at aol.com_ (mailto:TEXAS66 at aol.com) wrote:
Bill, that's all fine and good, but it's not the PEC's job. Time and time
again I have asked the board to do an economic analysis to determine and
report how much extra the so-called green power is costing its members - to
date, my requests have been ignored. I know renewable energy costs more
than the 1/2 of 1 cent per KWH the PEC allegedly charges for it, but I don't
know how much more. I do know that our rates are higher than 5 other Co
Ops who buy their power from the LCRA. I have asked why, but have received
no answer.
The PEC was established to provide low-cost power to one time rural
America. Rural America could have had high cost power from established
investor-owned utilities, but they couldn't afford it, so the government started
passing out low-cost loans for cooperatives in 1936. The PEC like so many
others took advantage of the program and built infrastructure to serve its
rural members/owners. The PEC became a distributor of electricity, and that's
all.
Now, we have a noble effort on the part of some to get into the renewable
energy business, which is not called for in either the Charter or ByLaws of
the company. Our members are paying more than they should for energy due
in part to these adventures and as a result of poor management control. I
have stated that as one owner, I resent that.
If the PEC wants to use our money to get into the renewable business, then
for God's sake ask us if that is a proper use of our money.
Regards,
Ken Rigsbee
In a message dated 11/9/2010 2:54:25 A.M. Central Standard Time,
_billc_lists at greenbuilder.com_ (mailto:billc_lists at greenbuilder.com) writes:
Here are some different questions to ask:
How much is PEC getting from the opt-in renewable power sales they've
already got going? I know that *I* pay PEC extra for renewable West
Texas wind power, and I'm sure a fair number of others do. But I
have no idea how many, or how much money comes in as a result.
Where does that money go?
If it doesn't go directly to providing the renewable power, I believe
that it should. In fact, I think that if PEC really insists on
continuing its ongoing PR barrage (it seems to be staying the course
despite our protests) it should dump the useless "We're PEC, aren't
we great!" ads and instead push the heck out of the idea of signing
up for renewable power - and then plow the money generated back into
purchasing OR generating OR subsidizing additional renewable
electricity.
Then people like Milton wouldn't complain that it's saddling
unwilling owners with avoidable excess costs, as it would be an
opt-in program. (They could of course continue to complain about the
ridiculous spending on advertising - but at least it would have a
purpose other than "feel good".)
At least two of our Board likely lean toward green power, based on
their histories: Cox has long been involved in environmental issues,
and Perry's website cites his membership on the Board of Directors of
Western Solar Utilization Network and his business focus on "energy
efficiency and renewable energy projects" among other things, in his
summary of relevant experience.
The fact that they didn't stress the renewable angle as candidates
does not mean that they're anti-renewables by any means. Like anyone
running for office, they're going to focus on the issues at hand -
and we'll all agree that PEC has had some serious issues to attend to
lately that have taken more immediate attention than the long term
plans for renewable energy.
At 3:44 PM -0800 11/8/10, Carlos Higgins wrote:
>Alfred
>
>Is the decision on how far and how fast the PEC moves on renewables
>one that should be made by you and a handfull of other members -
>notably the Board - or is this a decision that properly belongs to
>the membership, where they have an opportunity to express
>preferences?
>
>To my knowledge, no candidate for the Board included anything in his
>or her campaign rhetoric about having a personal green power agenda
>or even a keen interest in moving the PEC in this direction.
>
>Carlos
>Austin, TX
>512 258 3564 _CarlosTX at sbcglobal.net_ (mailto:CarlosTX at sbcglobal.net)
>
>--- On Mon, 11/8/10, alfred stlouis _<stlouis_98 at hotmail.com>_
(mailto:stlouis_98 at hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>
>From: alfred stlouis _<stlouis_98 at hotmail.com>_
(mailto:stlouis_98 at hotmail.com)
>Subject: [Watchdogs] Renewables: Costly but necessary
>To: _watchdogs at pec4u.org_ (mailto:watchdogs at pec4u.org)
>Date: Monday, November 8, 2010, 4:39 PM
>
>Well, should we continue to keep our head in the sand about
>renewables and just let the Chinese take the lead in Solar Energy?
>We must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, the cost is
>outrageous when you include the price we pay in environmental damage
>and the oil wars in the midEast. Remember, every badly wounded
>military person will likely receive VA benefits, family included,
>for many years to come. Al
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Watchdogs mailing list
>_Watchdogs at pec4u.org_ (mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org)
>_http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs_
(http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs)
--
Bill Christensen
_<http://greenbuilder.com/contact/>_ (http://greenbuilder.com/contact/)
Green Building Professionals Directory:
_<http://directory.greenbuilder.com>_ (http://directory.greenbuilder.com/)
Sustainable Building Calendar: _<http://Calendar.SustainableSources.com>_
(http://calendar.sustainablesources.com/)
Green Real Estate: _<http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>_
(http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/)
Straw Bale Registry: _<http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>_
(http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/)
Books/videos/software: _<http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/>_
(http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/)
_______________________________________________
Watchdogs mailing list
_Watchdogs at pec4u.org_ (mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org)
_http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs_
(http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs)
_______________________________________________
Watchdogs mailing list
_Watchdogs at pec4u.org_ (mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org)
_http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs_
(http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs)
--
Mr. Merle L. Moden
1111 Thompson Ranch Road
Wimberley, Texas 78676-6129
512 847-1335
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20101110/cdda191f/attachment.html>
More information about the Watchdogs
mailing list