[Watchdogs] Renewables: Costly but necessary
Merle L. Moden
mlmoden at gmail.com
Wed Nov 10 10:14:11 CST 2010
Ken:
Again, I pretty much agree with your position. While it's clear that
green power is not currently cost-competitive with fossil fuel power,
there are no guarantees that it will stay that way, especially in the
long term.
PEC's annual purchased power costs per member are well-below the median
of other large electric coops in the U.S. due primarily to low-cost
generation from the LCRA. See the Navigant Report, Appendix B, Key
Ratio Trend Analysis. PEC's high rates, compared to other local
electric providers, are the result of the long-standing excessive
spending practices of PEC management in the administrative and general
(A&G) spending categories. These bloated expenditures per member are
well above the median of other large electric coops in the U.S.
I do not wish to subsidize the rates of other PEC members; however, I
suspect that the apparent subsidies provided to green power users would
pale in comparison to the subsidization of incompetent financial
management at the PEC that all ratepayers are forced to support.
Merle
On 11/10/2010 9:20 AM, TEXAS66 at aol.com wrote:
> 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 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 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
>> >
>> >--- On Mon, 11/8/10, alfred stlouis <stlouis_98 at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >From: alfred stlouis <stlouis_98 at hotmail.com>
>> >Subject: [Watchdogs] Renewables: Costly but necessary
>> >To: 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
>> >http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Christensen
>> <http://greenbuilder.com/contact/>
>>
>> Green Building Professionals Directory:
>> <http://directory.greenbuilder.com>
>> Sustainable Building Calendar:
>> <http://Calendar.SustainableSources.com>
>> Green Real Estate: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>
>> Straw Bale Registry: <http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>
>> Books/videos/software: <http://bookstore.greenbuilder.com/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Watchdogs mailing list
>> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
>> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Watchdogs mailing list
>> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
>> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs
>
>
> --
> Mr. Merle L. Moden
> 1111 Thompson Ranch Road
> Wimberley, Texas 78676-6129
> 512 847-1335
>
--
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/20101110/74065008/attachment.html>
More information about the Watchdogs
mailing list