More later.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
City Council Approves TxDOT Project 7 to 1
Only Susie Byrd opposed the approval of the Transmountain project as set forth by TxDOT. Chuck Berry was able to convince other members of Council that a safer entrance to the State Park will be created. In the motion to approve there was nothing about Smart Code. Paseo del Norte as planned will tear through beautiful, natural open space.
Monday, March 28, 2011
County Judge Veronica Escobar Speaks Out for Open Space
In the letter below written to Mayor John Cook, County Judge Veronica Escobar supports the "transportation infrastructure investment at Transmountain Road" but not at the expense of preserving natural open space.
New Petition Starts; Transmountain Goes to City Council
A petition to save the Scenic Corridor is back on the streets! Everyone will recognize it as the same petition as before that had language prohibiting major roadways through that corridor. (By the way, the petition language gives specific land description which does not include Transmountain. Signers need to know that the petition deliberately does not seek to stop Transmountain from being widened through this area.)
Why try again with the petition? First, the Municipal Clerk’s office did their job validating signatures and all are grateful to them for their hard work. Petition gatherers failed to correct some info which could have been corrected before submitting the petitions. Most importantly, you want to preserve the corridor and your voice should be heard. Also, since the petition never went before Council, there is nothing in the City Charter preventing its re-circulation.
If you can’t gather signatures, please download the form, print it and send it to Jim Tolbert at 2701 Frankfort Avenue, 79930 ASAP. Time is of the essence. You must be a registered voter residing in El Paso. Please make sure that the information that you put on the petition is complete and exactly like that on your voter registration card even if you moved recently and have not updated your card with the County. If you want to gather signatures, then take a moment to read through the instructions.
If you can, it is very important to attend City Council tomorrow. Some time after 11 a.m. there will be discussion and action on the proposed West Transmountain Loop 375 Project by the Texas Department of Transportation and will include approving (or not) the current flawed TxDOT proposal, adding Plexxar to the Master Thoroughfare Plan, and removing the Paseo del Norte overpass from the Transmountain Freeway design. (Item 15 on the agenda.) It is important that you attend and make your presence known as those who want to improve Transmountain safely and to accommodate added traffic without destroying the Scenic Corridor. If you cannot, please email your representative. Elpasonaturally does not support the inclusion of Plexxar and wants Paseo del Norte moved to that location instead. See What’s Wrong with TxDOT’s EA.
You can still give public comment regarding TxDOT’s proposal for the Transmountain West project and the Public Hearing on March 22nd. Email those comments to ELP_Loop375West@txdot.gov. I suggest that you copy on your email the Federal Highway Administration official overseeing the proposal. His name is Gregory Punske and his email address is Gregory.PUNSKE@dot.gov.
One huge disappointment at the public hearing was a letter read into the record by a staff member of Senator José Rodriguez. The letter gave full support for that “Ask No Questions” project. Rather than listening to those who elected him, the Senator chose to side with out-of-towners who would force their one-size-fits-all (McDonald’s Arches-type) plan that ignores our love for our mountain to river corridor. The last time that I saw the Senator, he had not been elected and he was helping to pick-up trash along Transmountain west of the State Park. Apparently being seen meant more to him than “seeing”. Email him and tell him that you want land preserved and a new roadway that respects the Scenic Corridor. His address is jrdjz@elp.rr.com.
You probably have been reading about the dysfunction at EPWU/PSB especially if you subscribe to the El Paso Inc. After a year of attempting to get the EPWU leadership to give information about contracts and put items onto the agenda, the “citizens advocate” member of the Public Service Board, Dr. Richard Bonart, discussed these issues with David Crowder at the El Paso Inc. Crowder’s Taking on the PSB from inside is must-read. A good example of the Archuleta Autocracy that has no accountability to the people of El Paso and HIS Board members who merely bob their heads is the quick decision to hire the El Paso Council of Engineering Companies and Black and Veatch to investigate and report on failures and responses during the February freeze – the 60 hour event that led to dangerously low water levels, a call to the public to boil water and refrain from using water. Both the CEC and Black and Veatch do business with the PSB. Why not hire an independent consultant as Dr. Bonart suggested? Their local claims Archuleta – even though contractor after contractor on projects come from out of town. When you are an Unaccountable Autocrat, you do what you want and expect everyone to tow the line.
Apparently, Mayor John Cook now supports the idea of having an independent consultant who does not have a conflict of interest. See Crowder’s Mayor takes on utilities review/PSB member raises questions about how board is run.
Regarding Dr. Bonart’s assertion that he has been denied documentation as a Board member (Board members do have fiduciary responsibility and are not just bobbing heads), his claim is matched by evidence. One piece of that evidence is that I have a copy of the EPWU’s Emergency Response Plan (excluding supposedly sensitive Homeland Security information). Dr. Bonart asked for this document last year and still hasn’t received it! (By the way, that plan says nothing about the need for the EPWU’s Central Control room to be a “lights out” facility – one with the necessary back-up generators to work on its own even in the midst of a blackout. Wonder if Black and Veatch or the CEC would catch that “little” detail. The ERP is really pretty sketchy. It basically says that “In case of an Emergency, call Ed – or Nick Costanza” and now it appears EPWU is backing away from their claims about the threats from El Paso Electric.
One last comment: Jimmy Janacek’s online post to Crowder’s “Taking on the PSB” asks the perfect question – why aren’t all the PSB members serving us – the owners of the EPWU:
”According to PSB Rules and Regulations No. 11, Sec II (A)(1)(a), EPWU is owned by the citizens of El Paso. Yet EPWU finds it necessary to designate one board member as a "Citizens Advocate." EPWU is the only organization in this country that designates one board member as the owners advocate. Board members of all of the other organizations in this country are elected by the owners to advocate for the owners. These board members are criticized when they don't advocate for the owners but EPWU is the only organization in this country that will criticize a board member because he does advocate for the owners.”
Perhaps other board members have their own agendas like Maria Tehran whose company profits from the kinds of construction projects PSB contracts to do or supports through its resolutions. You see, Ms. Tehran is owner, president and chief operating officer of Sierra Machinery, Inc. which sells, leases and services heavy construction equipment. Talk about a conflict of interest! It appears that the co-chairman of the PSB is not there for the owners – you and me.
Of course, the El Paso Electric Company has its own woes. For all their hot air about promoting alternative energy, they are really penalizing rate payers who install and use solar energy panels.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
El Paso Electric Penalizes Rate Payers for Solar Power
Don't believe El Paso Electric Company's claim on their home web page. You will see a rolling banner that includes solar panels and the copy "Renewable Energy: Improving our environment through renewable energy programs." Truth is that they don't just discourage residential use of solar energy - they penalize it! (EPEC's bogus marketing claims reminds one of the misrepresentations by PSB/EPWU in their expensive public relations campaign against natural open space.)
EPEC makes the installation and use of solar panels by residents uneconomical. They are also stealing electrical power from homeowners with solar panels or charging ratepayers with solar panels a $15/month surcharge.
One rate-payer (and an engineer) who recently installed solar panels gave me this report [emphases mine]:
We attended a meeting with Evan Evans and other representatives of El Paso Electric where the rate schedule for homeowners with residential solar systems was explained.
Until March, 2011 El Paso Electric was billing using “net metering” where the meter runs forward and backward depending upon production and use of electricity. Residents with solar systems would then pay only for their electricity use in excess of the amount produced by the solar panels. The Electric Company says that in July, 2010 they obtained approval from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for Rate Schedule 48. This schedule says that they can a) charge $15/month extra, b) charge the residential customer full cost for any electricity used (~$0.12/kW-hr, and c) pay the customer ~$0.025/kW-hr for any electricity produced. Although I have not seen the paperwork, homeowners are also offered the option of not being charged the extra $15/month but at the same time not receiving payment for any produced electricity. That is, whenever the solar panels produce more than the residence uses, the extra goes back to the electric company for no compensation – nice deal for the utility.
While Mr. Evans attempted to keep his answers factually accurate, his accuracy is uncertain; factually accurate is also not the same as fair and unbiased. When asked why we have this rate schedule we were told that the PUC has dictated these rates. In fact, rate schedules are negotiated with the PUC by the Electric Company. Why would any company, with true interest in solar power negotiate a rate schedule that makes solar systems uneconomic?
Solar systems produce during the highest demand hours of the day, when electricity is most valuable. When Mr. Evans was asked why the Electric Company pays so little for the produced power, given the optimal timing, his response was that it’s really not true that power is more expensive during the day, but rather that it’s cheaper at night! Those of us, who have studied logic, believe that’s exactly the same thing – but remember, these are the folks who brought us rolling blackouts this winter. The fact is that El Paso Electric charges its large customers an energy charge that increases by a factor of 18 during peak demand time relative to off peak hours (see Schedule 25: http://www.epelectric.com/files/html/Rates/TX_Business/Schedule_No_25_-_Large_Power_Service_Rate.pdf ).
So let’s see now: Solar power produced during peak demand hours has a very low value . . . but the surcharge for margin power used during the same time period has an 18X cost factor?
The net effect is that, despite the appearance of solar panels on the El Paso Electric web site, the solar option in the El Paso Electric portions of Texas is effectively dead. For residential systems, a very small set of solar panels (enough to meet minimum household daylight hours demand) would result in small monthly electricity cost reductions – but small systems tend to be uneconomic because some of the fixed charges of system setup greatly increase installation costs per kW. Larger systems are clearly uneconomic.
Here's a similar report about the meeting from a science teacher [again, emphases are mine]:
As you may know, EPE invited all of its solar customers to a 7 p.m. meeting on 24March at Stanton Tower to discuss changes in billing procedures. It turned out to be a pretty rancorous meeting that painted EPE in a very poor light. There were many angry people. Briefly, here is the story.
When I signed on in January 2009, I was credited on a PER MONTH basis for kWh that I was ahead ( sort of like putting them in a bank account). Once I had exhausted any credits I would be billed at the normal rate for any kWh I owed for the month. I also paid the standard monthly $4.50 residential customer charge since I was still, of course, hooked up to the grid. This resulted in my paying EPE about 90 dollars for electricity the first year.
Last spring, the billing changed some – less favorable to me in ways, but still fair I felt. Again, on a PER MONTH basis, I would be charged for net kWh consumed at the rate all of us pay for electricity, the retail rate. On months when I was a net producer I would be paid the wholesale rate for my excess kWh. I would also, of course, continue to pay the customer charge. Since I have not received a bill of any kind from EPE in the last 13 months(!) I don't know my exact bill in that time, but it would be in the 80 dollar range for that time frame. This would be less than the first year, mostly due to conservation efforts made here at the house.
Now the new situation: EPE is now monitoring net kWh on a TWO HOUR BLOCK basis, even though the bills (should I ever see one) are done monthly. Here is how this works: at night, when I am of course a net user, I will be billed for the net sum of kWh consumed based on the two hour blocks. At night, then, I am treated much like any other customer. During the day, I have a "choice" of two "options". I can pay a smaller customer charge – in the five to seven dollar/month range – and EPE will just take for free my net kWh production during the daylight hours. My other "choice" is to pay a $15 monthly charge, but then EPE will buy my daily two hour block excesses for $.025/kWh (the wholesale rate). I actually come out better on the first option, but it will turn my annual 80 dollar bill into something in the $250-300 range and ensure that EPE will get something from me every month, even those months when I make several hundred more kWh than I consume. Even days like today, when I will make 10 or so more kWh than I will use, I will have to pay them. This makes bona fide contractors look, at best, confused, and, at worst, complicit. It makes the payback period much longer and not really economically feasible for the homeowner. It cripples the growth of solar (by the individual at least) here in El Paso. All of this comes from EPE, which claims still and did so repeatedly at the meeting, to be FOR the individual solar customers. All this from EPE, whose lack of foresight in the deep freeze caused great, and unnecessary, financial damage.
Two comments: EPEC must have to pay for its $100,000 raise it is giving CEO David Stevens.
It also may be high time that we find ways to get off the grid and really live more sustainably. Find some ideas at Off Grid: Free Yourself. Here's a blog to follow. I predict that in the next few years, a getting homes and businesses off grid will become a huge growth industry. Here's one such house now where the owner not only lives off the grid but sustainably in other ways:
Off the Grid from Nick Hillyard on Vimeo.
David Stevens and his solar power penalizing company will just have to go begging for customers.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
TxDOT Public Hearing Dominated by Conservationists
Last night's public hearing on the Transmountain West project really helped to define the differences between conservationists on the one hand and those who want to build a road without looking at any design alternatives nor considering the design flaws.
It was clear that those in favor of preserving the Scenic Corridor greatly outnumbered those who are willing to just tear-up the scenery, the animal habitats and the ecosystem. 23 people spoke for conserving and preserving land in the Scenic Corridor. Most of these speakers said that they favored road improvements but not at the expense of losing the Scenic Corridor. All seemed to emphasize that it was not the improvements to Transmountain that was the issue - but how those improvements would be made.
One speaker made it clear that preserving the Corridor would not stop improvements for Transmountain but the fear of losing $85 million for those improvements had stopped the City Council from preserving that land.
Those in favor of giving TxDOT a carte blanche for their cookie cutter design (TxDOT builds roads like McDonald's builds golden arches - one size fits all) repeatedly said that safety and less congestion were the reasons for bulldozing ahead. Most of these speakers are employed by companies standing to gain if the project goes through.
Avid mountain biker, teacher and 4th generation El Pasoan, Brent Sanders, easily debunked their arguments:
"I find it interesting that a project that touts itself on safety - safety at Resler, safety at Paseo del Norte, safety at Plexxar - has forgotten about safety at the State Park entrance. It really makes one wonder who this project is looking after. El Pasoans wanting to enter the State Park will have to cross 2 lanes of oncoming traffic.
"I have also heard others comment about how building overpasses, and gateways are going to relieve traffic congestion and pollution. I find that to be very interesting because the most congested areas that we have in El Paso are the gateways at the Hawkins, Airways, Lee Trevino, intersections. These also happen to be the most dangerous intersections in the city. So is this project helping congestion? Or safety? I worry this project is only for the benefit of a few at the expense of our tax dollars and our scenic mountains. Those of us against this freeway as it is currently being presented, bisecting our beloved mountains, are not trying to halt development in this city that we all love. Rather we want to preserve our mountains while still encouraging businesses to locate to a scenic, beautiful, desirable El Paso that we can all be proud of."
In her comment, Shari Bonart reminded everyone that it is not just unsafe to enter the State Park, it is unsafe to leave the Park - especially to make a left turn out of there. Take a look at a video Shari helped to produce that shows just how much more unsafe the current TxDOT design will make entering and exiting the State Park:
Judy Ackerman took on the proposed "animal crossing" by TxDOT. It is planned to occur between Paseo del Norte and Plexxar which might become a developed commercial area if the preservation of the Scenic Corridor fails. Animals would have to walk through developed areas, across a major thoroughfare (Paseo) enter the corridor and cross over to more commercial development. It isn't going to happen.
Sierra Club member, Bill Addington, reported that an attorney had been retained to review the
Federal Highway Administration official, Gregory Punske, was in attendance. I gave him copies of both sets of the petitions.
Finally, speaking about the petitions, discussion is now underway to push to get more signatures. One petition (roadways) only missed certification by 70 signatures.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
