NRG Solar Farm Comes Online

The solar farm that has been built North of Fort Stockton in Pecos County has started producing electricity and inserting it into the Texas electrical grid (Wilco Sun). NRG Energy purchased the bankrupt project from SunEdison in 2016 and subsequently completed the project. They also negotiated a contract to sell the entire output to the City of Georgetown for the next 25 years.

As is typical in Texas energy projects, NRG declined to share the cost of the project as well as the content of the contract with Georgetown including the price of the electricity being charged to Georgetown.

Also in typical fashion, it was disclosed that portions of the rate are fixed for the 25 year duration of the contract, but, other portions of the rate charged Georgetown may vary.

So much for a fixed and constant rate for Georgetown consumers over the next 25 years.

Where is the transparency in our city government?

A Court Victory for Small Business

The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th circuit has provided a significant victory against government overreach when a three-judge panel ruled on behalf of landowners. 

ST.EVE, Circuit Judge. This case concerns just shy of 13 acres of wetlands, which lie in a south‐suburban plot of land called the Warmke parcel. Orchard Hill Building Company purchased the Warmke parcel in 1995 with plans for a large‐scale residential development. Not wanting to run afoul of the Clean Water Act, Orchard Hill requested a determination Case: 17-3403 Document: 34 Filed: 06/27/2018 Pages: 17 2 No. 17‐3403 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers that the wet‐ lands (or the “Warmke wetlands”) were not jurisdictional “waters of the United States.” The Corps decided that they were, and Orchard Hill has spent the last 12 years challenging that decision. We find that the Corps has not provided sub‐ stantial evidence of a significant nexus to navigable‐in‐fact waters, and therefore vacate and remand with instructions that the Corps reconsider its determination.

What is particularly disturbing about this case is the fact that it took 12 years and many legal actions to arrive at this point in time. The amount of money that Orchard Hill has spent defending its right to develop its land is mind biggling. Keep in mind this property was 11 miles away from any navigatable water. 

  

School Property Taxes

The Georgetown ISD has recently become a significant payer of the "Robin Hood" taxes that require property rich districts to send money to the state for redistribution to "poor" school districts. Here is a graph of recent GISD payments.

As can be seen, these tax payments are on an unsustainable trajectory.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has come up with a method to ultimately eliminate the Maintenance and Operation portion of the school property tax.

If state lawmakers cap the state’s budget growth at four percent per year – and dedicate 90 percent of the surplus to lowering school property taxes – the Robin Hood tax could be phased out in 10 years. By the 11th year, the entire school property tax for maintenance and operations (M&O) could be abolished, reducing the average Texan’s total property tax bill by 40 percent or more.

The Texas State Legislature needs to be encouraged to pass legislation embodying this principle at the 2019 legislative session to permanently reduce the property tax burden on Texans.

Don't Believe Hype About Carbon Fee & Dividend

There are some in Georgetown that are advocating with City Council to pass a resolution supporting a carbon fee and dividend similar to the one passed in Austin. Many liberal politicians, pundits and even climate scientists endorse this carbon tax. Notice, there are no trained economists supporting this idea.

In fact, here are two economists who show that such a scheme would fail miserably. RealClearEnergy

Today, some pundits and politicians who claim the conservative mantle argue that a carbon tax is a free market solution to a market failure. The purported failure is that the marketplace does not adequately price the estimated social cost of carbon, which is deemed to be the global damages of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, there is nothing conservative or free market about the government expanding its role in our daily lives through a carbon tax. 

Often ignored by advocates of Pigouvian taxes is what gets referred to as “the knowledge problem.” That is, the few individuals in government lack sufficient information from prices and other sources available among the millions of individuals in the market to make sound decisions. 

By taxing an economic input like energy production, government essentially taxes everything that we do, wear, eat, and use. History shows that this is all very destructive: Carbon taxes in Australia and British Columbia reduced standards of living, with Australia eventually repealing its carbon tax within just two years. 

While proponents of the dividend approach, or even a revenue-neutral tax swap, claim this is a market-based, conservative plan, the truth is a carbon tax is based on highly questionable assumptions, leaving it as mainly a policy tool for social engineering with huge economic costs 

The EPA reports that the aggregate emissions of six common toxic pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide) have declined by 67 percent since 1980. Meanwhile, gross domestic product is up 160 percent and population is up 42 percent. Energy-related carbon emissions are down to near 1992 levels —thanks primarily to innovations such as hydraulic fracturing that has allowed far more production of cleaner burning natural gas.

What is the old homily? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Beware Short-Term Climate Predictions

A thoughtful article on climate predictions for north Texas uses facts to discredit the use of flawed models to predict changes in climate.

Similar caution should be used when using models to predict 2.4 ft increases in sea level by 2045 along the Texas coast. Statesman

Wind Generator Impacts on Local Residents

The residents of Comanche County Texas share their experience with the giant wind turbines in their county. Comanche County

These devices disrupt individuals lives, pits neighbor vs neighbor and causes the value of their land to depreciate. These are the burdens placed on the few people by the corporations and consumers that demand renewable energy.

How are these people compensated? The answer is; they are not!

Renewable Energy Continues to Require Massive Subsidies

The "cheap" electricity that Georgetown residents currently enjoy are possible because of the massive ongoing subsidies by the Federal Government extracted from all the US taxpayers.

Stephen Moore provides some perspective.

But the idea that renewables are “cheap” is a lie and those on the left know it. Yet no one in the media ever challenges them. Let’s be clear about an economic reality that environmentalists have spent four decades trying to hide: Without massive government subsidies, there would be no wind or solar energy to speak of. They are complete creatures of government favoritism, and after 30 years we still can’t cut the umbilical cord.

For every dollar that coal and nuclear power receive, wind power gets almost $5 of subsidy and solar receives about $20. This does not even include the biggest subsidy of all: About half the states have renewable energy standards requiring utilities to buy 20 percent to 30 percent of their power from wind and solar regardless of the price. What other industry in America has that kind of golden parachute?

As mentioned in a previous post, renewable energy electric producers in Texas also receive relief from property taxes at the expense of all other local property taxpayers.

It's time to stop the subsidies!

Georgetown Electric Rates

The City posted the electric rates for various entities in the 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Here are some of those rates:

Two observations:
Residential rates including transmission costs and purchased power adjustment is $099.8 per kWh or $99.8 per mWh. Recall the Mayor has told us that wind power costs $18 per mWh. Thus the citizens are being charged more than 5 times the cost for the electricity at their home. It is understandable that the City has to charge enough to cover the operation of the Georgetown Electric Company, but, 5+ times!

Secondly, notice that the school district is being charged $118.0 per mWh including transmission costs and purchased power adjustment. There are 19 schools in GISD. The City charges itself $66.50 per mWh for electricity. The school district obtains it funding from the taxpayer, so why is it charged almost 2X what the City charges itself? Just a stealthy way to extract more money from property owners!

Mayor Ross Touts Wind Energy

In an interview with Axios, Mayor Ross extols the economic benefits of wind energy to the citizens of Georgetown. 

What he fails to mention is the tax credits the wind energy companies receive from the Federal government, the property tax benefits the companies receive from the local taxing entities, like school districts, where the windmills are located and the marked reduction in quality of life for those living near the windmills.

I am sure the property owners in the counties where the windmills are located just love giving the windmill developers a tax holiday for 20 or 30 years while their property taxes continue to increase.

Once the windmills are built, it takes just a handful of workers to maintain them over their expected life of 20 to 30 years, so there is no significant, sustained economic benefit to the local counties and their residents.

In other words, US taxpayers and local taxpayers where the windmills are located are subsidizing the cost of electricity for the residents of Georgetown. That seems like a immoral position even though it is legal.

A side benefit of the interview is that the Mayor discloses that wind energy costs $18/MegaWatt Hour. This information has not been available to the citizens of Georgetown where the rate charged residents is $93.9/MWHr.

Rewriting the Tree Ordinance

 Councilwoman Jonrowe is considering rewriting part of the city's Unified Development Code that deals with tree preservation based on the experience with the current code. This is a hot button issue that will bring out the tree lovers and the property rights activists.

This issue was considered in the last state legislative session with proposals to legislatively deny cities the ability to regulate trees or their removal on private property.

The bill that did pass into law, HR7 placed restrictions on a city's ability to regulate trees smaller that 10 inches in diameter on private property.

That bill does not impact Georgetown's current ordinance that only applies to trees greater than 12 inches in diameter. If however, more stringent rules are enacted, court actions can be anticipated if all economic or productive use of the land is curtailed.

Attorney General Ken Paxton issued the following opinion:

SUMMARY

 If a municipal tree preservation ordinance operates to deny a property owner all economically beneficial or productive use of land, the ordinance will result in a taking that requires just compensation under article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution. 

Furthermore, a court is likely to find a regulatory taking if a municipal tree preservation ordinance, as applied to a specific property, imposes restrictions that unreasonably interfere with landowners' rights to use and enjoy their property. In analyzing whether the interference is unreasonable, the court will consider all relevant circumstances, including: (1) the economic impact of the ordinance; (2) the extent to which the ordinance interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action. 

KEN PAXTON Attorney General of Texas 
JEFFREY C. MATEER First Assistant Attorney General 
BRANTLEY STARR Deputy First Assistant Attorney General 
VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER Chair, Opinion Committee 

Where are Global Warming Predictions After 30 Years?

The WSJ has a piece examining the predictions on global warming over the last 30 years. On the 30th anniversary of James Hansen’s galvanizing testimony before Congress, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening.

"Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago. 

His explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions. 

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious."

Read the entire article and notice that observed data does not match the model predictions made over the last 30 years. This indicates that the models are flawed and need substantial improvement before they will be useful.

  

The Human Costs of Wind Energy

While the citizens and leaders of Georgetown bask in the glory of using renewable wind energy, those who live near the windmills have suffered a significant decrease in the quality of life.

Look at this short video that describes the effects on people who live near the humongous windmills.

Windmill Effects on Local Residents

Texas Supreme Court Rules Bag Bans Unconstitutional

In a victory for rule of law and limited government, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that cities like Austin cannot prohibit the use of plastic bags by businesses. The Statesman

Backing businesses over environmentalists, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday said cities like Austin may not ban retailers from providing customers with disposable bags at the checkout counter. 

In a unanimous ruling, the state’s highest civil court said bag bans run afoul of a state law that prohibits cities from trying to reduce waste by banning “containers” and “packages.” Although the terms are not defined in the law, their plain meaning should include bags, the court ruled. 

The decision upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down a bag ban in Laredo, but Friday’s decision also preempts similar bans in about a dozen other Texas cities, including Austin and Sunset Valley, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said — leaving retailers to decide if disposable bags will be made available to customers.

Georgetown's Budget Growth

The Wilco Sun recently printed a story on how the city's financial report shows the numbers are up. The numbers presented are indeed up over a 1 year period, but, relevant information is omitted from the story that allows a better assessment of the financial direction of the city.

Here is the data from the city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFR) for 2017 shown by the Sun:

What is missing is the total budget expenditures over a period of time. These data are from the city's annual budget reports.

It is clear from this chart that total budget growth over the last 5 years ranges from 12.24% to 16.5% with the 5 year annual growth rate of 11.64%. This gives a clear picture of how the City Council continues to spend the citizen's money at a much higher rate than the growth in population plus inflation(7.6%) over the same 5 years.

Where is the money going? Why to expanded city services like Geary Park, GoGeo bus service, and the new city hall.

Where is Former State Representative Gonzales?

It was reported in the Wilco Sun that former state representative Larry Gonzales, who resigned earlier this month, has taken a job as a lobbyist.

Gonzales represented the southern part of Georgetown. So right now there is no one representing the citizens of House District 52.

Government Intervention in Energy Markets

Here is a textbook case of government intervention in energy markets.

Massachusetts Legislation

A bill passed last night in the Massachusetts Senate removes the state’s caps on net metering, sets a 100% renewable energy mandate, boosts the state’s energy storage procurement target to 2 GW and more. 

At the same time, the state’s solar market has been hamstrung by restrictive caps on its net metering program, which have been ratcheted up so slowly that new caps have at times been met as soon as they are raised. 

It would also change Massachusetts’ renewable portfolio standard (RPS) so that it increases 3% every year, meaning that utilities will be required to source 49% of their electricity from renewables in 2030, 79% in 2040 and 100% in 2047. While Hawaii is the only state that currently has a 100% mandate (by 2045), the rate of this mandate would make it the 6th-most aggressive such policy in the United States.

Furthermore, the bill sets new 2030 and 2040 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets under the rubric of the Global Warming Solutions Act, which was passed in 2008. These were missing in the original bill, which has been identified by climate activists as a major hole that allowed for the state to fall behind on the path to the 80% reductions mandated by 2050 in the bill.

The bill would also supersize Massachusetts’ energy storage procurement mandate from the current 200 megawatt-hours (MWh) by 2020 set by the Baker Administration to 2 GW by 2025. Along with this, the bill would create targets for each utility, including municipal power companies, as well as mandating alternative compliance payments if utilities fall behind in deployment.

Utilities will not be allowed to own more than 20% of the storage they deploy, and the program will be subject to annual reporting.

Finally, the bill puts limits on the kinds of demand charges that state regulators can allow for residential customers, in light of Massachusetts’ recent approval of Eversource’s demand charge imposed on its residential customers who deploy solar.

These regulations will ultimately cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket and will favor some in the state economy. Either fortunately or unfortunately, these kinds of policies will drive more people and businesses to Texas as long as Texas allows the free market in energy to work in Texas. 

Draft Road Closing Policy

Here is the draft traffic management policy, which includes a procedure for closing a road.

Draft Traffic Management Policy

This draft policy will be presented to City Council in  a workshop at Council Chambers 2:30pm today, June 11.

Remember council rules do not allow public speaking at workshops!

Why Renewables Don't Solve Energy Requirements

This news article from England illustrates why the world will not be reducing dependence on nuclear and fossil fuel power plants.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/u-k-wind-drought-heads-into-9th-day-with-no-relief-for-weeks

Texas will require fossil fueled and nuclear power plants to meet demand when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. Electricity users will have to pay for the plants to be available when the renewables are not.

Logic says that paying for two different sets of generating plants is not cheaper than one. So even though renewables are touted to be cheaper, with subsidies, electricty will not be cheaper as rate payers have to pay for the tranmission lines from West Texas as well as the renewable energy.

Property Taxes Levied by City of Georgetown

Some city council members seem to be upset when the State of Texas, which created cities, impose reporting and transparency requirements.

Here is very relevant information in the City's budget that the State required be disclosed in a prominent, simple and straight forward manner. Notice the State requirement at the top of the graphic.

Our, city leaders like to justify the ever increasing budgets by pointing to the growth in population. Notice that only $827K out of $2591K of increased property tax revenue to the city for 2018 comes from new property added to the roles. That is 32%. 68% of the increase comes from existing property owners, but, it is even worse than that because approximately 1/3 of the Georgetown property owners have their property taxes frozen because of their age, disability, etc. That means about 45% of existing property owners shoulder the burden for the entire increase in property tax revenue collected by the City.

Notice also, property tax revenues increased year over year by 10.1%.

Why is the city taxing residents at a 10.1% rate when the population is increasing at a 5% rate? It would appear the City Council is not being frugal with your property tax dollars as this 2:1 spending versus population growth has been going on for 10 years or more.

The following information is part of the disinformation provided by all politicians with taxing authority in Texas. They tell the public what great stewards of public funds they are by showing they held the tax rate constant. Georgetown City Council touts the fact that the tax rate did not change between 2017 and 2017. The question is: why did they not reduce the rate since the property tax revenue increased 10.1% from 2017 to 2018?

In fine print at the bottom we are told the total debt secured by our property is $127,248,211. But, this is not all the city debt. At the end of the fiscal year 2017, the City of Georgetown’s outstanding debt was $276,790,000. Of this amount, $184,060,000 comprises the CO and GO debt backed by the full faith and credit of the City. The revenue bond totals $92,730,000. The Sales Tax Revenue Bond (Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation) debt total is $6,685,000.

The City debt will be explored in a later post.