Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

An excellent article that Chronicles the transition of an environmentalist to a realist.Quillette

A few key quotes:

You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.

Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.

There’s been a lot of publicity about how solar panels and wind turbines have come down in cost. But those one-time cost savings from making them in big Chinese factories have been outweighed by the high cost of dealing with their unreliability.

Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.

In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.

It’s true that you can stand next to a solar panel without much harm while if you stand next to a nuclear reactor at full power you’ll die.

But when it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike.

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

The Latest National News on Georgetown

https://dailycaller.com/

Georgetown Being Disingenuous - AGAIN!

The city continues to claim that it's energy used is 100% renewable.Georgetown

Here is the city chart:

Click to enlarge
The city uses this chart to show that on an annual basis they have enough energy from renewable sources to meet city demand. If this is true, why is the city purchasing energy from gas powered plants as shown in the Wilco Sun chart?

Click to enlarge
The city also asserts they have sufficient renewable energy to meet peak demand through 2021. That assertion is highly questionable. Consider the following data for state wide demand and wind+solar supply:

Click to enlarge

This chart shows the statewide demand for electricity on July 18,2018 in the blue bars while the orange bars show the supply of electricity generated by wind plus solar.

It is clear that the supply from wind and solar is insufficient to meet the demand from 11am to 10pm.

Assuming the demand curve is similar for Georgetown, and there is no reason to assume it is substantially different, then we have the following chart for July 18, 2018:

Click to enlarge

The peak demand for Georgetown in July 2018 was reported to be 170MW. 

Georgetown signed contracts with both wind and solar energy companies to try and meet the city demand as the wind and sun produce electricity in different parts of the day. Of course the sun shines during the day and the wind tends to blow at night.

Here is the supply chart for the wind on 7/18/2018 based on the statewide profile.

Click to enlarge
And here is the solar supply chart.

Click to enlarge
The solar chart is based on the NREL database tailored to the Fort Stockton solar farm characteristics.

Combing the demand chart with the supply chart results in the following for a typical hot day in July.

Click to enlarge
This type of supply distribution shows why the city has contracted for 2X as much renewable energy as is required on an annual basis. Even then, that would not meet the demand. It would take purchases of 3X or more of renewable energy on an annual basis to meet the peak demand on a hot summer day.

It is time for the city to be completely transparent with the rate payers of Georgetown.
1. Make the energy contracts available to all
2. Publish the hourly supply and demand for energy by supplier

Contact your city council person and demand full transparency!

Statesman Article on Georgetown Electric Woes

The Statesman has a long article on the issues surrounding the Georgetown municipal electric utility. Here are excerpts. Read the whole thing.

GEORGETOWN — After the county seat of traditionally conservative Williamson County opted to go big on renewable energy a half-dozen years ago, its mayor was exalted by climate activists and liberal icons.

Smithsonian magazine called Mayor Dale Ross, a Republican, the “unlikeliest hero of the green revolution.” Journalists poured in to write about the cultural and energy significance of Georgetown’s move.

The city invested in wind and solar contracts, part of its claim that it was powered 100 percent by renewable energy, because it made financial sense, Ross said then.

Now the hosannas have ceased, as Georgetown finds itself struggling with a revolt among its 25,000 ratepayers. Even as city officials acknowledge they had misjudged their residents’ power demands, they are pointing fingers at the state’s grid for what they say were incorrect projections about the nature of a volatile energy market.

As of Feb. 1, monthly rates for the average Georgetown electricity consumer jumped nearly $13, or about 10 percent, to cover budget deficits. The mayor, an accountant whose second term ends in 2020, said he wasn’t in office or didn’t vote when the renewable contracts were approved because the mayor only votes in case of a tie.

Comparing energy bills Georgetown Utility Systems says its average residential customer uses 949 kilowatt-hours a month of electricity. Here’s how a monthly bill compares for that amount of electricity use by customers of Georgetown, Austin Energy and San Marcos Electric Utility — which remains a wholesale customer of the Lower Colorado River Authority.

Georgetown Utility Systems: $132.32

Austin Energy: $96.22

San Marcos Electric Utility: $87.69

Georgetown Electric Rate Payers Paying French Government?

Texas Taxpayers Pay The French Government For Wind Power And Then Pay The Grid To Take It. Read the story here in Forbes

The electric saga of the town of Georgetown, Texas, gets curiouser and curiouser.

At least 57 times in 2017, and many more last year, Georgetown’s residents paid EDF, a company owned 84.5% by the government of France, around 6 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity produced in the middle of the night when demand was low—so low, in fact, that because of tax incentives and government subsidies, the price for power was negative.

Put simply: Texas taxpayers paid the French government for power and then, to add insult to injury, paid the grid to take the excess power off their hands.

Georgetown Achieving National Notriety

Here is an excerpt from the Daily Caller

Georgetown, Texas, is one of the biggest U.S. cities to claim to meet 100 percent of its electricity needs with solar and wind power. The city began to switch to solar and wind in 2012, and Republican Mayor Dale Ross quickly became a poster child for environmentalism.

The city was even featured in former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Sequel,” which was released in 2017. Gore called the city a “trailblazer” in the fight against global warming.

Georgetown’s green energy ambitions, however, have cost the city roughly $30 million over the past five years. The loss is driven by the long-term wind and solar energy contracts the city entered into, betting that fossil fueled-electricity prices would rise.

The opposite happened, and Georgetown’s municipal utility announced in late January it would increase customers’ bills about $13 a month to recover its bad bets. City officials are currently trying to renegotiate their long-term green energy contracts.

The Continuing Saga of Georgetown Utility Systems (GUS)

The GUS debacle is continuing to create fodder for much discussion among Georgetown residents as evidenced by news articles, both local and national, letters to editors, and townhall meetings such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation hosted meeting this past Tuesday.

The February 20, 2019 issue of the Wilco Sun is a must read for its coverage of this issue. Here is one front page article:

Click to enlarge

City was never 100% renewable 

By CHARLOTTE KOVALCHUK

According to the city’s Renewable Energy FAQ page in December, Georgetown switched to 100 percent renewable energy in 2018.

However, according to new information released last week, in 2018, 64 percent of the city’s electricity came from wind and solar and 36 percent from natural gas.

When asked to comment, Mayor Dale Ross said, “Jack Daly, the city spokesperson will provide a comment.”

Mr. Daly answered by quoting a statement from the Georgetown Utility Systems’ Rumor Control webpage: “The city has never claimed that the electrons produced in West Texas are the same electrons consumed in Georgetown. ... Texas operates an interconnected electric grid. Georgetown is credited with the energy it pays to put into the grid, regardless of where it is located. The city is credited with putting more renewable energy into the grid than it consumed. According to the state, Georgetown’s customers have been using and paying for all-renewable energy since April 2017.”

Yet Mayor Dale Ross has told at least one media outlet that Georgetown is 100 percent renewable without explaining what that means or mentioning the city’s use of non-renewable sources.

In an interview with Ari Shapiro on NPR’s All Things Considered, March 17, 2017, Mayor Ross said, “So I think people all over the country wonder, how is it that such a red city like Georgetown, such a conservative place, was one of the first cities in the country to be powered 100 percent by renewable energy?”

“Semantics argument” 

When asked for comment, Councilman Tommy Gonzalez said there was nothing to comment on because “we don’t define what 100 percent renewable is. Other people do.”

Councilman Steve Fought said he has explained the city’s natural gas contract with Mercuria a couple times in his newsletter in the last three months, but did not make a big deal of it because once electrons of any origin are put on the grid, they’re not distinguishable anymore.

Councilwoman Rachael Jonrowe agreed.

“It’s all going into the same pool of energy,” she said. “Yes, we’re contracted for a certain amount, but there’s no way to direct it all to us. People have an image of it going down the wires and only coming to Georgetown.”

Mr. Fought said, “If every town, city, county, every power generation in the state of Texas was renewable, except for one coal plant, and that plant was put on the grid, nobody would be able to say they were renewable. It’s a semantics argument.”

He said the city meets the 100 percent renewable definition well enough because it puts out more renewable energy than it uses.

The concern that the city hasn’t put a complete explanation out is legitimate, he said, but the issue is hard to explain. Plus, the natural gas contract will end in 2021.

The contract was initiated in 2013 following the termination of the city’s relationship with the Lower Colorado River Authority. It was intended as a short term power supply and is set to end in 2021, according to the city.

The contract is meant to cover peak demand, Ms. Jonrowe said. If renewable energy-based electricity couldn’t meet the demand for power, the natural gas-based contract would ensure Georgetown has enough power to keep the lights on and the air conditioning running

“Flat lie” 

But for John Gordon of Georgetown, the statement that Georgetown is 100 percent renewable is a “flat lie.”

Mr. Gordon is an electrical engineer specializing in power systems engineering. He said wind and solar power are unreliable because windmills and solar plants only provide power when the wind blows and the sun shines.

“This is the absolute stupidity of depending too much on sporadic sources of power,” Mr. Gordon said.

“You don’t build an electric utility system based on, ‘maybe the wind is blowing or maybe the sun is shining and there are no clouds.’ None of those guys on the city council or even Jim Briggs have ever provided 100 percent renewable power 100 percent of the time. Now everyone is going to have to pay a lot of money for their stupidity. It’s a huge loss for the Georgetown community.”

Overall, he said, the city should have released the power contracts to the public, stated what they’ve done and then started to figure out if there’s any way to correct the errors of the current path.

“Until we see the contracts, we don’t know how bad it is,” he said. The city says it can’t release the contracts because of confidentiality clauses in them.

The common thread among all the comments are "excuses"! Not a single city or elected official was willing to take responsibility and admit that they "screwed up". Not of them offered any solutions either.

The City is either lying to themselves or to the public if they think they can renegiotate the contracts to more favorable terms. The investments that were used to construct the wind and solar farms have been securitized and sold to big pension funds and large insurance companies that want long-term stable returns. Clearway Energy for instance CWEN, is paying almost a 10% dividend to holders of its securities! 

Since the funding for the construction of the wind and solar farms has been securitized and sold, it would seem that there would be a low risk of a lawsuit if the contracts were released to the citizens of Georgetown.

Let your Council Person know they need to release the contracts so that the people of Georgetown have the necessary information to determine the best way, for the rate payers, to proceed!

Watchdog's Radical Idea

The Texas Public Policy Foundation hosted a townhall meeting last night at the Georgetown library to shed light on the Georgetown electric debacle. The Wilco Sun will likely have an in-depth report on the meeting and the discussions that ensued.

The bottom line is that there is no easy solution to extract the citizens from paying millions of dollars in higher electric rates in the foreseeable future.

One potential solution that would achieve two objectives at once would be to close the city owned airport and sell the land and facilities.

Owning and operating an airport is not a core city government function. The airport land and facilities are very valuable for potential commercial uses and the proceeds could be used to extract the citizens from the wind and solar contracts without impacting the electric rates.

Secondly, closing the airport would alleviate all the neighborhood issues associated with having an airport in the middle of a residential area.

If investors and aircraft operators believe an airport is needed in the Georgetown area, let private enterprise develop one just as occurred with the Executive airport east of Austin.

Do You Agree With Georgetown's Vision & Strategies?

COUNCIL STRATEGIC VISION AS PUBLISHED ON CITY WEBSITE

The purpose of government is spelled out in The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution explicity deals with property rights.

Therefore, the role of government is to protect citizens and their property, protect their constiutional rights and provide streets, water, sewers for their health and happiness.

Other functions that a city provides or service that a city provides seems to be extraneous to the fundamental function of government.

With those ideas in mind, why is the city promoting "diversity, trying to influence state government, expanding government through annexation and MUDs, and developing collaborative strategies with schools"? 

We Know What is Going On at GUS!

The city has revealed more information to the news media, particularly, Community Impact

The annual power purchased from each supplier for each year starting in 2016 was released. Here is a chart:

Click to enlarge

The big jump in 2017 was in the purchase of electricity provided by the natural gas powered generator, MEA. One might ask why is that? Look at the following chart:

Click to enlarge

This is hourly averaged wind output in the ERCOT system for a day in July 2018. Notice the wind output drops by more than 50% during the hottest hours of the day.

Georgetown had to purchase power from ERCOT through their MEA contract to meet the middle of the day demand.

Here is another look at wind supply and demand:

Click to enlarge

It is clear that when demand is high, supply is low and when supply is high, demand is low.

In 2018, demand for gas generated electricity went down as the solar farm came online in July.

It is projected in 2019 that the need for gas generated electricity will decline further as solar becomes available for the entire year. But, the need for gas generated electricity does not go to zero, because, wind + solar still will not meet the peak demand on the hottest days. So much for being 100% renewable!

Lets look at the buy versus sell for a typical day:

Click to enlarge

When the city needs the most electricity during the day, they have to purchase it and when the demand is low at night and when the city has a contract surplus at night, they have to sell. 

Of course all of Texas has the same kind of demand curve as Georgetown, and so the market price goes up during the day when demand is high and price goes down at night when demand is low.

Since Georgetown is contracted to buy the wind and solar energy at fixed prices, they need to sell the excess energy at night when the price is low. That is how they have lost $26M over the past 3 years and will continue to lose money in the future unless gas prices increase- not likely.

Contrary to what the city is telling the citizens that the losses are primarily caused by low gas prices and the long-term contracts, the unreliability or consistency of the renewable energy caused the city to contract for 2 times more renewable energy than the city can use with the hope that peak demand can be met.

Otherwise, why would the city contract for twice the power currently needed. The city says they did that to get low prices and that the city demand will gorw to meet the supply.

At the historical rate of demand for electricity in Georgetown, it will take 13 years before demand equals current supply on an annual basis!

The reasons for the financial mess the city and rate payers find themselves in can be summed up as follows:

1. Fixed price long term contracts limits ability to adapt to market changes
2. Low gas prices caused by the abundance of gas released by fracking
3. Increased conservation efforts and higher efficiency electrical devices
4. Unreliability of renewable energy to meet demand when required without over purchasing.

WOW! What is Going On at GUS?

The following data were provided to the Wilco Sun.

Year	MWs Purchased	MWs Used	MWs   Sold
2016	741,941	629,466	112,475
2017	969,244	648,988	320,256
2018	1,067,364	678,759	388,605
projected 2019	1,260,200	680,000	580,200

This shows that the purchased power is increasing at a rate of 19.3% per year over 3 years.

The electricity used is increasing at a rate of 2.63% per year over 3 years.

The power sold is increasing at a rate of 73% per year over 3 years.

What is going on with these contracts? Why is the city purchasing power at a 19.3% growth rate?

The city contracted amount should have been stable after 2015 when the two wind contracts, EDF and AEP, were in place as well as the gas contract with MEA.

No new power should have been purchased until July 2018 when the solar contract came on line.

The city needs to share those contracts with the people as GUS is owned by the people of Georgetown.

Appointments to City Boards and Commissions Very Opaque to Public

It is very instructive to watch the video of the February 12, 2019 meeting of the City Council. It is apparent that the process is very opaque to the sitting council members as council woman Eby requested that the approval of the Mayors recommended appointments be pulled from the consent agenda as she knew very little about the process for selecting the candidates.

It turns out there were approximately 280 applicants for the 65 positions.

Additional concern was expressed by council woman Jonrowe and she requested the vote be delayed until next council meeting which would give all members the opportunity to review the applicants. She also expressed concern that her request to serve on the GUS board for the past three years had been ignored.

The appointments that did not involve a council person were postponed, but, at council man Foughts request, the appointments of the council persons to serve on the various boards were approved with council women Eby and Jonrowe objecting.

So, it appears that if the public wants to review the information concerning the applicants that was available to the mayor, a citizens has to visit the city secretary and request to view the "notebooks".

There is an excellent letter to the editor of the Wilco Sun for February 17, 2019 that describes the issues with the appointments and with the limitations of the Mayor described in the city charter.

The Charter states, in part, “All powers and authority which are expressly or impliedly conferred on or possessed by the City shall be vested in and exercised by the Council.” The position of mayor is addressed separately. “The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the Council and shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes.” Additionally, it states that the mayor has no regular administrative duties, only votes on council decisions in case of a tie, and has no veto power. Additional sections of the code of ordinances provide for other mayoral responsibilities, such as signing official documents or in times of emergency.

It is apparent that some citizens believe the mayor should read the charter in order that he understands the limits to his authority.

Challengers for City Council Seats Open for Election

Candidates file for City Council election in May Georgetown

The candidate filing period for the City Council District 3, 4 and 7 elections in Georgetown on May 4 ended today at 5 p.m. Incumbent John Hesser and Michael Triggs have filed for District 3, incumbent Steve Fought and Joe Reedholm have filed for District 4, and incumbent Tommy Gonzalez and Jaquita Wilson have filed for District 7.

To see maps of council districts, go to maps.georgetown.org/council-district-maps.

Georgetown City Council members serve three-year terms representing one of seven single-member districts.

The last day to register to vote in the May election is April 4.

Early in-person voting is April 22-30. In the early voting period, voters may cast ballots at any early voting location in Williamson County.

On election day on May 4, voters may cast ballots at any vote center location in Williamson County. Polling places, dates, and times will be listed at wilco.org/elections.

Growth of Electricity Use in Georgetown

The growth rate of electricity use in Georgetown has been very consistent over the last 10 years. Here is the data:

Click to enlarge

The compound annual growth in electricity use over the last 10 years is 3.08%.

At that growth rate, it will take 13 years to grow into the supply that the City has under long-term contract. That means the City and thus rate-payers will be bleeding $ for a long time.

This is a wealth transfer scheme that extracts $s from the rate-payers of Georgetown to the bond holders of Clearway Energy being paid 9% interest.

Remember the long-term population growth rate for Georgetown:

Click to enlarge

Isn't it amazing that the growth in electricity use and the population are just about the same.

There is much data that the City could use to project the needs of the City into the future.

The "Money" Chart on Georgetowns Power Costs

In addition to the secrecy surrounding Georgetown's electric utility, it is now evident that the City was not truthful with the public. This statement from the city website exemplifies what the city has been telling the public in various media. They claim that the losses are due to the depressed market prices and that those prices were not knowable in advance.

"For the excess power the City doesn’t consume that is cleared to the market, the price depends on time-of-day and the season. But on average for the year, this excess power is a loss due to depressed market prices. However, over time, the losses will lessen. The biggest relief will come in 2021 when the last Mercuria contract expires. That will create a savings of over $10 million per year."

Here is the city chart used at Texas A&M in January, 2017.

click to enlarge

It is clear that from 2009, the price of natural gas has been declining through July 2016. Natural gas is used to generate electricity, and the price of electricity has been declining. The following chart comes from the EIA.

Even though there is volatility, the trend in the electricity price to consumers in Texas was down.


Click to enlarge

The city knew this when they signed the wind contracts in 2015 and it was certainly evident when the solar contract was signed in 2018.

So to tell the citizens of Georgetown that the decline in electric market prices was not knowable, is disingenuous at best and incompetent at worst. The data show otherwise.

Georgetown's Solar Provider - Clearway Energy

Here is a description of Clearway Energy:

"Clearway Energy, Inc. is a leading publicly-traded energy infrastructure investor focused on modern, sustainable and long-term contracted assets across North America. Clearway Energy’s environmentally-sound asset portfolio includes over 7,000 megawatts of wind, solar and natural gas-fired power generation facilities, as well as district energy systems. Through this diversified and contracted portfolio, Clearway Energy endeavors to provide its investors with stable and growing dividend income. Clearway Energy’s Class C and Class A common stock are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbols CWEN and CWEN.A, respectively. Clearway Energy, Inc. is sponsored by its controlling investor Global Infrastructure Partners III (GIP), an independent infrastructure fund manager that invests in infrastructure and businesses in both OECD and select emerging market countries, through GIP’s portfolio company, Clearway Energy Group."

Notice the part about providing "its investors with stable and growing income". Why would anyone think that Clearway would voluntarily reduce its income to investors by negotiating a lower energy price for Georgetown?

Clearway is paying a 9% dividend to its investors, but, the stock price is near its all-time low and is off about 8% today. This indicates a lack of confidence by investors in the company.

Georgetown Provides Free Juice for Electric Cars

The City of Georgetown continues to shoot itself in the foot. The Wilco Sun recently discovered that the City is providing free electricity at five locations for charging electric cars. Of course the electricity is not free, the taxpayer is paying the bill. Here is the article from the February 10, 2019 edition.

Click to enlarge

Georgetown Utility System Information for "Nerds"

For the "nerds" out there that want to get into the nitty gritty of Georgetown's electric supply and demand, here is the link to the power point presentation that Chris Foster, Manager of Resource Planning and Integration, used at a Texas A&M forum in January 2017. GUS Presentation

This appears to be the same presentation referenced in the Wilco Sun editorial several days ago.

Tid Bits on Property Tax Reform

The Texas senate committee advanced the tax reform bill SB 2 out of committee with the next action being a full senate debate/vote.

The local governments and their representatives argued long and hard against the bill. Here is what the senate committee had to say about the public hearings last week:

Isn't it great that taxpayers are paying to be lobbyed against their best interest, NOT!

Because the citizens/property taxpayers of Texas are motivated, the number of citizens testifying for the legislation exceeded those testifying against the legislation.

It's great to see citizens engaged in their government.

Georgetown's Population Growth

Every issue from transportation congestion to infrastructure needs are justified on the basis that the population growth of Georgetown is the cause. The solutions always involve spending money and invariably the growth in budgets exceed the population growth plus inflation.

The city develops its own estimates of the population within the city limits and within the ETJ.Georgetown Planning

"Between official U.S. Census population counts, the Planning Department estimates the population within the city limits using a formula based on new residential building permits and household size. It is simply an estimate and there are many variables involved in achieving an accurate estimation of people living in a given area at a given time. While Georgetown as a geographic area is growing considerably, not all of that growth is inside of the city limits."

Here is the historical growth within the city limits.

 Click to enlarge

Keep this number, 3.3% compound annual growth rate, as the city staff growth, debt growth, tax revenue growth, budget growth and other measures are examined in the future.

Wilco Sun Publisher Takes Mayor and City of Georgetown to Wood Shed

Ms Scarbrough is particularly insightful in identifying the Council as a deliberative body, not a team. It might be added that the members are elected to represent their district constituents and be loyal and responsive to them as opposed to pledging loyalty to team unity.

Prior to City Manager David Morgans hiring in March, 2015, there were numerous split votes on the Council on a variety of issues. One that comes to mind was the Police Chief's acquisition of the surplus MRAP military vehicle. The Mayor voted to break the tie that approved the acquisition in December 2014.

Mr Morgan brought in a consultant for a series of Kum Ba Yah meetings with the Council and City Staff to develop that team work concept. Watchdog attended some of those sessions.

Kum Ba Yah is the title of a song used with varying degrees of sincerity or sarcasm to refer to the song's evocations of spiritual unity and interpersonal harmony.

After the four training sessions in November 2015 with the consultant, which was ostensibly to develop a vision and goals for the city, very few council votes have not been unanimous, 7-0.

Look Who Lobbyed Against Taxpayers at Wednesday's SB 2 Hearing

Former Senator Konni Burton, tweeted, "Want to see the local elected's & govt assn's who are in Austin testifying against SB2, the property tax reform legislation? Click on this link! Remember these names in future elections if you are tired of escalating local property taxes!"Witness List

Notice that Williamson County Judge, Bill Gravell is on the list of those testifying against giving taxpayers more authority over raising property taxes.

City seeking proposals for third-party review of energy management

The city posted tonight that they are seeking help in both managing the City’s energy portfolio and for a comprehensive review of the City’s management practices related to purchasing and managing energy. Georgetown

Securing long-term energy contracts that provide more energy than customers currently need is a standard practice among city-owned utilities. As a fast-growth community, these contracts allow the City to grow into increased energy demand. The contracts also reduce the number of times the City has to buy energy in a potentially volatile marketplace.

It is important to note that it is not the type of energy the City has contracted for, but the amount of energy the City is contracted to purchase, that is the current challenge. The crux of the issue hinges on the large amount of energy the City must clear to the market that is not currently consumed in Georgetown.

When the price of energy decreases, the City is still obligated to pay the price for energy it secured in the contracts. Any energy that is not used by Georgetown’s electric utility customers is cleared to a statewide marketplace.

The deadline to submit a proposals to review managing the City’s energy portfolio is 2 p.m. on March 7. The deadline to submit questions is 5 p.m. on Feb. 22.

Other than the fact that this appears to be too little too late to help the present rate payers, this may be a good idea if they enlist help from outside the municipal utility universe.

Update on Fire Station #6

In a previous blog post it was stated that ESD#8 was responsible for the cost of the land and the construction of the fire station under the original agreement between Georgetown and ESD#8.

As part of the negotiation of an extended service agreement between Georgetown and ESD#8 last fall, the City was deeded the land and took responsibility for funding and constructing the fire house as well as the annual operating costs. In return, ESD#8 agreed to increased annual payments to Georgetown for fire services in ESD#8.

As a result, Georgetown will issue approximately $5.2M in Certificates of Obligation in FY19 to pay for the construction of this fire station and assume the payments on the debt.

The growth of the fire department budget and staff will be the focus of a future post.

Mayor Denies Threatening Wilco Sun Editor

Here is the CBS Austin report: 

"A newspaper editor in Georgetown claims Mayor Dale Ross threatened and bullied her for her coverage of the city’s renewable energy contracts. 

As CBS Austin reported last month, the city of Georgetown is facing a $26 million budget shortfall after overestimating how much renewable energy it would use. 

Beginning February 1, the city will charge utility customers an additional $12.82 on electric bills to help make up for the shortfall. 

Editor Lorraine Brady with The Williamson County Sun claims she’s requested details on the city’s 20 and 25 year renewable energy contracts but the city hasn’t provided answers. 

The Sun published an article Wednesday titled “A Bruising Encounter” written by Brady describing her run-in with Mayor Ross Friday. 

In the article, Brady claims Mayor Ross starting questioning her coverage after the two ran into each other at the Williamson County Museum Friday night. 

“Accused us of using unreliable facts however he wouldn’t answer my questions when I asked him specifics,” says Brady. 

Brady says Ross then threatened to use his political power to negatively impact the newspaper. 

Wednesday, CBS Austin spoke to Mayor Dale Ross who claims the article is untrue. 

“I was kind of surprised when I read that because its inaccurate,” says Mayor Ross. 

According to Ross, he spoke to Brady about how he felt her coverage of the renewable energy contracts were unfair. 

He says he never threatened to use his status as Mayor to negatively impact the newspaper. 

Mayor Ross said he did tell Lorainne Brady he would not use the Williamson County Sun for campaign advertising in the future. 

“I want to spend my money where it makes sense in campaigns,” says Ross. 

Ultimately, Ross says he called Brady to apologize and never meant to make her feel bullied or threatened."

Lobbyist vs Taxpayers Square Off in Austin

The first hearings on triggering an election if local government proposes to increase taxes more than 2.5% year over year were held by the Texas Senate yesterday.

The local government lobbyist, paid for with tax dollars, were out in force testifying against any change in local government authority to impose property taxes.

Georgetown is a member of the Texas Municipal League and the membership is funded with tax dollars.

Texas Municipal League, one of the largest government-growth advocates in the Austin lobby, has staunchly opposed efforts to reform skyrocketing property taxes in Texas driving taxpayers out of their homes and businesses. In the organization’s 2019-2020 Legislative Program released ahead of the 86th Legislative Session, they state their adamant opposition to all measures that would reduce a city’s ability to raise rates in any way:

1. Defeat any legislation that would erode municipal authority in any way, impose an unfunded mandate, or otherwise be detrimental to cities, especially legislation that would:

c. impose a revenue and/or tax cap of any type, including a reduced rollback rate, mandatory tax rate ratification elections, lowered rollback petition requirements, limitations on overall city expenditures, exclusion of the new property adjustment in effective rate and rollback rate calculations, or legislation that lowers the rollback rate and gives a city council the option to re-raise the rollback rate.

If you want to rein in the out-of-control growth in your property tax bill. Contact your State Senator,Charles Schwertner or State Representative Terry Wilson and let them know how you feel.