The "New Energy Economy" is Magical Thinking

Magical Thinking

A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal—all of which have turned out to be abundant. 

So far, wind, solar, and batteries—the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons—provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s. Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons. 

This “new energy economy” rests on the belief—a centerpiece of the Green New Deal and other similar proposals both here and in Europe—that the technologies of wind and solar power and battery storage are undergoing the kind of disruption experienced in computing and communications, dramatically lowering costs and increasing efficiency. But this core analogy glosses over profound differences, grounded in physics, between systems that produce energy and those that produce information. 

In the world of people, cars, planes, and factories, increases in consumption, speed, or carrying capacity cause hardware to expand, not shrink. The energy needed to move a ton of people, heat a ton of steel or silicon, or grow a ton of food is determined by properties of nature whose boundaries are set by laws of gravity, inertia, friction, mass, and thermodynamics—not clever software. 

This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing— or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.” 

Among the reasons: 

1. Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh. 

2. Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%. 

3. Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%. 

4. The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

Insightful Analysis of Renewable Energy

The author of this report asks the fundamental question: why is the price of electricity from wind and solar increasing as the cost of solar panels and wind turbines declines significantly?

Here is the key take-away.

The main reason appears to have been predicted by a young German economist in 2013.

In a paper for Energy Policy, Leon Hirth estimated that the economic value of wind and solar would decline significantly as they become a larger part of electricity supply.

The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do.

Solar and wind thus require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.

Another Issue with City Owned Ariports

San Antonio/Chick-fil-A Debacle is a Textbook Example of Why GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T OWN AIRPORTS.

Wayfarers passing through San Antonio International Airport will be out of luck if they’re craving Chick-fil-A's crispy chicken or waffle fries, as the city council has banned the chicken-centric chain from opening up shop in the air hub due to the company’s alleged “legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”

On Thursday, six members of the San Antonio City Council rejected the inclusion of Chick-fil-A from the new Food, Beverage and Retail Prime Concession Agreement for the airport, KTSA reports. The seven-year contract for concession management at the terminal is expected to create $2.1 million in revenue for the Texas city; the motion that passed gave the green light to food shops including Smoke Shack and Local Coffee.

The Government is again picking winners and losers based on politics!

Wilco Sun Editorial

The publisher of The Williamson County Sun gets it! His editorial on transparency and openness that the citizens of Georgetown want and need is spot on! Read it and let him know that you appreciate the fact that he is looking out for you, a taxpaying citizen of Georgetown.

The Williamson County Sun, March 27, 2019 

Winds Aloft by Clark Thurmond, Co-Publisher 

Memo to council: Create transparent government

Back in October, with the 2019 session of the Texas Legislature about to start, the city council passed a resolution that outlined the city’s legislative agenda for the session. The council’s resolution begins by saying the agenda is “ ... in the best interest of the public it serves.”

The agenda opposes legislation that would reduce local control of, among other things, the city’s economic development authority, or place limits on the city’s ability to use efficient methods of financing city purchases and projects.

You may find it difficult to think what those “efficient methods” might be, but you can be sure they are not democratic methods. Efficiency is not a day-to-day feature of democratic government. Good government is efficient, but efficiency is a consequence, not a cause.

The city resolves to fight bills that would limit the city’s ability to increase property taxes. It resolves to fight lowering the increase that would trigger a rollback election. The city doesn’t like unfunded mandates, that is, costs imposed, but not paid for, by the Legislature.

Near the end, in the utility section, the council resolves to oppose any change to the current law “regarding disclosure of competitive sensitive information.” The proposed laws the city is fighting are House Bill 2189 and the identical Senate Bill 943.

These bills open, just slightly, the exemptions to disclosure that our utility department has used to keep you from knowing what is going on with the utility department you own and must pay for every month. The result of this secrecy is now playing out in the electricity flap.

The city has hired a lobbying firm that specializes in utility issues to help with this. So you are paying for that, too — paying lobbyists to keep you in the dark. But as the council says in its resolution, it is working in your best interest.

It is a peculiar puzzle — what is it about the utility situation that would be so damaging to you if you knew it? Although we’ve heard city folk say they can’t reveal this or that, because it is a “competitive matter,” we rarely, if ever, hear what that competitive matter, is or why you would be harmed if you and others knew it. But the city is lobbying the Legislature to avoid having to tell you anything substantial.

Right now the Legislature’s “Sunshine Bills” are languishing in committee. Those who benefit from a clueless public are working to keep them there. I suspect many legislators would be happy if the bills stayed in committee, or that they come out so toothless that they can vote for open government without actually having any open government. So we’ll see.

But Georgetown doesn’t have to wait for the Legislature to raise the standards of openness. Our council could, if it wanted, establish a higher standard right now. It could, in the true interest of its citizens, establish a policy of openness that aims at the highest possible standard rather than the lowest allowed by law, as is now the case.

What is the Rush?

The City Council is holding a special meeting at 3pm tomorrow to hold a annexation hearing.

First Public Hearing for the voluntary annexation of an approximate 0.63-acre tract in the L.P. Dyches Survey, Abstract No. 171, and initial zoning designation of General Commercial (C-3) zoning district upon annexation, for the property generally located at 8400 RR 2338, to be a part of Highland Village

At 6pm tomorrow the same annexation is on the Council agenda.

Second Public Hearing for the voluntary annexation of an approximate 0.63-acre tract in the L.P. Dyches Survey, Abstract No. 171, and initial zoning designation of General Commercial (C-3) zoning district upon annexation, for the property generally located at 8400 RR 2338, to be a part of Highland Village.

What is the rush? Is something being hidden? Inquiring minds would like to know!

Is Georgetown Fire "Guilding the Lily"?

The Fire Chief is requesting approval of the City Council to spend $1,715,000 on two new pieces of fire equipment. An engine/pumper truck and a rescue truck. Remember the City is currently taking delivery of a $1.4M hook and ladder truck.

Here is a typical engine/pumper.

Rescue Vehicle – Commonly referred to as a Rescue Company, this type of specialty truck is basically a toolbox on wheels.  These trucks can help extract vehicles during a traffic collision, help with rope rescues, enter confined spaces and/or assist during a building collapse, for example.

These fire trucks are being purchased through Buy Board, which is a cooperative organization.

The overall objective of the Cooperative is to provide a mechanism for all local governments in Texas to pool their collective purchasing power. Cooperatives save money in two primary fashions: the price of the product purchased and/or in the administrative cost savings from eliminating a formal bid/proposal process. Of course, there are no guaranteed savings, but cooperative buying power is a time-tested method of savings.

The question remains unanswered as to whether or not these coops actually save money for a city the size of Georgetown. Georgetown could run a competitive bid process that would result in the lowest price. It is certainly less effort for the Chief and his staff to purchase through the Buy Board and also it does not generate much visibility for the citizens.

This purchase is on the legislative agenda for tomorrows council meeting and any inquisitive citizen can attend and comment or ask questions.

Solar Subsidies Are Evil

Subsidies are enabling international companies to extract money from U.S. and Texas tax payers while destroying farm land. Austin American-Statesman, Section E

ELGIN — Although barely 25 miles from one of the country’s fastest growing cities, much of the land hugging this Austin bedroom community remains empty prairie. 

Small farmhouses dot the dark soil fields that unroll into the horizon. Soon, though, if all goes according to plan, a Canadian company will begin installing a vast array of solar panels across 1,000 acres just a few miles outside of town.

But only under one condition: that it receives a multi-million-dollar tax break from the local school district.

Property taxes represent the biggest operating expense for solar projects. So without the giant reduction of its tax bill, Recurrent Energy warned, its executives would be forced “to look to maximize their investment by building in California.” 

In exchange for the tax break, the company has promised to create exactly one full-time job. 

The merits of Texas’s Chapter 313 tax breaks have been debated since the program was created two decades ago.
The number of companies seeking the property tax breaks more than doubled between 2016 and 2018, with the total projected cost of the program projected to hit $1.1 billion a year by 2024.

Because Chapter 313 tax breaks come out of the money collected by schools, the soaring growth comes at a sensitive time for legislators who, after years of false starts, have pledged to put billions more dollars into public education. “Here we are looking for more money for schools while we’re leaking $1 billion a year out the back end,” said Dick Lavine, an analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities.

The comptroller’s office recently made qualifying for the 313 program even easier, saying an applicant simply had to assert it required the tax break for the project to be financially viable. Most solar applicants include the wording. While Energie Kontor found Pecos County “a desirable location” for a solar installation, the company wrote in its December 2018 application to the Fort Stockton school district for a tax break, it “would not be able to finance and construct its project without the property tax incentives.”

Thus it is clear that the Fort Stockton school district, which gave tax breaks for Georgetown's Buckthorn solar farm, continues to reward solar companies, even though they provide minimal jobs. The loss of tax revenue doesn't hurt the school district, because the State makes up the lost revenue by taxing all the State's residents. What a deal!

This is a classic example of wealth transfer from Texas tax payers to executives and shareholders of international corporations!!

Wilco Elected Officials Handing Out Sweetheart Deals

This is the kind of "deals" using taxpayer money that taxpayers of Georgetown must guard against! When elected officials start handing out taxpayer money to selected individuals or companies, the opportunity for corruption rises exponentially!

Here are key excerpts from the story

Government officials in Williamson County have been on a spending spree with citizens’ money—and the worst part is that they’re spending it on corrupt special deals.

A recent report by Community Impact detailed how Round Rock, Pflugerville, and Hutto have ramped up their “economic incentive” deals over the past few years. These “incentives” are simply a facade term for giving hand-picked businesses special treatment.

Here’s how the deals work: City officials will take citizens’ tax money and give it to a hand-picked business they like. On top of the cash, city officials will often throw in other special perks, such as exemption from taxes.

Picture this—a city official knocks on your door, demands you pay full taxes, then takes your money across the street and gives it to your next-door neighbor. Oh, and that neighbor doesn’t have to pay any taxes.

Not exactly justice.

Read the full story

Flaws in Councilman Pitts Analysis of GUS Financials

The analysis by Councilman Pitts presented in a previous blog post is a classic example of "look here - not over there". Lumping all the cash elements into a single analysis obscures the fact that the City was losing money in the purchase power budget line item every year since 2014.

The cash flow analysis hides the losses in the purchase power budget line. An analogy to ones personal budget would be as long as there is sufficient money in one line item, say savings, to cover losses in another line item, everything is just fine and you are not suffering any losses. Well, yes you are suffering losses, you no longer are saving money for the future!

This is from Councilman Pitts analysis.

"Three observations in regards to the actual fiscal year end numbers: 

1.  Our fund balance started at almost $12 million in 2014, and was just below $2 million at year-end 2018.
2.  The electric fund had an operating profit (a term I added for my analysis) in 2014-2017 and a $3.2 million operating loss in 2018. The fund had not lost money outside of 2018 as was my previous impression.
3.  The Purchased Power* line item increased substantially from 2016-2018."

And here are his conclusions.

"After this review and analysis what are the answers to the initial questions?

1.   What happened? - The city electric fund was reduced by roughly $10 million from 2014-2018.
2.   Why did it happen? - It appears we cash funded our capital improvements at too high of a rate because we assumed our operations would be a source of $37.8 million in cash rather than the $15.1 million that was actually generated. The primary cause for missing the projected operating performance was poor forecasting of our purchase power costs."

One of Councilman Pitts conclusions is that "the capital improvements were cash funded at too high of a rate". Lets examine that more closely.

Here is a chart for capital expenditures from the data that Councilman Pitts used.

Click to enlarge

What is this? Capital improvements are decreasing. That says the capital $ are being used to cover the purchased power costs! Clearly the capital improvements are not being funded at a constant or rising rate by cash.

Click to enlarge

At the same time that capital improvements are decreasing, the cost of capital debt is increasing! It appears that perhaps interest rates are increasing as new debt is issued, but, that has not been verified.

Also, the cash flow analysis hides the fact that approximately $5M/yr was siphoned off to the General Fund. Why weren't those $s used to cover the excess purchase power costs?

The cash flow analysis also does not address changes in the contingency budget item.

The cash flow analysis does not explicitly identify the impact of 20/25 year fixed price contracts or the purchase of 50% more electricity than currently needed.

So overall, a cash flow analysis is insufficient to identify budget issues or corrective actions!

Councilmen's Take on Electric Power Issue

The following are excerpts from Councilman Fought's newsletter.

Should we sell the Electric Utility...or what..??

Ever since the financial difficulties with GUS-Electric have become known, I have stressed we should keep our powder dry until we have a thorough understanding of what actually went wrong.  It's not my style to go "ready, fire, aim" -- I like to know what I'm aiming at before I pull the trigger.  

As such, I have consistently advocated we should stabilize the situation, take appropriate near-term corrective action, and then look at the fundamentals.  Among the fundamentals, I believe we have to question whether or not the objective of achieving long-term rate stability, which was the driving factor in purchasing "long" positions, is either appropriate or attainable in the face of the current energy market.  Coincident with examining the strategy, we need to revise the charter and the composition of the GUS Board, with the idea of changing it from being an Advisory Board to being an Oversight Board.  Those examinations are underway, as discussed in a previous newsletter. 

Readers have also raised a question of whether or not the City ought to own and operate an Electric Utility at all, or, if it does, whether or not that Utility ought to be required to operate in the open, competitive market.  I believe it is time to begin to investigate these latter two questions. 

I have therefore asked that an item be placed on the upcoming City Council Legislative Agenda to begin that process.

The process would begin with a Council discussion and potential decision to direct the Staff to develop a study-plan to investigate the various

propositions.  If that is approved, the Staff will bring the plan back at a Council Workshop for discussion and at a regular Council Meeting for a decision to proceed. 

The narrative on the Agenda Item Summary Sheet reads as follows: 

Subject:  Discussion and possible action to direct Staff to prepare a plan for a feasibility study on the subject of the structure of GUS-Electric and to present that study plan at a future workshop.  

Item Summary: GUS-Electric's on-going financial difficulties have prompted a serious, and probably long-overdue, public discussion with regard to the ownership, operations, and configuration of GUS-Electric. The purpose of this item is to ask the Council to direct the Staff to present a plan for a feasibility study of the GUS-Electric configuration at an upcoming Council Workshop. The Staff plan, and potential recommendations, would include: How the study might be conducted; the alternatives to be considered within the study; the impact of those options on a range of factors; a plan for Georgetown-resident and GUS-customer participation; and the estimated cost of the recommended approach.

More specifically:

-- The Staff Plan should make a recommendation on whether such a study might be best accomplished in-house or through a consultant.

-- The study would include at least the following options:

§  Retain GUS in its current form with its current strategy (i.e., the long positions, etc.)

§  Retain GUS in its current form except return to the pre-2015 approach of matching supply with demand (i.e., eliminate the strategy of having "long positions" and selling those positions into the market while growing into the excess).

§  Retain GUS-Electric in its current form, minus the long positions, and open the GUS market to competitors.

§  Sell GUS-Electric in its entirety and rely on market forces, or the strategy of the GUS-Buyer, to supply electric to the current GUS customers.

-- Among other things the study would examine the impact of each option on:

§  Georgetown Property Taxes (given that GUS contributes an average of $5 Million annually to the General Fund which, in turn, reduces property tax).

§  Overall GUS operations, including personnel and various overhead costs.

§  The fixed and variable rate structure.

Submitted by:  Steve Fought, District 4 Representative

I anticipate this item will be on the City Council Meeting, Legislative Agenda, for the 26 March Meeting.  In the meantime I encourage you to offer your inputs for additions, deletions, or amplifications to this proposal.  I believe the time is right for these discussions, and we are best served if we get the process started now.  

Cause, Effect, and Prevention -- By Kevin Pitts, District 5 Representative

(This is a "Guest Editorial" by Fellow Council Member Kevin Pitts.  Kevin is a seasoned banker and financial expert.  I referred to his analysis in a previous newsletter, and then invited him to publish his analysis in this newsletter for your consideration.  His conclusion is that there is more to consider in producing a remedy for GUS's financial situation than just changes in the "trading accounts".  In fact, the "trading activity" may have contributed less to the current difficulty than an earlier decision to cash fund, rather than debt fund, infrastructure projects.)

The City of Georgetown Electric Fund has been a topic of discussion in the news, social media, and amongst residents. The amount of information floating around has created confusion amongst many. I was one of those, and was under the impression that our electric utility had lost anywhere from $6 million to $26 million, as reported by multiple sources.  I am a commercial banker and review financial statements on a daily basis. Being on council since May 2018, I did not have any historical knowledge of the electric utility performance. I asked city staff to provide me with the approved budget and the year-end actual fund schedules (or financial statements) from 2014-2018. I wanted to review the numbers for myself, without any outside influence. My goal was to try and answer three questions: 

1.  What happened? 

2.  Why did it happen?

3.  How can council set policy to ensure it does not happen again?

When reviewing the fund schedules one must first understand how to read them. The way I view a fund schedule is by breaking it into two sections. The first section is essentially a traditional income statement (revenues minus expenses). The second section is similar to a statement of cash flow that reflects sources and uses of funds. Sources of funds are operating profits and bond proceeds. Uses are operating losses and Non-Operating Expenses (Capital Improvements, Debt Payments, and Debt Issuance Costs). Below are the fund schedules that were budgeted and another that reflects what was actually booked at fiscal year-end.

 Actual Year End

Three observations in regards to the actual fiscal year end numbers: 

1.  Our fund balance started at almost $12 million in 2014, and was just below $2 million at year-end 2018.

2.  The electric fund had an operating profit (a term I added for my analysis) in 2014-2017 and a $3.2 million operating loss in 2018. The fund had not lost money outside of 2018 as was my previous impression.

3.  The Purchased Power* line item 
increased substantially from 2016-2018.

My first question was to find out what happened. Based on my analysis of the actual numbers the electric fund brought in $15 million in operating profit from 2014-2018, however, our fund balance decreased by roughly

$10 million. As mentioned above, operating profit is a source of cash to our electric fund. So what happened to the fund balance?

Below is a chart I created to track the fund balance in order to locate the use of the funds:

I made another chart to determine the difference in bond proceeds, which are used for capital improvements, versus the amount of capital improvement. As stated previously, capital improvements are one of three line items that make up the Non-Operational Expenses.

Based on the above chart, the primary reason our fund schedule was reduced by roughly $10 million was to cash fund our capital improvements. I observed what appears to be a change in strategy starting in 2017, which also coincides with a change in leadership in our finance department. I wanted to understand why we chose to cash fund approximately 30% of our capital improvements, instead of funding the entire amount from bond proceeds. The below charts helped me locate a reason for the cash funding.

The above charts show that if the approved budget would have been achieved over a five-year period, we would have produced $22.7 million more in cash than we actually did. Therefore, I would assume that the decision makers at the time made the assumption that the electric fund would be replenishing its cash at a much higher rate than what actually occurred. The largest deviation was in the purchase power cost line item. Our forecasting appears to have been very poor.

After this review and analysis what are the answers to the initial questions?

1.   What happened? - The city electric fund was reduced by roughly $10 million from 2014-2018.

2.   Why did it happen? - It appears we cash funded our capital improvements at too high of a rate because we assumed our operations would be a source of $37.8 million in cash rather than the $15.1 million that was actually generated. The primary cause for missing the projected operating performance was poor forecasting of our purchase power costs.

3.  How can council set policy to ensure it does not happen again? - My fellow council members and I will continue working on this question. However, the city currently has two request for proposals ("RFPs") outstanding.  One RFP seeks an outside firm to manage our electric portfolio and should help our forecasting of purchase power cost.  The other RFP is for an outside firm to assess our management within the electric utility and should help with forecasting and overall management.

The Affordable Housing Push Has Started

The signs have been evident for several years that there are people in Georgetown that want to get the City involved in affordable housing. First we had the tax breaks for developers who would provide low income housing as part of their residential developments. There are three such developments along Williams Drive.

Now we are seeing the next step. A workforce housing initiative summit has been announced in the March 17 edition of the Wilco Sun.

"The initiative plans to address the lack of local housing for families earning $35,000 - $75,000 per year. The organizers are considering public and private approaches to make housing more available to income-restricted residents. This public housing option could be financed through a bond offering. The initiative also supports a private option to build community support for securing land from private donors and contributions."

"Civic leaders who have joined the initiative are Walt Doering, former chair of the Georgetown Housing Advisory Board; City Councilman Steve Fought; Debbie Hoffman, executive director of Habitat For Humanity Williamson County; and the Rev. Snead, member of the Advisory Council of the Georgetown Housing Initiative."

Citizens must be on the alert and oppose any involvement by the City. Providing affordable housing is not a core government function! Let charities and other private organizations provide the necessary housing if it is desired or needed.

Georgetown Professors Countered on Climate Change Hype

Recently, 27 Texas professors, including two from Southwestern, wrote a letter to Governor Abbott requesting the State take action to reduce/eliminate man made climate change. Here are the key excerpts. Environment Texas

"We, the undersigned, are climate scientists and experts, and can report to you that climate change is happening, it is primarily caused by humans, and it is having a devastating impact on Texas, including increasing deadly flooding resulting from Hurricane Harvey.

We therefore request the opportunity to brief you on the climate science and the need for the State of Texas to take immediate action to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change."

Dr. Neil Frank, former Director National Hurricane Center (1974-1987) and former Chief Meteorologists KHOU T.V. Houston (1087-2008), penned a response to the above letter that is very instructive. CO2 Coalition

"Governor Abbott, these are not facts! They are projections of numerical models. The numerical models that produced these results have failed every time they have been tested. Facts are determined by data and data nullify every item offered by Dr. Dessler as being a fact.

In summary, people who believe that man is causing the earth to warm base their alarmist’s statements on projections from flawed numerical models while skeptics are motivated by facts determined by reliable historical data. One reason numerical models fail is because they have a strong built-in relation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature, yet data suggest CO2 is not a significant factor in the earth’s temperature. If this is true, numerical models project way too much warming. 

I have a power point presentation that explains the skeptic’s position and I would be honored to come to Austin and give a presentation to you or your staff."

This letter was followed by another letter to the Governor by prominent national atmospheric scientists. Life Powered

"We are eager to be represented at any meeting you might schedule with the 27 authors so that we can explain why we believe that their claim is scientifically unjustified by the data." 

Dr. Richard Lindzen, President (Atmospheric physicist; Alfred P. Sloan professor emeritus of meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 

Dr. Caleb Rossiter, Executive Director (Climate statistician; former professor, School of International Service and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, American University) 

Dr. Neil Frank, Member, CO2 Coalition (Retired Chief Meteorologist, KHOU-TV Houston; former director, National Hurricane Center)

Anyone who has to self-identify as an "expert" should be immediately suspect. Note that the prominent national scientists need no such identification. Their body of scientific achievements speak for them.

More GISD School Scores

The reading scores at these two elementary schools is just atrocious!

Click to enlarge

When 60% to 80% of 3rd graders are reading below grade level, these schools are really failing their students. Reading is the key to their future learning and if they can't read at grade level in 3rd grade, they will be disadvantaged for the remainder of their education and perhaps of their lives.

It is just not 3rd grade failing, it is all grades in these two schools. 58% reading below grade level at Carver Elementary and 77% reading below grade level at Annie Purl Elementary.

Drastic action is required to turn these two schools around so that all the kids come up to reading at grade level!

Firehouse Costs

Something seems to be seriously out of whack with the City's building contract system. The current "new" city hall costs $355 per SF, the Westside service center, which is a metal building with some office space, cost more than $300 per SF and now the new fire stations cost $494 per SF and $560 per SF.

By way of contrast, Liberty Hill is just completing a new fire station on Ronald Reagan similar in size to Georgetown's two new fire stations at a cost of $429 per SF.

What is going on down at Georgetown's building department? Why are they not getting less expensive bids? Have they required too many "bells & whistles", or more expensive materials?

Inquiring minds would like to know!

Also note that the two Georgetown fire stations are being funded with Certificates of Obligation, which do not require voter approval and supposedly are to fund things with a relatively short life, <10 years. Liberty Hill issued 20 year bonds to build their fire station.

Is the city abusing the use of Certificates of Obligation?

What is the Cost of Recycling?

More and more cities are finding it cost prohibitive to recycle plastics and papers.The Atlantic

For decades, we were sending the bulk of our recycling to China—tons and tons of it, sent over on ships to be made into goods such as shoes and bags and new plastic products. But last year, the country restricted imports of certain recyclables, including mixed paper—magazines, office paper, junk mail—and most plastics. Waste-management companies across the country are telling towns, cities, and counties that there is no longer a market for their recycling. These municipalities have two choices: pay much higher rates to get rid of recycling, or throw it all away.

So what is Georgetown doing with its recyclable trash? Texas Disposal Systems is Georgetown's contractor for waste disposal. Are they still able to recycle the plastic and paper or is it going into a landfill like other cities are being forced to do?

Update More on the impact of China refusing to take recyclable material.
Polution Panic

Georgetown Schools Performance Report

Get involved, find out how your Georgetown schools are performing! Attend the public meeting and hear what the administration has to say.

The 2017-18 Georgetown ISD Texas Academic Performance Report (TAPR) annual presentation will be held on Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. at the Hammerlun Center for Leadership and Learning, Building 2, room 711.

  

The GISD community is invited to attend.  Information provided for the meeting can be found on our website:  http://www.georgetownisd.org/assessment.

Ask why there are 3 schools in the District that the Texas Education Agency identifies as "Needs Improvement"?

Click to enlarge

Go here to view the Campus Improvement Plans. Ask why only one of the schools, Mitchell, has specific objectives to improve STAAR reading and math scores? The other two schools do not have quantifiable metrics to measure improvement.

Isn't it time to put quantifiable metrics in the Superintendents and Principals contracts tied to their pay? If the schools do not show  improvements in the STAAR scores, then they would suffer a pay impact. This is how merit pay and incentives work!