11 Feb URGENT! Control of Austin Energy is at Stake – To Be Voted on This Thursday, Feb. 14th

Shouldn’t we continue being able to vote on who controls Austin Energy? We’re urging City Council NOT to create an independent board made up of appointees! 

We must keep Austin Energy on a path of energy efficiency, renewables andaffordable energy, NOT on pursuit of coal and nuclear power, which are expensive and polluting, and waste vast quantities of water in this time of drought. The best way to keep accountability of Austin Energy is by keeping it in the hands of people that we directly elect – or take out of office. 

Press Conference / rally

Wednesday, February 13th at 12:30 PM @ City Hall, 301 W. 2nd St

We’re opposing Item 46 on the Feb. 14th agenda – a resolution by Mayor Leffingwell and Council Members Sheryl Cole and Bill Spelman.

The resolution would lead to creation of an independent board for Austin Energy, putting individuals in place to control this $1.9 billion asset that would be nominees by a headhunting team, appointed by City Council.

This opens the door to corporate control of our utility. Those most likely to be considered for the board are exactly those who shouldn’t be on it.

WE say:

Create a board that is ONLY City Council members, with the addition of one (and only one) person from outside the City Limits but within the Austin Energy service area, since they don’t have a vote for Council members.

            The resolution would result in a headhunter suggesting criteria and nominees to City Council, and they would appoint the board members. This gives away control and direct accountability, and compromises the ability to get clean energy votes. Some have suggested a hybrid plan of half City Council members and half appointees, but this is disproportionate.

Keeping the board composed of City Council members  and one representative for outlying areas makes the board an ELECTED one – where the public can have appropriate input and political weight.

Having City Council at the helm has served Austin very well for decades. We’ve avoided rate hikes because we pursued energy efficiency and didn’t have to build more coal plants. We’ve avoided wasting millions on new nuclear reactors because the Austin City Council voted twice to stay out of the project.

By Contrast:  San Antonio has an independent board, like the one proposed. Their CPS Energy Board ignored directives from City Council and sunk millions of dollars into nuclear expansion instead of energy efficiency. No one could stop them. In the end it cost them $400 million that they had to write off. Their board was made of up “professionals” – which is what the Mayor seems to think we need. It didn’t save them.

We’ve avoided the nuclear boondoggle so far in Austin because City Council was making decisions, not an independent board. This could change. The nuclear project is not all the way dead, and expensive and dangerous ideas have a way of resurrecting.

San Antonio’s electric rates went up 15% over the last seven years, while Austin Energy’s recently increased by only 9%, in the first rate hike we had to have in eighteen years. It was energy efficiency that helped us to keep rates low, a direction supported by City Council in response to public pressure.  

Austin Energy has won dozens of wards for having great customer relations, being one of the greenest, most efficient and well-managed utilities in the country. Bond ratings are among the highest in the nation and just went up a notch. By pursuing low-cost energy efficiency we’ve avoided having to build expensive, polluting coal plants, one of the reasons why our rates have been kept low.

Let’s keep Austin Energy as directly accountable to the ratepayers/ shareholders as possible. Tell Council members NOT to create an independent board with numerous appointees.

DO Create a sub-committee of City Council to handle Austin Energy issues.

For example: It could consist of 5 council members, the mayor and a representative from areas outside the City Limits.

The resolution from the Electric Utility Commission recommending an independent board did include the possibility that the Commission be composed of Council members.