01 Sep Statesman Gets It WRONG – Riley Resolution

There’s bad journalism, and then there’s whatever this is – a miscarriage of journalism? Let's dive in to the factually inaccurate Austin American Statesman report regarding last Thursday's City Council vote on "The Affordable Energy Resolution." First, and most importantly, the summary line. Here is the Statesman newspaper headline and summary line from Saturday, August 30, 2014, pgs. B1 and B3:

Council OKs green goals, but hurriedly

Panel sends crowd

home, then approves

2030 renewables aim.

No they didn’t.

("Panel" = City Council.) Council did not send the crowd home. This article’s summary line is 100% false. Council did not send the crowd home. Here's what happened: Council discussed adjournment around 9:40pm, in front of all present. Official adjournment came sometime after 10:05pm. At around 9:40 Mayor Leffingwell first suggested Council adjourn until the next morning to discuss the final 15 items on Council agenda. Immediately, the Affordable Energy resolution's grassroots supporters called out, "no, please, we can't come back tomorrow!" Yes, some of the crowd had already started filing out, but that was on their own — no one on council said the meeting was over. It was tense for a few moments, there was council discussion. Council did not "send the crowd home." Kathie Tovo asked that her resolution (to increase low income citizen access to energy efficiency and renewable power) be postponed until later in the month as she was unable to attend the next day's session. The meeting was clearly not over.

These People Stayed 'til the Meeting was Adjourned last Thursday.

During the entire discussion about whether or not to adjourn, supporters of Riley's Affordable Energy resolution were standing as a group in the center of the room — 10 feet from the public address mic, in loud, neon yellow t-shirts (see photo above), hanging on every Council word. You couldn't miss them. It clearly was not time to leave. There was more council discussion and finally Martinez suggested they vote on both the Tovo and Affordable Energy resolutions, as there were no representatives signed-up to speak against either resolution, before adjourning for the night. All but one present voted in favor.

Leffingwell got up and left, Spelman had slipped out a few minutes before the discussion began. This is not unusual. This particular meeting was verging on a 12 hour marathon. Councilors file in and out on long meeting days. Spelman and Leffingwell left on their own volition and even without them a quorum was maintained, the meeting continued. Council simply hiccuped, before following normal procedure: hearing out these two issues and voting on them.

The Statesman frames all of this in disturbingly biased light:

• "It should have been a moment of decisive victory" It Was.
• "the vote came after about 15 minutes of hurried statements from supporters and one opponent" Actually, only one supporter spoke to council, there were not "statements from supporters," there was one speaker against, Paul Robbins, and one speaker for, Smitty Smith — both leading environmentalists. In fact, Riley invited anyone in the chamber to speak, making it abundantly clear the Affordable Energy resolution was a significant vote and that all opinions needed to be expressed. Those who did not speak did so by their own choice.
• "That's because minutes before, the council had sent everyone home who had come to speak on this issue" — No they didn't, that would be off procedure. This was a normal public meeting, it was around 10pm. The Statesman article is factually incorrect. Where is the Statesman's journalistic commitment to providing the public with accurate information?
• The article goes on to give CCARE, the big business lobby for low electricity rates, a paragraph to complain "We do not believe this how a board of directors for a municipally-owned utility should act." Really CCARE? The meeting, the debate, the vote — all were public. Your representatives were invited to speak. Apparently your representatives chose to leave early. You can't blame that on council.
• "The next day, Spelman scolded his fellow council members for pulling that maneuver while he was gone." Well, i haven't seen the tape — but maybe someone should scold Spelman for ducking out before adjournment. Apparently, Mr. Spelman had family matters to attend to. Absolutely acceptable in my book. Regardless, it's widely known Spelman was favorable toward the resolution. Why aren't these facts reported in the article? Furthermore, what kind of journalistic language is "pulling that maneuver"?! That's biased reporting, not Spelman's statement. Council voted unanimously 5 to 0 in favor of the resolution. Even if Spelman and Leffingwell didn't approve of the resolution it would have won by majority.
• "There's outrage… dozens of people had traveled to the council meeting Thursday night to speak on the topic or watch the proceedings." There was also a lot of joy. The community won big via the approval of this resolution. In short the Affordable Energy Resolution is designed to lower Austin's bills and pollution. Any outraged parties should have stayed for the whole meeting.
• "These aggressive new energy goals..." Are they "aggressive"? The resolution is called the Affordable Energy resolution because it saves Austinites money. The Affordable Energy resolution has two essential provisions: 1) Sets a goal for Austin Energy to become carbon neutral by 2030 (that's 15 years from now, folks). 2) Replace the most polluting power plant in Austin's city limits with 600 MegaWatts of clean solar. This idea was first recommended by a group of energy professionals after reviewing Austin Energy's generation plan 2015-2020. Maybe Austin Energy is wrong. Additional research by PublicCitizen.org, using the SAME DATA Austin Energy uses from The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, shows Austin will save a minimum of $12.6 million a year via The Affordable Energy resolution. Aggressive or cost-effective? Where's that Statesman feature?

The chart, presented by PublicCitizen.org, shows Austin Energy's annual solar cost in blue. New natural gas plant capital costs in brown. And the range of natural gas fuel costs to Austin consumers in red(s). Read the full article: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/15625/historic-proposal-for-affordable-clean-energy-will-save-austin-average-of-13-million-annually-in-e.

• "Austin Energy… saying rates will skyrocket." This discussion has been going on since December 2013 on a near daily basis at council. City Council is comprised of seven members, the sum of them make up Austin Energy's governing board. Six members of the board have five years experience or more managing our utility. Apparently, these board members (our City Council) disagree with Austin Energy staff on this point. Austin Energy has resources to clearly demonstrate the financial risk they keep clamoring about. Why haven't they done so? Where is Austin Energy's data to substantiate their claim? They've had nearly a year's worth of opportunities to present their case to the board of directors and the public.

When you get down to it, this article offensive and disturbing. Not only does the Statesman article include bad facts the article is written with a bias against citizens, public advocates, and Council. The people shown in the photo above care about your health, your planet, Austin's affordability, the creation, and reducing the effects of climate change by eliminating pollution in economically sound measures. These people stayed until the meeting was adjourned. They are standing together for the common good. What a disappointment this article is. I think its failures come down to THREE FINAL POINTS:

1. It Was a Unanimous Vote. The "Affordable Energy" Resolution passed unanimously 5-0 because it'll save you money. Written by council member Chris Riley, this resolution was endorsed by both mayoral candidates Sheryl Cole and Mike Martinez. (Read the full resolution at the bottom of this post). The board of Austin Energy, our City Council, believes the resolution makes sense. Simple. See Martinez's excellent summary as to why the vote should stand (at 19:20 minute mark of this video): http://austintx.swagit.com/play/08282014-576
    
2. This is Biased Journalism. Why would the Statesman omit this FACT: Austin Energy is today getting solar power at significantly lower, FIXED prices than both coal and natural gas. The Affordable Energy Resolution is predicated on the market reality that wind (3¢ Kwh) and solar (5¢ Kwh) fueled electricity is cheaper today, and more stable, in the market than fossils (5.5¢ to 7¢Kwh) and nukes. Why does the article omit the assertion that replacing the most polluting power plant in Austin city limits with clean solar will save Austinites a minimum of $12.6 million a year, while still allowing the utility to sell kilowatts at a profit.
    
3. This is Not Journalism. The Statesman is clearly misrepresenting the events that took place surrounding this vote.

To read more about the economics surrounding the vote on the Affordable Energy resolution, go to: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/15625/historic-proposal-for-affordable-clean-energy-will-save-austin-average-of-13-million-annually-in-e.

To read the Statesman article online: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/after-many-leave-room-city-council-approves-new-au/nhCPB/.

To read the supporter's press release on the vote: http://www.texasvox.org/historic-affodable-clean-energy-plan-adopted-in-austin/

To read more of my blogs go to: http://chrissearles.blogspot.com/. Thanks for your time. Appreciate all comments.