PEC Board Considers Suing EPA: Renewable Energy Plans in Doubt

judge-judyJudge Judy made famous the line, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” PEC directors might want to keep that line in mind as they peddle the nonsense  they are considering whereby PEC would  join a lawsuit (via amicus brief) filed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation against the EPA and the Clean Power Plan Rules. TPP would obviously be thrilled to have the nation’s largest cooperative join them in a battle against the EPA. They would like to use us, our reputation and our politically ambitious board members as tools to advance their interests and agenda, not ours.

Reportedly, no other electric cooperative in the country has joined this suit. There is no indication that the Texas Electric Cooperatives (TEC) have any interest in touching this radioactive litigation. Austin Energy (a municipal utility, not a cooperative) is nowhere to be found on this suit and is, in fact, supporting the goals of the Clean Power Plan.

Who exactly is Texas Public Policy Foundation? In a nutshell, it is a Koch Brothers funded conservative think tank–a member of the right wing State Policy Network (SPN), based in Austin.koch brothers It has ties to former Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Ted Cruz and other conservative politicians. Their other donors are a Who’s Who of Texas polluters and climate deniers, giant utilities and big insurance companies.

The Koch brothers, of course, are two of the richest people in the world and are key funders of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The Koch brothers, protecting their fossil fuel interests, have notoriously pushed back against solar energy and against regulations that would enable growth in the renewable energy sector. They have battled against clean energy mandates in several states.

Their tentacles now reach inside the board of directors of PEC. A board majority appears prepared to vote in favor of joining a lawsuit that will telegraph to the world that PEC is no longer interested in renewable energy. It will place PEC on a political trajectory that more than half of our members reject.

At the Monday November 9 meeting of the board, Director Emily Pataki advanced a discussion item benignly entitled, “Federal Clean Power Discussion”. She presented this item as if it was merely a discussion of the EPA’s Clean Power Rules and their financial impact to PEC . As Board President James Oakley commented “This is about impact only. It is not about being for or against renewables.”

Please President Oakley, don’t pee on my leg. Director Pataki’s seemingly innocuous discussion item was merely a prelude to an action that would engage PEC in a lawsuit and an affiliation that would almost certainly spell doom to PEC’s stated renewable energy plans adopted last March–an action that research indicated is strongly supported by PEC members.


Troglodyte Sen. James Infofe

Blaming the inability to do the right thing because of cost is an old saw. For years the auto industry resisted emissions standards, citing the cost to the consumer for their lawsuits and intransigence. Of course, cars were made cleaner and Americans paid a little more to get them. We led the world. Our cities would be choking like Bejing today if the auto industry had not been been forced to act. If the core argument is that we cannot afford to clean our environment, what price are we prepared to pay on the other side of the ledger with rising tides, melting icecaps, increased cancer and volatile climate change? Of course if you’re a troglodyte who believe there is no climate change because it snows in Washington every winter, then this article isn’t for you.

Ironically, joining this lawsuit would be redundant. PEC’s national trade association, NRECA (National Rural Electric Cooperatives Assn.) has already filed a lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan Rules. Their CEO is a conservative ideologue and energy know-nothing named Jo Ann Emerson (who was plucked from the revolving door of Congress in 2013).

Troglodyte NRECA CEO Jo Ann Emerson

Troglodyte NRECA CEO Jo Ann Emerson

Under her reign she has, from the beginning, stood before the membership and railed against the EPA. (Recall that the EPA was begun under the Republican Nixon administration). And who rules NRECA? One would think the answer would be electric cooperatives like PEC.  But it is the generation and transmission giants who call the shots. And their interests are in protecting big COAL, OIL and GAS.  NRECA does not represent cooperative interests in anything but name only–and PEC ought to resign its membership and stop paying them over $158,000 per year in fees.

Against all this railing against the EPA and the phony claims by our board that they are interested in “cost impacts” resulting from the Clean Power Plan Rules, the cost of solar and wind are at an all time low. We should be seizing on these bargain-basement prices NOW!

The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.

Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

PEC is at risk of falling behind the inevitable movement toward clean renewable energy. That genie is out of the bottle and is moving forward as sure as the pyramids held pharohs. Our members, as citizens of the United States and as part of the human race have a duty to do what is right for our environment, our public health and the welfare of our children. It need not come at an onerous cost. We should not join this odious rabbit hole of a lawsuit that will place PEC in the back seat of progress. We should not abandon our well-considered plans to move our energy needs away from coal and carbon based fuels. We can pursue a strategy of cost-competitive renewable energy. And we should stay out of divisive national politics that divide our members.


2 thoughts on “PEC Board Considers Suing EPA: Renewable Energy Plans in Doubt

  1. The “Troglodyte Alert” post was up for several days, and I was not going to comment. Except that since then, we’ve had a PEC Board meeting, upon which occasion Mrs. Pataki made her pitch. Larry’s latest blog post follows the same topic. (This topic is highly political, complicated, and emotional.) So for what it’s worth, here are some comments:

    It all boils down to: Was Emily’s action reasonable? Should the largest electric Co-op in the nation join a lawsuit to sue the government and stop the CPP? It would appear that “reasonable” depends upon one’s worldview.

    If one’s worldview is focused primarily upon the cost impact of shutting down coal plants, then it is reasonable. And to shut down coal would throw us back toward a less diversified energy mix – which leads to a less resilient grid. And I share part of Emily’s larger worldview – which would be a mistrust of a usurping federal government and its rogue organization (the EPA) operating outside of congressional control. As a Republican, I’m obviously not critical of Emily’s entire political worldview – just the energy/climate part of it.

    It would appear that to embrace the energy/climate part of Emily’s worldview one would have to (a) ignore the documented negative health impacts of coal power – mercury in our lakes, oceans, and food supply and contaminates in our air causing increased risk for lung disease (b) dismiss the greater release of CO2 per unit of power generated, than say, natural gas, at a time when CO2 concentration is increasing exponentially (rate of increase is increasing), (c) have a naive assumption that CO2 increase has no negative effect on climate.

    These are serious concerns. Weighed in a balance, it seems to me that putting some special interests’ profits (or PEC’s costs, which are tangible but not overwhelming) ahead of multiple human and quality-of-life concerns is either ignorant at best, or callous and morally superficial at worst. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt – ignorance.

    Emily’s energy/climate worldview, ten or fifteen years from now, will suffer the same scorn and intolerance we now have for cigarette smoking in public places. Forty years ago it was accepted. But society doesn’t tolerate polluting public places any more with cigarette smoke. And it won’t tolerate wanton pollution of our most public places (the atmosphere and our waters) in the future. Emily and the 40% of Republicans (and dwindling in number) who share her energy/climate perspectives are making the other 60% of us increasingly look like either fools – or crooks. Since you’ve introduced politics into our PEC agenda, Emily, I guess it’s fair to say, as a Republican, that I resent what your arm of the Republican party is doing. Time to re-think things, Emily.


  2. I take issue with one concept. The transmission giants support renewables. They get to build the transmission. Look at the CREZ lines. Had to bring in the new transmission companies because the buildout was more than LCRA, Oncor, AEP etc could handle. Sharyland got a big piece of it, and their expertise to date was just the tie at the border.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s