Paul Robbins is an Austin-based environmental activist and consumer advocate. Though best known for his work on the Austin Environmental Directory (a sourcebook of green products, services, organizations, and issues in Central Texas), he has worked on a number of other projects as well. This Web site has started to compile them.
By Paul Robbins
Austin American-Statesman, Sunday, December 30, 2018
On a windy day in late winter of 1984, I arrived home to find my gas cut off without notice. It was one of the many indignities I suffered while living without sufficient income, but one indelibly etched in memory. I scrambled to get service restored, but needed to make a hard choice about which other necessity to do without. (You live by the hour when you’re paid by the week.)
As winter closes in and heating bills spike, many consumers worry that their bills will take away from meals and other necessities. Some may wonder if they can afford their bills at all.
The main regional gas utility, Texas Gas Service, collected about $140 million in Austin in 2017. As a consumer advocate, I have followed its local rates and policies for decades and have reached some conclusions of late. The gas company’s rate structure penalizes low-income customers and conservationists. Its policies do not align with the city of Austin’s municipally-owned electric and water utilities. Our gas bills are higher because of this. And several of its energy conservation programs are not cost effective. I have also found that the company is poorly regulated by the city agency charged to do so. More specifically:
- Texas Gas has steeply regressive rates: The more you use, the less you pay per unit of consumption. In contrast, Austin’s municipal electric and water utilities have progressive rates, where the more you use, the more you pay per unit. Regressive rates hurt lower-income customers, who generally use less energy. These rates also discourage energy conservation.
- Between 2008 and 2018, rates for the average residential customer (without fuel charges) have gone up more than 50 percent after accounting for inflation. While some of this is justified because safer plastic pipe is replacing old metal lines, there is no indication of when these increases will end.
- Austin’s municipal utilities generally charge the full cost to hook up new customers to electricity, water, and wastewater. Because of this, our utilities have experienced rate reductions. Yet full recovery fees do not exist for the gas company, meaning that existing customers pay some of the cost of adding new customers to the system. Austin ratepayers also pay for capital improvements in cities and areas outside Austin’s city limits.
- Some of the company’s energy conservation programs are a waste of money. Having been an environmentalist the whole of my adult life, it pains me to say this. However, $4.5 million from Austin ratepayers will be wasted over the next three years. The cost of tankless water heaters in homes is so high that they will never recoup their savings during the appliance’s lifetime. There is just not enough use. And the high cost of efficient furnaces cannot be recouped in relatively mild Texas winters. These are meant for colder climates like New England and Alaska.
Over the last decade, the city’s Office of Telecommunications and Regulatory Affairs (TARA), which supposedly regulates the gas company, has acted more like a hostage negotiator than a consumer advocate, bargaining from a position of weakness. First, it has allowed rates to become more regressive. TARA has also allowed the gas company to frivolously spend energy conservation money, while allowing the company to hide information that could reveal if these expenditures are imprudent. Finally, it has allowed the company to escape full capital recovery fees and has never challenged Austin ratepayers’ funding of capital improvements outside Austin’s borders.
This company is in business to begin with because the city granted them a franchise to operate. If Texas Gas continues to act more out of self interest than customer interest, Austin can refuse to renew the franchise when it comes up in 2026. In that case, Texas Gas could sell its system to another company or the city could offer to buy it. No one would lose service during such a transition.
As winter fuel bills spike, it is time for a change in attitude on the part of city regulators. If they had been living in my home the day its gas was disconnected, perhaps they would feel more motivated.
Robbins is an environmental activist and consumer advocate living in Austin. He has been current on his gas bill since 1984.
Every year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration posts an annual benchmark report of all electric utilities in the U.S. The Final data from the 2017 EIA-861 is now posted. It has mostly good news for Austin Energy (AE).
Average Residential consumption continues to be profoundly low for AE. This is in all likelihood because of its conservation programs, building codes, green building program, and progressive rate structure.
Austin Energy is part of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) grid, which supplies about 90% of the state’s electric load. Only 1% of ERCOT Residential customers have consumption lower than AE customers, and AE customers are 25% below the ERCOT average. Only 3% have average bills lower than AE customers. Only 34% of ERCOT Residential customers have rates lower than Austin.
The Commercial class does not look as good. This is because all you can compare with EIA data here is the rate. It is not proper to compare average Commercial and Industrial class bills or consumption. Unlike Residential, which has one main type of building stock, Commercial and Industrial contain a myriad of building types, and various utilities have different definitions of what these rate classes are anyway.
In Commercial, 54% of ERCOT customers have rates lower than AE. So it is on the high side, though not egregiously.
For Industrial rates, 51% of ERCOT customers have rates lower than AE. So Austin is very close to its goal of being no higher than the average for utilities in the state.
If a benchmark study could be done across ERCOT, it would probably find that Austin’s commercial buildings have lower usage compared to buildings in other major Texas cities because of our conservation programs and building codes.
Note: Austin Energy will eventually conduct its own analysis. AE will likely compare Austin with Texas, not ERCOT. El Paso Electric is not in ERCOT, and is in a different climate zone. The analysis will likely show that El Paso has lower Residential consumption than AE. However, I do not think this is a fair comparison. Comparing ERCOT customers is apples-to-apples.
By Philip Jankowski – American-Statesman Staff, July 31, 2018
The sprawling West Austin home of Congressman Mike McCaul used more city-supplied water than any other single-family residence in 2017, according to the Austin water utility.
McCaul’s hillside home near Lake Austin was one of 22 residences calculated to have used more than one million gallons of city water in 2017.
“These people have wealth that most of us in the city could not imagine,” [Paul] Robbins told the Statesman. “It would be easy for them to hire someone that could help them save water. They simply just don’t care.”
June 18, 2018
To Austin Energy:
I have been waiting since October of last year for data to show how well the repairs for the automatic enrollment system of the Customer Assistance Program have worked. I have now analyzed the information from May of this year, and there is some good news.
It would appear that about 91% of the 554 CAP homes that I found to have exceeded an improvement value of $250,000 in January of 2017 have been removed from the CAP roles. This was the threshold for determining if customers in these homes needed to be income qualified.
Another 1% had decreased property improvement values from the appraisal districts in the last year, so they were also justified in being allowed to continue participation.
However, about 2% of participants live in homes that exceed $250,000 in improvement values and cannot be justified unless they were income qualified. I have asked for the list of income-qualified individuals under Open Records to see if their participation is indeed valid.
The larger problem, though, is those customers who owned two or more properties. About 35, or 6%, were in this category. One of these customers had almost $15 million in property assets in 2016. If all of these 35 homes received discounts for electricity, water, and drainage, it would amount to about $23,000 in misspent money.
What is most frustrating is that I gave Austin Energy my dataset that identified these homes, so it would have been a simple matter to check the current participation roles against them. This part of the repair is obviously not working and needs to be attended to immediately.
It should not be up to one skinny activist to continue to do this kind of quality control inspection as a volunteer, and AE staff needs to develop the in-house trouble-shooting ability to prevent this from reoccurring.
Other CAP Concerns
While I congratulate your staff for running a better system, on a higher level, I have fundamental concerns about CAP that go way beyond the accuracy of auto-enrollment.
- The $250,000 threshold is artificial and allows some wealthy homes to continue to participate in CAP.
Take, for example, this 2,800 square-foot house in Northwest Austin that receives CAP (3604 Alta Court). In 2017, it was valued by the Travis County Appraisal District at $861,000. The improvement value was only $118,500. Were some tragedy to befall this home, there is no way it could be rebuilt for this paltry amount of money. The improvement value used by the Appraisal District is not an accurate benchmark for determining the wealth of a household, and there is no way we can justify giving money meant to the poor to this home and others like it.
- Income Qualification is a better system and will probably save money that can be used to help the poor.
Auto-enrollment is an expensive system to run. Income qualifying participants is generally more accurate at screening for need, and there would probably be monetary savings from this system that would allow more money to be spent for low-income customers.
For example, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has only about 20% more customers than Austin Energy. However, in 2015, SMUD had 2.6 times the number of participants in its low-income discount program as Austin Energy had in the same year. Its screening method is income verification of each participant that applies.
SMUD has 3 to 4 staff people responsible for verifying participants on a rotation of once every 2 years. By inference, this staff cost in Austin would only be about $200-300,000 a year. Contrast this to the cost of administering Austin Energy’s automatic enrollment process of about $1.3 million annually.
There are a number of ways that SMUD participants can apply, but one effective method is for utility staff to simply ask new customers if they want to receive the discount when they apply for service over the phone.
- Limiting CAP discounts on electric consumption is a fairer way to distribute money while encouraging energy conservation.
CAP gives a 10% discount no matter how much electricity is consumed. This works against the conservation-based rate structure that the utility has intentionally implemented.
It also works against fairness to CAP participants who are careful with their bills. Consider: A consumer using 1,000 kwh a month would receive an estimated $174 in electricity discounts in 2017, while a high consumer using 3,500 kwh a month would receive an estimated $720 in the same year. It is not equitable to give energy-wasting customers more than 4 times the discount as energy-conserving customers.
In 2015, the average Austin Energy customer used 894 kwh a month in the entire year, and 1,171 kwh a month during the 4 summer months. The average customer never exceeded 1,500 kwh, and so never exceeded the 3rd tier of Austin Energy’s 5-tier system of electric rates.
In 2015, $2.2 million, or 21% of total Austin Energy CAP discounts, went to the 4th and 5th tiers of use. If the money were redistributed to give higher discounts to customers in the first 3 tiers of use, it would be more equitable, while at the same time encouraging conservation. Distributing this money equitably among all CAP participants would raise the average discount of about $250 in 2015 by about $60 per year.
Critics of this proposed change will say it discriminates against households with more people in them. While seeming logical on its surface, more careful investigation shows that energy consumption and cost do not increase proportionately with more people. The 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in the Southern U.S. shows the increase in energy use between a 3-person household and a 6-person household is only 18%. The energy use per square foot between a 3-person household and a 6-person household is almost identical.
- CAP has an enormous surplus and no plans are being made to spend it.
In the last 5 years, CAP has received about $8.5 million in revenues above what it has spent on assistance to the poor. This money is not even garnering interest that could increase its value to low-income residents.
While some of this money may be needed for an official reserve fund, several million dollars could easily be spent to improve or expand assistance. A direct installation program for low-cost, high payback items such as LEDs and pipe wraps could be started in low-income neighborhoods, yielding a rate of return greater than the investment. Another alternative for this surplus would be to increase the CAP discount.
Either idea will help more people than the current policy of accruing money in a non-interest bearing account.
In summation, I urge you not only to make proposed changes that will eliminate owners of multiple properties from receiving CAP funds, but go further and thoroughly repair the program so that millions of more dollars are either available or are more fairly distributed.
Paul Robbins – Special to the Austin American-Statesman, Sunday, May 13, 2018
Wind power and solar cells may seem like best friends to environmentalists, but in a very real sense, they are “fair weather friends.”
Most Austinites remember waking up to the bitterly cold morning of Jan. 17, when temperatures plummeted to 18 degrees. Austin’s utility hit a new winter demand record. When this occurred, Austin’s wind power operated at only 22 percent of its rated capacity, and its solar cells operated at only 1.5 percent of capacity.
Defenders of fossil fuels never fail to fault wind and solar cells as intermittent and not “dispatchable,” that is, these power sources cannot be turned on or off on demand. The many cities, states and countries trying to increase consumption of renewable energy confront this problem.
The city of Georgetown, just north of Austin, purchases 100 percent of its electricity from wind and solar cells. But it can only do this on paper. Its dispatchable balancing power came from the Texas grid known as ERCOT, operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. In 2017, ERCOT received only 18 percent of its electricity from wind and solar.
Denmark, a clean energy champion, got 46 percent of its electricity from wind and solar cells in 2017. But the tiny country trades electricity every minute of the year with its neighbors in Germany, Norway and Sweden. The region collectively generates only 18 percent of its electricity from intermittent renewable power.
Some academics suggest that intermittent wind and solar can be woven together from different regions to form virtual dispatchability, with little or no conventional power needed. When one region is not producing power, another will. However, there is no place in the world where this has been done at scale. Even if it could be done, long distance transmission lines are expensive.
Some clean energy advocates believe electric batteries will create dispatchability. But at this point in time, they are not economic for daily storage in the mainstream United States. They are only economic for niche markets.
Austin has been a leader in clean energy for decades. We need to take the next step and develop dispatchable renewable options available for Texas.
Concentrating Solar Power, which has existed since the 1980s, uses mirrors or lenses to focus high-temperature heat to the top of a tower or the center of a trough to boil water or refrigerant to generate electricity. Just six-tenths of 1 percent of the land in Texas could provide all of its total 2017 electric consumption. Its onsite heat storage is relatively inexpensive compared to electric batteries.
Compressed Air Energy Storage uses intermittent or low-cost power to produce compressed air in geologic formations like old gas wells. When stored energy is needed, the air is heated in a combustion turbine, which operates at greater efficiency due to increased pressure. This process still needs natural gas, albeit greatly reduced amounts of it. In the future, waste heat from the compression process itself might replace gas altogether.
Thermal Energy Storage uses intermittent or low-cost power to produce ice, cold water, or hot water in tanks inside or near buildings for later use. It is cost effective today for many large buildings and grocery stores. Austin has barely scratched the surface of its potential.
Concentrating Solar Power and Compressed Air Energy Storage have not been built in Texas. The first plants will be more expensive because they have not reached economies of scale. To mitigate costs, Austin should become the charter member of a partnership with other Texas cities and utilities to share the expense. Austin could also use funding from the utility’s GreenChoice program, which allows customers to voluntarily pay more to support renewable energy.
Thermal Storage could be mandated and incentivized for new large buildings and grocery stores when appropriate.
Real leaders in clean energy today are confronting dispatchability. If Austin wants to continue to lead in this field, we need to rise to this challenge.
Robbins is an environmental activist, consumer advocate, and editor of the Austin Environmental Directory .
On April 29, the CBS Series “Madam Secretary” aired an episode advocating for the increased use of nuclear power to stop global warming. I sent this letter in response.
Readers who agree are encouraged to send a letter of their own to the Network’s address listed just below.
To the Producers/Writers of Madam Secretary,
I viewed your episode “Thin Ice” on April 29 regarding energy policy and nuclear power. My intelligence was insulted at the simplistic way you portrayed atomic power as a bridge-fuel to stop global warming.
Some of my basic protests are detailed below. Overall, for a program that claims to be nuanced and policy driven, you surely failed based on your own standards.
Renewable Energy Potential Misstated
Your script stated: “You need, like 12 billion solar roofs just to match the projected growth in energy consumption by 2050.”
Solar cell potential in the U.S. alone is 283,600 Terawatt Hours (Twh). Rooftop PVs is a mere 800 Twh of this total. There is also 82,100 Twh of potential wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower.
(See Anthony Lopez, et al, U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis, NREL/TP-6A20-51946, July 2012, Table ES-1, p. iv. Concentrating Solar Power potential is not detailed above because it might be redundant with PV potential, but there is 116,100 Twh of CSP potential, and its energy can be stored with existing technology.)
This is just the potential in the United States.
This 365,700 Twh of renewable electricity potential compares to a little over 4,000 Twh of total electricity produced in the entire U.S. and less than 25,000 Twh of total electricity in the entire world in 2016.
There are some nuances.
- Electric generation was 38% total U.S. energy used in 2017. (See Energy Information Administration, Energy consumption by sector.) Though some auto use will eventually switch from oil to electricity, it is unclear how much future fuel switching will actually occur.
- A lot of the potential PV and wind will need storage to be usable, though Concentrating Solar Power, geothermal, biopower, and hydropower are dispatchable already.
Despite all this context, you still have given blatantly misleading information to your audience about the potential of renewables.
Most Energy Consumption Is Not For Electricity
About 62% of the energy use in the U.S. and internationally is not related to electricity.
(U.S. Statistics  from Energy Information Administration, Energy consumption by sector.)
(International Statistics  from International Energy Agency Energy Balance)
How is nuclear power going to prevent carbon emissions from this portion of the world’s energy use?
As stated above, a certain but undetermined percentage of autos can be converted to electricity. But you are not going to see nuclear reactors or the electricity they provide in most planes, most ships, and industrial manufacturing process heat any time in the near future.
Nuclear Power provided only 13% of the world’s total electricity, and less than 5% of world’s total energy in 2015.
(International Statistics  from International Energy Agency Energy Balance)
Unlike renewable energy, nuclear power production has actually decreased in the last decade.
Chernobyl Glossed Over
Your script stated: People only died at Chernobyl because they didn’t have a containment dome.
To discount the largest disaster created by an electric plant in the world’s history as an anomaly is almost callous. Chernobyl was built without containment to reduce costs. Do you really think that poor countries that build nuclear plants will not find a way to cut corners?
Though the range of estimates of direct deaths and premature deaths from the accident is controversial, more conservative figures put it in the thousands or tens of thousands. At least one estimate put it at over a million.
(See Ho, Mae Wan Chernobyl Deaths Top a Million Based on Real Evidence, Science in Society, May 24, 2012.)
About 1,600 square miles of land surrounding the former plant are quarantined due to radioactivity.
Though the full costs for medical expenses, evacuation of victims, and loss of land and economic activity will probably never be known, there are estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars.
(See Samet, Jonathon, and Joann Seo,The Financial Costs of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Disaster, Green Cross Switzerland, 2016.)
The cost to entomb the reactor to protect the environment from further radiation exposure was over $2 billion Euros (about $2.5 billion U.S. dollars). This does not include operation and maintenance of the containment structure for the next century. Nor does it include the loss of the reactor and its replacement power.
Fukushima Entirely Ignored
The environmental and financial impacts of Fukushima are still unresolved. The fact that you did not even acknowledge the accident shows blatant bias.
No excuses such as lack of containment can be made here, This was a GE Mark 1 reactor with containment as part of the design.
After the disaster, Japan’s electricity actually turned more carbon intensive. Almost all the country’s reactors were shut down for several years due to safety concerns. Between 2010 and 2015, oil use for electric generation increased 20%, coal 13%, and gas 23%. Nuclear generation decreased 97%. Ultimately, electricity consumption fell by 20%.
(International Statistics  from International Energy Agency Energy Balance – Japan)
SImilar to Chernobyl, there is an exclusion zone (143 square miles) that is considered too contaminated for humans to live in.
Fukushima also has direct links to the deaths and injuries of Americans. About 400 military personnel serving aboard the USS Reagan on a humanitarian mission to aid the victims of the 2011 Japanese tsunami disaster are suing TEPCO, the utility that owns the Fukushima reactors, for health problems they believe were caused by radiation that they were not made aware of at the time of exposure. At least 9 of the exposed people have died since their exposure, and at least 70 of the plaintiffs are ill.
Gunter, Linda, Injustice at Sea: the Irradiated Sailors of the USS Reagan, Counterpunch, March 7, 2018.
Levine, Gregg, 7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court, The Nation, March 9, 2018.
Bruno, Bianca, Judge: Sailors’ Fukushima Radiation Case Doesn’t Belong in US, Courthouse News Service, January 5, 2018.
The Secretary might lose her zeal for nuclear power’s carbon-reduction abilities when she gets the bill.
In the U.S., two reactors under construction (at VC Summer in South Carolina) were just cancelled, despite generous federal subsidies, because their costs more than doubled. Two others, also subsidized, (Vogtle in Georgia) will be completed, but have also experienced similar price increases.
A Finnish plant currently under construction, Oikiluoto-3, has experienced close to a 300% increase in its original estimate.
Even China, which has the world’s most aggressive nuclear building program, cheap labor, and an authoritarian government, has experienced an approximate 64% overrun at one of its first new plants.
Health Effects of U.S. Nuclear Power
Your script stated: Do you know how many Americans have died from nuclear power since World War II?! Zero! And that includes Three-Mile Island!
There actually have been several direct deaths that occurred at U.S. nuclear plants. They are a small number compared to some other occupations, but your script exaggerated.
Much more importantly though, your script left out the long-term illnesses that have very likely led to death caused by Three-Mile Island and other nuclear plants.
Williamson, David, “Study suggests Three-Mile Island radiation may have injured people living near the reactor,” University of North Carolina,News, February 24, 1997.
Residents near TMI that were downwind at the time of the accident had lung cancer and leukemia rates 2 to 10 times higher than those upwind.
Sholtis, Brett, “Three Mile Island nuke accident linked to thyroid cancer,” USA Today, Updated 6:15 p.m. ET June 1, 2017.
Preliminary link proven between TMI accident and increased thyroid cancer in residents near the plant.
Fairlie, Ian, “Nuclear power stations cause childhood leukemia – and here’s the proof,” Ecologist, August 23, 2014.
37% increase in childhood leukemia for children living in proximity to European nuclear power plants.
Mangano, Joseph, et al, “Childhood Cancer Incidence Proximate to U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,” Archives of Environmental Health, Pages 74-82, August 7, 2010.
Excess cancer risk of children living within 30 miles of nuclear plants in Eastern U.S. is 12 to 20%.
Emery, Gene, “Possible Leukemia, Nuclear Plant Link Studied,” Reuters, October 19, 1989.
Huge increase in childhood leukemia documented near Pilgrim nuclear plant in Massachusetts.
And what about uranium miners? Do they count?
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) “Research on long-term exposure Uranium Miners,” Worker Health Study Summaries, 2000.
Lung disease 2 to 24 times than expected; deaths of white miners 50% higher than expected.
Alleged Climate Science Support
Your script stated: Most climate scientists see nuclear as the key transition technology until renewables become more efficient.
To be fair, it would be difficult for a TV program to footnote all its statements on the air (at least in real time). However, my Internet search could not locate any survey or poll that you describe.
There are climate scientists that now endorse nuclear power. And I was able to locate a Pew Research survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2014 showing a small survey of scientists that supported more nuclear power plants. But this is of all scientists, not just climate experts.
I have several other criticisms that I may save for another letter, but I have to leave you with what I think Secretary Elizabeth McCord would say if she got to read my letter.
If her children had written your program’s script, she would have lectured them “Do your homework!”
Solar cell and wind generation are great for the environment, but they are limited in their reach. They are intermittent, and cannot be dispatched on demand when they are needed.
On April 17, 2018, a presentation (now recorded) was made to the City of Austin’s Resource Management Commission on the need for dispatchable renewable generation as well as solar cells and wind.
View it at this link.
One of my ideas is to convert GreenChoice from funding wind to funding Concentrating Solar Power. Wind is now close to parity with conventional fuel charges in Austin, and converting GC to solar could allow Austin to start buying dispatchable renewables at little or no cost to the typical Austin consumer.
Clashing Over How to Boost Clean Energy
Jack Craver, Reporter, Energy Industry, Energy Central Posted on April 9, 2018
Paul Robbins has become something of an institution in Austin as a full-time, volunteer watchdog of the city’s municipally-owned utility, Austin Energy. Recently I wrote about how he forced AE to make changes to its discount program for low-income customers. This week I’d like to focus on another fight he has waged, often putting him at odds with fellow environmentalists.
Robbins, who calls himself an “environmental and consumer advocate,” got engaged in politics in the 1970’s as part of the anti-nuclear movement. But he scoffs at the demands made of Austin Energy by many of the city’s environmentalists, saying that their campaign for 100% renewable energy in the near future is unrealistic.
…So what Robbins suggest? He wants AE to start seriously considering ways to ramp up dispatchable renewable power.
Jack Craver, Reporter, Energy Industry, Energy Central March 21, 2018
Paul Robbins has been a thorn in the side of Austin Energy for decades. The longtime environmentalist and consumer advocate comes to City Council meetings regularly to bemoan bad decisions by the municipally-owned utility.
One of his most prominent crusades has been against wasted money in the utility’s Consumer Assistance Program, which is supposed to offer discounts to low-income ratepayers. Robbins, however, has long contended that many of the program’s beneficiaries aren’t low-income at all. He has done this by highlighting expensive homes –– some exceeding $1 million –– that are enlisted in the program.
In presentations to City Council, Robbins displayed photos of the magnificent homes that some of the program beneficiaries live in.
This story is about misspending of public funds meant for energy efficiency. If environmentalists do not advocate spending this money wisely, the public will lose trust in us.
Council rejects appeal of gas conservation fees Wednesday, February 7, 2018 by Jo Clifton, The Austin Monitor
City Council on Thursday rejected an appeal from environmental and consumer activist Paul Robbins to overturn a staff decision to accept Texas Gas Service’s 2018 conservation adjustment clause rate. The conservation adjustment clause rate is the extra money consumers pay for the utility to fund its conservation programs, such as rebates for appliances and attic insulation.
…In addition to Troxclair, Council members Jimmy Flannigan and Ann Kitchen and Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo seemed interested in following up on the questions Robbins raised in his appeal.
Flannigan thanked Robbins. “You know, sometimes – I’m going to say this with love because I’ve been described this way too. Sometimes a passionate nutjob is what you need. And I’ve been that guy from time to time myself, and so thank you for sticking with it and hopefully we’ll have a more substantive conversation next year.”