Newsmaker: In the heart of Texas, a mayor goes 'green'

(continued from previous page)

If you had your druthers, would everybody have photovoltaic panels on their roofs in this town, or do you think energy efficiency is more important? How do you keep your own home bills so low?
Wynn: Part of it is efficiency. I've moved into a green, high-rise residential tower, and so the nature of that construction is staggeringly efficient. I have floor-to-ceiling glass in every room, and there's never a lightbulb on in my house during the daytime.

You'd be dumb to--it's far better lit than in this office with lights out. Every room in the house has compact fluorescent lightbulbs. And it's a new home, so we have new appliances--Energy Star-rated refrigerator and dishwasher--that kind of thing.

So you tell people (they) get to drive around on West Texas wind, not Middle East oil. It resonates with a broader spectrum of people.

Meanwhile, Austin Energy has myriad programs for energy efficiencies. It can give you rebates on appliances, pay for extra insulation in your home, weatherize your doors and windows, supply solar screens--not panels. It has the most aggressive sort of rebate program in the country. Depending on the appliance's design, you can save 60 percent to 70 percent of the cost of installation.

At the same time, I don't run out and say everybody has to get solar panels right now--in part because I'm banking on, relying on, what I think would be the next generation of solar. So I'm not excited, for instance, about the city of Austin going out tomorrow and spending $150 million on some technology that's going to look pretty inefficient, I hope, compared to technology just a few years down the road. Ten years from now, we're going to wish we had a $150 million to buy what might be 10 times the generating power of a solar investment (today).

So, really, I talk about conservation and efficiencies first. Then I'll talk about renewable power. I talk about everything from changes in land use patterns to driving less to being more fit--this holistic image about how we just need to consume less and save money.

Has there been a lot of push-back coming from people inside the city or the business leaders? Climate skeptics aside--just people saying this costs too much?
Wynn: Yes, and they say it's too onerous on us vis-a-vis our competitors in the next city. So yes, there has been push-back. Some pieces have been more controversial than others.

The realtors left the reservation pretty early when I announced that we're going to start to have minimum energy efficiency standards--period--for all existing homes, whether you built it eight weeks ago or 80 years ago.

What that means is, we're going to have a requirement at point of sale--we can't mandate that somebody go in tomorrow and redo their house that they've been living in or going to live in for a long time. But we think we can have mandates at a point of sale.

Many, many, many people already spend a bunch of money on the new home as they buy it and move it, and they replace the kitchen or they enclose the garage or add a game room--not everybody, but that's common.

You can get energy efficiency mortgages today and especially rehab mortgages today. So we're going to require that when an existing home, office building or single-family home sells, the buyer's going to have to demonstrate some minimum energy efficiencies.

So it's another thing the realtor has to do, another piece of paper you've got to sign at closing. The realtor community howled, and some of them are still howling. And I find myself meeting with them frequently, and I give my climate protection plan presentation more than I thought I'd have to.

You're a big advocate of plug-in hybrids. But there's some controversy around the vehicles, even among environmentalists. Some people say if you're getting your power from a coal-fired plant, is it really cleaner?
Wynn: Yes, it is. We've done sort of a worst-case scenario analysis. If your utility provider is 100 percent pulverized coal, we can show that even with that, there is a modest improvement in reduction of emissions.

The vast majority of utilities have a complicated fuel mix; Austin Energy uses 35 percent coal, 30 percent natural gas, 29 percent nuclear, 6 percent wind--and the fastest-growing wind portfolio in the country, I got to believe. So as you get away from the relatively uncommon utility that is 100 percent pulverized coal, then the math extrapolates to incredible savings.

The Department of Energy did an estimate that, theoretically, 84 percent of all cars and light trucks on the American roads today--186 million vehicles--could be plug-in hybrids tomorrow without a single power plant being built. Not a single power plant, just based on the generating capacity that we have on off-peak power.

Because you're charging up at night.
Wynn: Right. In the meantime, it's a hell of a lot more efficient to try to control a single point source of carbon emissions than the 785,000 point sources we have in Austin, which is all the cars and trucks driving around. So even in worst cases, it's better.

From a national-security interest we have got a lot of support. From consumer advocates, (we've) got a lot of support because the cost of fuels continue to go up long-term. Let's save our consumers money, our economies money.

The environmental advocates are on board because of what this does for greenhouse gas emission reductions and urban air quality. There is a whole carbon dioxide debate, accompanied by analysis. Meanwhile, nitric oxide and sulphuric oxide are getting reduced--actual "pollutions" as some people refer to them. So I'm excited about it; I think it's inevitable.

Where do you see plug-ins going, if manufacturers start building them?
Wynn: You'll inevitably get (complaints) that you've got to get up and plug in your car. Or you've got to have an extension chord in your trunk. Well, what's likely to happen is that parking spaces are going to have embedded (plates) and charge up through inversion. The car is going to just pull over a metallic plate. Then you plug nothing in. You go to bed, and your car juices up.

And there's also talk of car batteries feeding back into the grid.
Wynn: I always had talked about that from the beginning, but usually, that was way down my list of how important this is and why we should be doing that. But more scientists and more technicians are elevating that a lot quicker as a reasonable, in the foreseeable future, outcome of having this massive storage capacity.

The thing I've always liked about this in Austin is that we have the fastest-growing wind portfolio in the country, up to 6 percent of energy production today and growing more than a percent a year. But our wind farms are in West Texas, and in West Texas, generally speaking, the wind blows more at night than during the day, so we have all this renewable energy at off-peak demand that we can't use.

So we spent two years thinking about spending $100 million to figure out how we can store wind power like compressed air in salt domes--all that. We were not that far away from spending a bunch of money on that kind of technology.

But here is probably a simpler answer. You have several hundred thousand mobile storage units. So you tell people they get to drive around on West Texas wind, not Middle East oil. It resonates with a broader spectrum of people.

How do you feel about plug-in hybrids versus ethanol and biodiesel fuels?
Wynn: I think alternative fuels are going to be critical for us--biodiesels and ethanols and others. And that's going to be, I think, a big part of our initial play here because in transportation--with our fleet and all the cars--it's going to be years before there are enough plug-in hybrids produced and on the road to have this impact. Whereas from a carbon emission and air quality standpoint, my instinct is that some of the fuel alternatives are easily a shorter-term piece of the puzzle. By the way, flexible-fuel plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles can run on biodiesel just as well as gasoline.

When you think of energy and Texas, you think of oil and gas. With all this talk of redoing the energy systems here, are you persona non grata with the mayor of Houston or other cities in Texas?
Wynn: No, in part because people realize that two-thirds or more of our oil consumption is foreign oil.

When I talk about American energy independence--I gave this speech at Oklahoma City with their mayor last year--I say we are going to be burning natural gas, using gasoline and oil for our working careers, at least.

But what if (we say) to the Texas oil man and the Oklahoma oil man, "You're it again. You are the domestic oil and gas supply, period, because now two-thirds of our energy (isn't needed)"? What if we've weaned ourselves completely off the Middle Eastern oil, and we have flexible-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles, and we have hydrogen being developed, and we have wind power--all of the stuff happening?

We are on the path of burning all the gas until we deplete it in this country. That depletion seems to be sooner rather than later, and the Texas guys and gals know that.

There is lot more common ground than maybe folks initially think about when they hear about Austin doing some very aggressive climate protection and strange technologies and renewable energy.

My biggest partner, far and away, is the Texas Land Commissioner on wind farms in West Texas, and he is the poster boy for the oil and gas industry in Texas--in a good way. He is a good guy and trustworthy. So there is a lot of common ground when you start talking about American energy independence and national-security threats.  

More Newsmakers

[redsynapse]

Biofuels are not the answer

The article vaguely states that Austin is pushing emissions reductions through the use of biofuels. Using crops for biofuels are raising the price of food worldwide which is already affecting the poor. Farmers are already destroying rain forest in order to plant crops that can be sold as biofuels. Finally and most importantly, you have to put in more energy into growing and harvesting biofuel crops than you get out when you burn them in vehicles.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=755

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/27/a-lethal-solution/

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/05/22/corn.html

[dondarko]

you're right but...

the essential problem is the lack of reliable, efficient and speedy public transportation. Anywhere you look in Europe you are able to hop on the tram, subway or a bus and get to where you need to be in a timely manner. I live in Louisville, KY and my work is about 5 miles from my house. By car it is a 5-10 min drive depending on the traffic. With the local bus (to which I have to walk to if I wanted to take it) the stop is like 2 miles from my house and if I do walk to get on it it takes me another 45 mins to get to my work, and even then I have to walk a mile. My work and house are on major throughways so it doesn't make sense that it would take me well over an hour, counting the walking, to get to work.

so...problem with the public transportation(or lack thereof) and the way we design our communities. We keep moving further and further out for the sake of privacy and other silly reasons and builders accomodate the demand. I would rather live in a place where everything is accessible than where I have to drive miles upon miles to get to work, go grocery shopping, etc.

P.S. Wind, solar, thermal and hyrdo are the best bets for renewable energy. As for the transportation we just need to have high efficiency batteries developed that will enable us to get very good range with cars. Not to mention a way to quickly charge those batteries.

When it comes to car automakers need to create aerodynamic bodies(on top of batteries mentioned above) along with using the cars velocity and air drag that it creates for good use. For example car driving on the highway can generate electricity by having small wind generators where today's radiator is(remeber with batteries there would be no heat, or fuel cells, whatever it is).

Just some quick random food for thought.

cheers

[C_G_K]

Like they say...

don't trust anyone from Austin or Boston. I am starting to think there is some truth to that old saying. This guy is a true believer in the boogey man of climate change. What a waste of time and money when there are REAL problems to be solved.

[dondarko]

what?

think about it..

how is our air cleaner(less CO2 which causes cancer :D ) when there is like a billion cars, trucks, airplanes, trains spewing out absurd amounts of CO2 and other pollutants? are you trying to say that today's air is as clean as it was back in 1600s?

Is our water as clean as it was back in 1600s with 6.5 billion people in the world taking a crap, lets say at least once a week, and all the doodoo going into the river and oceans, as opposed to back in 1600s when the crap went into soil as a fertilizer the way it was meant to be?

Are you saying our lands are cleaner today then in 1600s with millions upon millions of toxic chemicals going into it just from computer waste, not counting other crap we put into it?

are you saying that our foods are healthier today with all the chemical preservatives and toxic chemicals used for growing then in 1600s?

any person with an IQ of 1 can say NO to your argument that environmental pollution is a quack. Remember global warming is pollution of huge amounts of unnatural CO2 created by human beings.

It's people like you who are dismissing today's warnings and science of global warming and pollution in general, who were burning people at the stake and cutting heads of for practicing early science for centuries. Yet you still use products and benefits of science every day.

[dondarko]

one more thing...

why dont you turn your car on in your garage while it is closed and just sit in there. I mean it's clean and harmful so knock yourself out.

Go drink from your local river. Don't worry you say it's clean (based on ur dismissal of global warming I am assuming you're dismissing all other pollution results we're seeing today.)

[dondarko]

or even better..

just move next to a coal fired plant. I mean it's clean, healthy and good for you. then come back here and comment with your nonsense as much as you want when you get a hard earned cacner from that plant.

[chassoto--2008]

I live in Austin...

Will Wynn speaks mostly the truth. I've personally taken advantage of the Austin Energy conservation programs. I have a 0% interest loan to replace the ancient furnace my house had when I bought it. The AC has a much higher SEER value, and combined with the energy efficiency things they did (wrapping ducts, sealing cracks, weatherstripping, insulation and solar screens) HALVED my summer electric bills. I WOULD have recovered the cost of the upgrades by the time the 5-year loan was paid off. I said "WOULD have" because shortly after, natural gas prices quadrupled in Texas, so much of the savings seen in the summer were eaten up in the winter.

Where Will Wynn is off the mark is that the city itself is promoting a disastrous transportation situation because of its own annexation and expansion into nearby territory. By annexing all the way to "the sticks," they are required to bring city services to those areas. Well, all of a sudden, it's trivial for a developer to clear a bunch of old live oak patches and build a "planned community" complete with strip malls and traffic congestion. All of the extra traffic and traffic jams will easily outpace any emissions saved through energy efficiency. Developers like Wynn are to blame, but we should hold city government accountable for allowing that.

[C_G_K]

Ulterior Motives

Perhaps it would be better to say never trust any POLITICIAN from Austin or Boston. Anyway, just as a lot of boneheaded laws and programs have been brought in under the guise of fighting terrorism (like not allowing drug importation from Canada because terrorists may smuggle in WMD's in pill bottles), a lot of boneheaded laws and programs are being brought in under the guise of fighting global warming (carbon credits is a good example). If you scratch below the surface, there is usually some political motivation at work. Of course in the case of drug importation, it was the drug lobby trying to stop it behind the scenes. In the same way, friends and lobbyists of politicians who bring in these "global warming" programs stand to benefit. Don't be naive to this sort of political sleight of hand.

[avfolk--2008]

Hype vs Reality Mr. Mayor!!!

The only green that our mayor is into is bucks from the very
developers who have turned Austin into a money-grubbing,
developer-driven, strawling, traffic-clogged metropolis where
'open government' is open only to developers and other monied
interests who profit only from turning Austin into a 'greener' LA.

As an Austinite for 40 years, I have observed that during Mr.
Wynn's tenure that:

-We are allowing our free-spending MTA to build a 'green' light
rail system while its budget doubles, and projected completion
and utilizatiojn stumbles.

-Downtown is overtaken with 'green' condos and businesses.
Like the new GREEN Whole Foods that has turned an entire
quadrant of downtown into a traffic nightmare for most of the
day.

-Developers are overbuilding in quaint neighborhoods, cutting
age-old trees and burdening our crumbling utility systems.

-We are so GREEN that the EPA has directed HUGE daily per/spill
fines until Austin fixes it's crumblin wastewater lines.

-Oh and Mr. Wynn is allowing WASTEWATER lines to be buried
UNDER our fabled BARTON CREEK GREENBELT. How green is
sewerage?

-Our astronomical tax base and utlities are providing the
INCENTIVES that Austin uses to bring us new people to but the
half million dollar condos the mayor seems so proud of.

-Meanwhile he touts our healthy lifestyle. Parks are crumbling,
city employee waste and overtime are at record highs, and our
libraries and social services suffer.

I have no idea what he can see thru the tinted windows of his
city vehicle -- but his 'progress' and motives are GREEDY not
GREEN.

The fact the Mr. Wynn has the nerve to tout his
'accomplishments' nationally, only indicates that his developer
buddies have some unsold condos -- and they're lookin for
more suckers.

WELCOME TO AUSTIN.

[babylovr]

The real problem is

not so much whether or not our Mayor is truly believing the *Global Warming* nonsense or if he is just trying to look good and make a buck for himself or his buddies; the problem is that he is trying to use his office and the laws to micromanage the personal lives of the citizens in the community. I am all for living a life which is harmonious with the earth and our fellow creatures and for promoting a culture which is respectful of all life, but trying to force others to take on financial burdens so that they will be living the way you think they should is not the way to make things better.

I'm glad the mayor is happy living in his little condo-box; my four children enjoy actually having a yard and a garden and trees. If our mayor is serious about making the world a better, cleaner place, there are much better ways of going about it -- for instance, how many pollutants are put into the air from parents driving their children to school? Perhaps it would be better to close down the schools; schools do use a lot of energy with all the lights and air conditioning, not to mention all the paper...plus there are the school buses, and I don't think all the teachers and administrators have eco-friendly vehicles either...

It's easy for the mayor to try to put burdens on the private home-owner -- it won't affect him! Most people actually do want to save money and most of us don't want to be adding pollution to the environment; for the most part, it's not the private citizen who is causing the problem -- I didn't set up the system whereby we use drinking water in our toilets, nor did I design any of the other aspects of our societal structure which pollute our planet, so why is our mayor wanting to hold me accountable for the environmental problems?

This is not a good way for him to make friends of his constituents.