Possible Electric Rate Increases

        Austin Energy is strongly considering on adding a twenty two to thirty dollar fee to the monthly bills of residential customers. This has come about as a result of the various drawbacks that come with using power plants, such as nuclear waste and air pollution. In other words, Austin Energy has decided that it needs to promote energy conservation. Although Austin Energy is planning on adding the flat twenty two to thirty dollar fee it is also proposing to reduce the rates for customers who use small amounts of electricity. Those in favor of this fee argue that the fee is necessary in order to encourage customers to conserve energy. Those that are against implementing the fee argue that the fee will have the exact opposite effect by giving customers less incentive to conserve energy than if Austin Energy were to simply charge customers increasing rates for increasing amounts of electricity.

         I am not in favor of implementing the fee. If Austin Energy implements the flat fee and reduces the rates for customers who use little electricity then the customers who are already conserving energy will still have to pay more than usual as a result they are basically being punished for the extra consumption of those certain customers who use larger amounts of electricity. Since the fee will apply to everyone there will be relatively no incentive for customers to conserve energy. The best solution would be to simply charge more to customers who use a large amount of electricity and less to those who use little electricity. Now this brings up another problem. What is a large amount of electricity? According to the Chairman of a split Electric Utility Commission Phillip Schmandt, which advises the council, no home will see its electric bill rise more than twenty dollars unless it uses more than 1,500 kilowatt-hours a month. So it appears the Electric Utility Commission has decided that anything above 1,500 kilowatt-hours a month is a large amount of electricity. This seems like a reasonable number as according to the U.S.Energy Information Administration, “the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,896 kWh, an average of 908 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month.”

        And of course another huge problem the fee will certainly result in is a large number of angry customers, which is exactly what Austin Energy does not need when it is “under pressure to sell more electricity—and to sell less of it.”

A Perry Presidency

        Rachel Farris is currently a writer for The Huffington Post who has spoken about social media and communications at UT, LBJ School of Public Affairs, and St. Edward’s University. On August 17 Rachel Farris posted a blog, “What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for Women”, on her website in which she argues that if Rick Perry were to become President it would result in the restriction of people’s rights, more specifically women’s rights. After reading the title of Farris’s post it appears that her intended audience is women, after reading her entire post it becomes clear as water that women are her intended audience as she repeatedly references laws that directly affect women or their children.

         Farris jokes that Perry’s first order of business would be to create a department that would oversee “approved contraceptive devices under Perry’s watchful eye”, among the top being abstinence. Farris brings up an unnamed 2005 study that found teens in Texas were actually having more sex after undergoing an abstinence program. She goes on to say that even with this study Rick Perry currently stands by the practice not because he has any studies backing him up but because according to an interview with the Texas Tribune, “from my own personal life.” Rachel Farris then brings up a piece of legislation Perry declared an emergency legislation under which Texas’s law requires mandatory transvaginal sonograms for women who are eight to ten weeks pregnant and seeking abortions. She then goes on to joke that “President” Perry’s version of the bill would include an amendment to play Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” during the procedure. Farris wraps her post up by criticizing how Rick Perry is trying to protect unborn children yet Texas leads the nation in the percentage of children without health insurance.

        I found Rachel Farris’s post to be entertaining yet at the same time a bit disturbing. She criticizes Rick Perry by mocking him yet she provides hard evidence in the form of quotes from Perry and articles about legislations supported by him. I would certainly recommend this article to anyone as it provides entertainment while bringing up some interesting points as well.

"Environmental rules may harm Texas economy"

          Susan Combs argues that recent federal environmental regulations essentially pose a threat to the Texas economy rather than improvement. Combs states that these environmental regulations such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s new cross-state air pollution rule, which targets nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, is forcing the state’s largest power generator, Luminant, “to idle two generating units and halt operations at three Ignite mines.” Such actions can result in a loss of 500 jobs in Texas. Combs believes that not only will the cross-state air pollution rule result in the loss of Texas jobs but this rule might also result in a raise of electricity rates. Throughout the rest of the article Susan Combs continues to name more federal environmental rules and argue how these rules that are intended to help Texas can result in hurting its economy by leading to the loss of hundreds of jobs.  

          In this article Comb’s intended audience appears to be the average Texan as she appeals to them through the use of the potentiality of job losses and increased electricity rates. The author seems credible because she is not simply ranting on with simple opinion based statements but she is using various environmental regulations as evidence to her claims. Her claims are not over the top, she is not saying that these regulations are a great evil, rather she is simply stating the hazards these regulations pose in an effort to urge Texans to be aware of the events that are taking place around them. The evidence Combs presents is strong in getting her point across that certain environmental regulations pose a great risk to Texas’ already staggering economy. Overall the article is solid in getting its point across and reaching out to the average Texan through the great use of what are essentially scare tactics.

"Texas Water Utility Plans for Drought Worse Than 1950s"

           Looks like it is just getting started… According to Federal scientists La Niña, a Pacific Ocean phenomenon that has been blamed for the current drought, “is back and will strengthen.” At this time Texas’ two major reservoirs, Lake Travis and Lake Buchanan are currently forty percent full. Because of these current conditions the Lower Colorado River Authority plans to meet on September 20 and again on September 21 to discuss reducing or even ending its water sales to downriver farmers next year. These farmers rely on Lower Colorado River Authority water to grow crops, so LCRA’s decision will definitely have an effect on these farmers.

This is interesting not only because it will effect these farmers but because the lower Colorado River Authority is the wholesale supplier of water to Austin and other Central Texas cities. So not only will downriver farmers be affected by LCRA’s decision but their decision might affect Austin as well. Austin is currently restricted to once a week watering so if LCRA decides to simply reduce its water sales to these downriver farmers than Austin might be restricted even further.

            As it stands Texas’ two major reservoirs contain 812,000 acre-feet of water but the LCRA fears the amount of water could drop to 640,000 acre-feet by January 1, just 19,000 feet below the lowest these lakes have ever been. The pressure is on; LCRA’s decisions in the coming week will take a toll on Central Texas residents one way or another.