Austin Energy’s climate protection plan timeline comes under fire

After an unpopular first draft, Austin Energy is taking a new approach to update its Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan.

Staff says the approach, led by a newly hired mediation specialist, will employ strategies that bring new voices to the table for more collaborative conversations ahead of the utility’s second shot at a policy plan. But critics are concerned that the tactic could further delay the urgently needed update, which is already behind schedule.

The drafted plan, which maps utility energy policy out to 2030, stirred controversy over its proposal for a new combined cycle power plant, which would run on natural gas before later transitioning to green hydrogen. The plan was met with backlash from critics, who argued that the measure would be a step back for a city aiming for carbon neutrality by 2040, particularly as the utility struggles to shutter the Fayette coal plant.

Now, Austin Energy says it is back to the drawing board, with plans in coming months to host three “charrettes” – intense periods of planning activity – with stakeholders across myriad interest groups. In a brainstorming session at last month’s Electric Utility Commission, groups like PODER, Foundation Communities, AISD, Go Austin/Vamos Austin, Samsung, NXP and the Austin Tenants Council made the list for potential invitees.

Still, commissioners are concerned about the timeline, noting that a second draft would need to be ready no later than September for an end-of-year vote, which is the last chance for input from some of Council’s senior members. Mediation specialist Lynda Rife told the Electric Utility Commission last month that she is unsure the deadline is realistic.

“I can’t tell you for sure that we’ll have a recommendation by the end of September – that’s scary to me,” Rife said. “But let’s see what we can do.”

Speakers at Council’s Utility Oversight Committee on Monday argued that the existing policy recommendations from the EUC could and should be the basis for expedited negotiations. The EUC’s vision would see plans for the controversial hydrogen plant scrapped and replaced with further investments in battery storage technology.

“While the dispute between batteries versus gas plant is significant, I must say it’s the only major dispute in the generation plan,” said District 7 resident Al Braden. “We agree on the critical need for more local resources, more utility scale renewable energy, and improved transmission and distribution infrastructure to lessen congestion costs and price separation. We agree on the use of Biden IRA funds to speed up electrification, low-income weatherization programs and new building codes to eliminate strip heaters in air conditioning and water heaters. … But most importantly, we must agree on ending the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation by or before 2035.”

“This isn’t something that’s just our opinion: The people of Austin have voted in multiple resolutions over the years giving this exact direction to Austin Energy,” District 3 resident Randy Smith added. “I’m having concerns that AE is not following these mandates in good faith lately. … The additional delay feels like it could be a slow-walking tactic.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.