According to a story in today’s Austin American-Statesman, a new state law requires public schools — including “most public colleges and universities” — to post their utility bills on-line and reduce energy use 5 percent per year for six years. This obviously is a major development.
The story does not identify the bill, but it apparently is HB3693 (text [pdf] and analysis [pdf]), which was signed by the governor on June 15. The bill was co-authored by UTA alumnus Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth).
See:
Bloom, Molly, “State law makes consumption cut a top priority,” Austin American-Statesman, October 9, 2007, A1.
I sent e-mail to Larry Harrison, UTA Associate Director of Physical Plant, to learn how this applies to UTA. He replied (10/10/07):
Jeff,
We knew about this and have been working. With the approaches UT Arlington has taken, these goals have been met or exceeded. I believe we can continue to met or exceed these. Thanks.
Larry
I pointed out that the baseline is set at September 2007, which would suggest that the substantial improvements UTA made in 2006 and most of 2007 would not count. Larry replied:
Jeff,
You are correct. We continue to work on saving to make at least the 5% saving per year. I believe this is possible even with the great saving UT Arlington has already accomplished. For example, during Dec 2007 time frame, UT Arlington will change out 24 primary transformers that will make much of this possible for 2007. We are working others for the future. …
Larry
I wonder if the new law will allow the A&M schools that are using wind power to count this as a contribution toward their annual 5 percent reduction in energy consumption. (See http://blog.uta.edu/sustainability/2007/10/06/am-schools-switching-to-wind-energy/)
For a comprehensive description of energy conservation measures that UTA has undertaken since 1973, see this Excel file:
http://mavspace.uta.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-501677_4
Larry Harrison wrote to me on 11/21/07:
“I’ve pulled up and printed both SB12 and HB3693. HB3693 is where the posting requirement is, and adds Section 2264 to the Texas Government Code. Section 2264.001(b) of the Texas Government Code will now read: “Notwithstanding any other law, a governmental entity responsible for payments of electric, water, or natural gas utility services shall record in an electronic repository the governmental entity’s metered amount of electricity, water, or natural gas consumed for which it is responsible to pay and the aggregate costs for those utility services. The governmental entity shall report the recorded information on a publicly accessible Internet website with an interface designed for ease of navigation if available, or at another publicly accessible location.”
I’ve also pulled up an example of what one school district is posting, and it is as simple as a spreadsheet showing total metered usage and aggregate costs for each utility (electricity, gas, and water) by month.
It doesn’t appear we will need to post the individual bills since the code states “metered amount” and “aggregate costs”. However, I’ve put in a call to one of our OGC attorneys in Austin who we work with on utilities to see if she can clarify this requirement or refer me to someone who can. She is already out for the holiday, but will be back in the office on Monday. I’ll keep you posted. As I mentioned before, I don’t think we want to post our individual bills on a website. Not only would this consist of a few hundred pages of bills to post every month (the electric bill alone is over 200 pages monthly), but I don’t think we want to give others access to all of our account numbers, meter numbers, and meter locations.
SB12 is the where the requirement for the reduction of electric consumption by 5% each year for six years beginning September 1, 2007, is outlined. This amends Chapter 388 of the Texas Health & Safety Code. Section 388.005 (c) will now read: Each political subdivision, institution of higher education, or state agency shall establish a goal to reduce the electric consumption by the entity by five percent each year for six years, beginning September 1, 2007. If you read further, Section 388.005 (f) has been added and reads: “This section does not apply to an institution of higher education or a state agency if: (1) the State Energy Conservation Office determines that, before September 1, 2007, the institution or agency adopted a plan for conserving energy under which the institution or agency has set a percentage goal for reducing electric consumption; and (2) the institution or agency submits reports on its conservation plan not less than quarterly to the governor, the Legislative budget Board, and the State Energy Conservation Office.” Wouldn’t this apply to us? UT System set our goal a few years ago, Don Decker sends our conservation plan progress report to UT System quarterly, and they compile the report that ultimately goes to the State Energy Conservation Office.”
In finishing up the carbon footprint report, I have had further correspondence with Larry Harrison about UT Arlington’s obligations under this law. With his permission, I am posting the correspondence here.
———————————
From: Howard, Jeff L
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:55 AM
To: Harrison, Larry G
Subject: State-mandated reductions in energy use
I’m trying to get a clearer picture of what the recommended reductions outlined in the carbon footprint project report would mean for electricity and natural gas use, and this seems to hinge, in part, on the university’s obligations under the law passed last year by the Legislature and signed by Perry. As you know, it says (I think this is a quote): Each political subdivision, institution of higher education, or state agency shall establish a goal (KEY to intent) to reduce the electric consumption by the entity by five percent each year for six years, beginning September 1, 2007.
On its face, this seems to require the university to achieve a 30 percent reduction over the six-year period 9/1/07-8/31/13 (more if this is understood to mean a cumulative increase of 5 percent in each successive year). Several questions:
My interpretation is that this would require a cut in actual kwh consumption, not just a cut in dollars spent on electricity. Is this your interpretation as well? This is for actual units of electric and gas consumption and not related to dollars as I read it.
At least on the surface, this seems to imply an absolute reduction, not just a reduction in the energy utilization index (BTU/sf/year). What is your understanding?
Late last year when we were exchanging e-mail on this, you pointed out a loophole (establishing a reduction goal and annually reporting progress) in the law and asked “Wouldn’t this apply to us?” Have you learned more about this loophole and whether it applies to us?
At that time you said you were optimistic that the university could meet the legal requirement even given the substantial improvements in energy efficiency prior to 9/1/07. Are you still optimistic, I assume?
——————————————————————————–
From: Harrison, Larry G
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:16 AM
To: Howard, Jeff L
Subject: RE: State-mandated reductions in energy use
This is an interesting law and the way it was worded. The key work is “goal”. I am going back to the law and we can ask UT System to make clear, but this does not means the 5% per year for the six years must be obtained as I read it. I have commented on the questions below. Thanks. [Howard’s questions for Harrison are in ALL CAPS]
MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE A CUT IN ACTUAL KWH CONSUMPTION, NOT JUST A CUT IN DOLLARS SPENT ON ELECTRICITY. IS THIS YOUR INTERPRETATION AS WELL?”
This is for actual units of electric and gas consumption and not related to dollars as I read it.
AT LEAST ON THE SURFACE, THIS SEEMS TO IMPLY AN ABSOLUTE REDUCTION, NOT JUST A REDUCTION IN THE ENERGY UTILIZATION INDEX (BTU/SF/YEAR). WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
This has nothing to do with utilization index, except where facilities are added or subtracted from the inventory which changes the baseline but with total consumption for UT Arlington. The issue will be does the University have a plan with the goal to meet this requirement and the actual amount will be reported on the state quarterly report that goes to the Governor’s Office.
LATE LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE EXCHANGING E-MAIL ON THIS, YOU POINTED OUT A LOOPHOLE (ESTABLISHING A REDUCTION GOAL AND ANNUALLY REPORTING PROGRESS) IN THE LAW AND ASKED “WOULDN’T THIS APPLY TO US?” HAVE YOU LEARNED MORE ABOUT THIS LOOPHOLE AND WHETHER IT APPLIES TO US?
This does apply to UT Arlington but as stated above. UT System usually provides their universities with more details and clarification. This has not been received yet.
AT THAT TIME YOU SAID YOU WERE OPTIMISTIC THAT THE UNIVERSITY COULD MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT EVEN GIVEN THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PRIOR TO 9/1/07. ARE YOU STILL OPTIMISTIC, I ASSUME?
Without any question, yes! UT Arlington cannot stop the continuation of what it has been doing. A follow-on Energy Conservation Project is desirable and continuation of the energy improvements made using the deferred maintenance programs and the other facilities programs is a must. Your comment that facilities drive about 89% of the carbon footprint requirement and this also applies to energy.
——————————————————————————–
From: Howard, Jeff L
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Harrison, Larry G
Subject: RE: State-mandated reductions in energy use
This, of course, is a crucial issue. Please keep me abreast of your efforts to understand the law’s implications. In the meantime, you should take a look at the discussion of this in the Executive Summary and especially chapter 4 of the carbon footprint report. We live in interesting times, Larry, interesting times.
May I add your 6/18 comments to the Forum entry on this topic that we started last fall in order to keep the conversation intact?
——————————————————————————–
From: Harrison, Larry G
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:54 PM
To: Howard, Jeff L
Subject: RE: State-mandated reductions in energy use
I followed up this morning and what I said is correct. It is for electricity only and there is to be a plan provided to SECO [State Energy Conservation Office] but no details on how, when and where. They say nothing about how the plan is to be formatted to identify the goal. The implication is that if the state agencies do not comply that their will be some type of enforcement provision included next. No problem adding to the Forum. Thanks.
Each political subdivision, institution of higher education, or state agency shall establish a goal to reduce the electric consumption.