Posted 11/10/2006 05:10:00 PM by Douglas

Governor Perry exercises his power and it pisses off some environmentalists. Imagine that.

The governor was talking about electricity that day — specifically 11 coal-fired plants proposed by TXU — and the bureaucrats he challenged weren’t those in Washington but the ones in the state government. Perry stood shoulder-to-shoulder with John Wilder, TXU’s CEO, when he made the pronouncement.

The “bureaucrats won’t be allowed to hold up approval” for the TXU plants, Perry said.

His support of those plants has become a hot issue in his race for re-election. Perry called last year’s blackouts a “wake-up” call for a state that needs more energy, but his major rivals say the state can find a more environmentally friendly way to meet that challenge.

Problem #1: Texas needs power, and need power plants. Problem #2: The governor is standing "shoulder to shoulder" with the CEO of a company that's going to benefit from his executive order circumventing laws set in place to oversee the construction of power plants. Can you say conflict of interest? What about the environment?

One of the major issues dividing the candidates is the potential effect on the environment. TXU and the governor say the coal-fired plants would dramatically increase the state’s power output and not hurt air quality. They cite a state-sponsored study showing that after factoring in other utility commitments, average ozone levels in Dallas and Fort Worth would decline with the new plants.

“These coal plants are going to be 80 percent cleaner than the national average,” Perry spokesman Robert Black said recently. “And we’re increasing energy capacity in the state. These are positive aspects.”

Decrease ozone levels in D/FW with new plants? Either I'm reading that wrong or I'm just plain stupid. Hell, I'll admit to both. But here's where this story gets just plain wacky in election year politics:

Bell said Texas should set a goal of producing 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015.

And then there's

Friedman has said the state should produce 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

If only there were a candidate that advocated 17.5% of Texas' energy came form renewable sources by 2017. June, 2017, as long as you're sticking with the arbitrary date and percentage paradigm.

But here's where this article goes off the deep end:

“The debate on global warming is over,” and “carbon dioxide from SUVs and local coal-fired utilities is causing a steady uptick in the thermometer.”

How bloody convenient. No other source of global warming but SUVs and coal. So. . . . The veracious need of electrical power is going to be supplied only by those that kill dolphins and Texas air quality? Give me a freakin' break.

This is a big question. Texas can't have more people without more power, and obviously the air quality of Houston, D/FW, Austin and San Antone have just about reached their choking point. So what now? Ida know, but not supplying power, as politically murderous as it would have been for Gov. Goodhair, seems like it might have been an avenue worth exploring.