Al Gore used Georgetown in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth to tout his farce of global climate change.
Gore proposed Georgetown as the beacon on the hill when it comes to renewable energy. This city took the chance and went full green. They would prove to the world that green energy was the wave of the future. The fiscal savings would be staggering.
Then the real inconvenient truth hit.
As the Statesman points out, Georgetown ended up in the red and not the green:
The city of Georgetown’s bill for wind and solar energy ended up being $8.6 million more than anticipated in fiscal year 2018 because the falling prices of oil and gas meant it had to sell its surplus renewable power for less than forecast, said City Manager David Morgan.
The city had budgeted $45 million for renewable energy but ended up paying $53.6 million, he said.
Georgetown was able to reduce the $8.6 million unanticipated extra to $6.8 million through savings from lower capital improvement utility project costs, Morgan said. It paid the remaining $6.8 million with reserves from the city’s energy fund, he said.
The City Council also approved a budget amendment Dec. 12 that will build the reserves in the electric fund, which helped to pay for some of the loss, from $1.9 million back up to $4 million in 2019.
So not only did Georgetown lose money on green energy, the city raised the “emergency fund” by $2 million.
But do you think they’ve learned anything in the Texas version of Berkeley? Not according to the article.
Georgetown is in the middle of renegotiating its 20- to 25-year wind and solar contracts to try to get a better deal, Morgan said.
But at least one resident and a conservative think tank said the city should not have made the contracts for so long and shouldn’t be relying on green sources of energy.
Georgetown began getting 100 percent of its power through renewable energy in April 2017. The city has received international attention for its commitment to solar and wind power.
Morgan said that when the city signed wind and solar contracts around 2012, it was looking at long-term demands and contracted for more energy than it needed to grow into it as the city of Georgetown grew. The city contracted for 20 years with a wind farm west of Amarillo and for 25 years with a solar power farm outside of Fort Stockton, he said.
“We took competitive bids in 2012 for all types of energy production and chose wind and solar because of the competitive nature of the pricing at the time,” Morgan said. “If we had chosen a natural gas project in 2012 for a long-term contract, we would still have the same situation, because it’s all about long-term contracting and where the energy market was in 2012.”
There is no such thing as 100 percent renewable energy.
Although the city may run on green energy during certain times, it can’t survive on strictly green energy. Thus, the electric grid must remain on as a backup. This is true of hydro, solar, and wind.
So the outcome? The article continues,
The city also had to pay more than anticipated in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 for renewable energy because of depressed energy prices, he said. In 2016, the city projected the bill would be $33.6 million for renewable energy, though the actual costs were $40.3 million, Morgan said. In 2017, the city projected the power would cost $39.5 million, though it ultimately cost $46 million, according to city figures.
“These differences in projected and actual costs were previously offset by increased revenue, implementing a power cost adjustment and adjusting the timing of some large capital projects,” Morgan said.
Allow me to make this as simple as possible for Democrats who read this article.
If you use green energy to estimate your energy costs, you will end up OWING MONEY! That’s because the promises of the “green weenies” are lies. Just like Gore’s first and second movie.
For months, Mr. Morano and his team have tracked the Democrat at advance screenings of “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” ambushing him with stunts such as asking him about his prediction that without drastic measures, the planet would reach a “point of no return” in a decade.
The former vice president made that claim 11 years ago in “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Oscar-winning documentary whose warnings of climate doom propelled Mr. Gore to the forefront of the movement against global warming — while turning him into something of a punchline.
Even the left has its doubts about whether the sequel will do more harm than good by reinforcing Mr. Gore’s status as the face of the movement to protect the climate.
The liberal New Republic aired those concerns in a Monday article headlined “The Troubling Return of Al Gore,” which said that “not everyone on the left is celebrating Gore’s reemergence” and described him as “the most polarizing figure in climate politics.”
The sequel flopped, like Gore. And those who continued to try to sell the farce of global climate change needed Gore to disappear and let a new set of “experts” at it.
Obama took over, and put the “green” agenda, aka pay-for-play boondoggle on steroids. But then Trump took over, and restored order.