Deregulating Texas Electricity

The blog "Texas Electricity: Lower Prices, greater consumer choice" written by Emma Pickering, discusses the Austin-American Statesman's position on the deregulation of the State's electrical suppliers creating higher utility rates for the State's residents.
In her blog, Ms. Pickering brings to light the fact that the Statesman's report was based on incomplete and therefore inaccurate data between the years of 1999 and 2007. It seems that the Statesman based its calculations on an article prepared by the Cities Aggregation Power Project (CAPP). In brief, the report used figures dating back to 2002 before electricity was fully deregulated. I would agree with Ms. Pickering in that based on this fact alone, one cannot accurately conclude what, if any, the increases are.
As a Texas consumer, I feel that increasing choices in the marketplace is ultimately more beneficial in not only savings, but service as well. Ms. Pickering further outlines the vast choices deregulating has opened up. More specifically Texas has gone from four providers in 2002 to twenty-eight providers in 2007.
Ms. Pickering also brings light to the fact that among the five largest states electricity rates in Texas rank in the middle.
It is obvious at this early juncture that it is impossible, if not irresponsible, to declare that deregulating electricity has caused an increase to Texas consumers.
I was impressed by Ms. Pickering's consideration of important factors which the Statesman either chose to gloss over or simply ignore.
Her blog was not particularly long, nor did it go into great depth, but the points she raised were eye catching and of interest to every Texas consumer; and gave them a better understanding on the issues of electricity deregulation. Ms. Pickering summarized it best when she concluded with, " deregulation has helped Texas electricity consumers by opening the market to competition, boosting consumer choice, and at least holding the line on prices."

Austin Energy Makes Changes in Solar Rebate Program

The editorial, "Reductions in the city solar rebate program can make it better", written by the Editorial Board for the Austin American Statesman is quite informal regarding the decision made by Austin Energy to lessen its rebate program for solar panels.
While reading this editorial, it almost made me think that there was a representative from Austin Energy right next to the author telling him or her most of the information entailed. Just reading the title tells the reader how the author feels on the subject and which way their editorial will lean.
It is clearly all-for Austin-owned utility but does make a number of good reasons why they should get some credit for doing these environmentally/economic friendly deeds. The author referred back to the Cash for Clunkers program and the fact that, that as well Austin Energy officials made yet another good decision by making changes before the money they were giving out, ran out.
This editorial seems to be directed toward the specific people who were affected by or looking forward to this rebate program for solar panels. Apparently, many homeowners won't even be eligible for solar rebates unless they get some or all of a number of energy improvements to their home, which comes out to a "total cost of about $5,300, on average". The author makes statements like "we understand the disappointment" and the fact that this rebate was one of "the states most generous".
He then goes into detail on the specifics regarding the program. In the beginning of the program there was a limit of $4 million budget which they have come too close to, to continue without making changes like reducing the rebate for homeowners and changing the way they are giving rebates to businesses and nonprofits.
Also, another, more recent change in the program is the fact that many homeowners will become ineligible for the rebates if they do not make various energy saving updates/improvements to their home prior to the request of the rebate. The author gives many good (in my eyes) examples as to why these basic improvements should be made before bothering to make such a big step in spending so much on a solar panel when a portion of the energy being saved by those will be lost through the weathered/weak areas of the house.
The authors conclusion was clear and logical, the main points were stated, a reference of their source, Austin Energy, was made and a last sentence shows their readers exactly how they feel: "We believe the Austin-owned utility got it right".
I must say, I do agree with the writer of this editorial and think he or she did a good job in making clear and understandable statements and I think that Austin Energy made a good choice in the changes they made.