PUB, TONY, LEGAL EAGLES: NO INFO ON GAS PLANT TO PUBLIC

By Juan Montoya
If you have questions regarding the more than $200-million Brownsville Public Utilities Board agreement with Tenaska for the construction of a natural-gas fired power plant, Mayor Tony Martinez, PUB, Tenaska, and (they hope) the Texas Attorney General don't want you to know anything that wasn't disclosed in the full-court-press media conference they held to launch the enterprise with your future rate-hike monies.
We submitted a request for information from the PUB and instead received at least 14 pages in response from Davidson, Troilo, Ream and Garza, P.C. – attorneys for the city-owned utility telling us that they'd rather not and that as a result of our request, it will be at least two months before the AG will have an answer to their objections.
Their local attorneys are listed as William Faulk III, Frank J. Garza and Lisa M. Gonzales.
"This Firm is general counsel for the Brownsville Public Utilities Board," the letter began.
Attached is a letter to the Texas Attorney General’s Office requesting a ruling on your Public Information Request to Nancy Tello of the Brownsville Public Utilities Board. Also attached is a letter to Mr. Greg Kelly of Tenaska Brownsville Partners informing him of the public information request.
"Generally, the Attorney General’s Office takes approximately two months to render an opinion. Once they have issued their opinion, we will forward you a copy for your records as well as immediately comply with any instructions we are given by that Office.
Thank you. Darlene M. Garcia, Legal Assistant to Frank J. Garza"
In a nutshell, the law firm echoed PUB's objections that they were challenging the release of the the agreement to the public because they plan to submit "factual evidence that the release of requested info would cause that party substantial harm."
Now, we find it curious that when the news conference was held amid hoopla, pomp and circumstance, there was no mention of any such concern. In fact, they invited the media and selected dignitaries to the cheer leading session where they informed us that both these entities (PUB and Tenaska) were simultaneously committing the people of Brownsville to foot a major portion of the bill of the newly-announced deal to build a multimillion-(several hundred millions) dollar power plant. If it's such a good deal, why not allow the people who will pay for it a peek at the upcoming promised land?
At the time we said that this was typical of  Martinez's style to lead by deceit (he is an ex-officio member of the PUB).
The passage of the rate hikes proposals did not draw a peep from the rest of the commission or  input from the public. Oh, sure, there was the perfunctory public hearings that no one attends. But do you remember hearing from any pubic official (Martinez included) that by passing the rate hikes the citizenry was being committed to paying $100s of millions (more then $200 million, to be exact) to help a private energy firm build a power plant that will make them millions in profits in the future?
There is no denying that Brownsville will need more electric energy in coming years based on population-growth projections. Now that we are apparently committed financially to build this 800-megawatt natural-gas electric generating plant, just what will we be getting?
If the plant that Tenaska already has in operation in Enterprise, Texas, is any guide, we can expect that it will be as the Internet description on its website states:
"The (plant is a ) 845-megawatt natural gas-fueled, combined-cycle electric generating station...The $200-million-plus facility provides Rusk County (insert Brownsville?) with significant financial benefits. The plant provides 25 to 30 well-paid, permanent jobs and generates an annual payroll, including subcontractor services and vendors, of more than $6.3 million. The plant will pay millions of dollars of property tax revenue over its operating life, providing revenue that can be used for roads, law enforcement, and services. However, the plant does not require a large number of permanent workers who would increase demands for schools, roads, fire protection or other services.
"Generating equipment includes three General Electric Frame 7FA gas turbines, three heat recovery steam generators and one General Electric steam turbine. Natural gas to fuel the plant is provided by Shell.
Tenaska developed the project and formed Tenaska Gateway Partners, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership, to build and own the facility. Tenaska affiliates serve as the managing partner and the operator."
Since Brownsville (a public entity) is going to be one-quarter owner of the 800-megawatt plant, will that mean that Tanaska will only pay three-quarters of property-tax revenues also? Or is there a deal for the company not to pay?
BPUB CEO and General Manager John Bruciak said that PUB will pay for its 200 megawatts through a series of small rate increases over the next five years.
Those "small" increases (which by the way the Herald never reported) were approved in December during a special meeting. They adopted upwards rate hikes that will see city residents pay a 36 percent increase in electric rates over the next three years, a 20 percent increase in water rates over the same period, and a 6 percent hike in waste water costs over two years.
Under the plan approved by both bodies, electric rates alone will go up by 14 percent by October 2013 and another 22 percent by October 2016.
Bruciak said PUB ratepayers will not foot the bill for construction of the water and gas pipelines.
But pray tell, John, why not tell us just what it is we're paying for?
Is it an extra hunting trip to Tom Hendrix's hunting megaranch in Bandera for you and your invited guests? Or perhaps cruising to Bandera in Tenaska's private jet?
The residents of this city have footed (and continue to foot) the bill for all of what PUB and the City of Brownsville have and do. The least the city commission and the PUB can do is to let them know what they are doing with their money. And in those two months that it might take the AG to formulate a response, will things move along and make the request obsolete because it is a "done deal?