Residents and advocates press Austin City Council to delay $1 billion peaker purchase, demand transparency

A crowded public comment period at the Austin City Council work session on May 19 highlighted intense opposition to Austin Energy’s proposal to acquire roughly 400 megawatts of gas “peaker” capacity, a package speakers repeatedly estimated could cost about $1 billion.

Dozens of residents, utility commissioners and national‑group representatives urged greater transparency and independent review before council authorizes any contract. “This is the most secret billion‑dollar project I’ve ever seen in Austin,” said Al Braden, vice chair of the Electric Utility Commission, testifying for himself and urging council members to press staff for models, locations and guardrails.

Speakers pointed to climate, health and equity risks and questioned cost assumptions. “How does buying a gas generator in 2030 square with our goals of eliminating carbon by 2035?” asked Al Braden. Finn McPherson, who lives across the street from Decker Creek Power Plant, said the capital cost alone was large: “At current turbine pricing, 400 megawatts … costs $1 billion just to build the units.” Several commenters asked the city to revive or expand local clean programs such as Solar for All and to commission a third‑party economic and emissions analysis.

Council members used the public session and the following staff briefing to probe the utility’s modeling and procurement approach. An Austin Energy official said the “reliability risk hours” used in planning range from 1 to 10 hours per event, with many events lasting five to eight hours and some up to 10 hours; extreme multi‑day events like Winter Storm Uri are modeled separately. The official said that, while long‑duration batteries and other technologies are being monitored and piloted, they are not yet cost‑competitive or ready at scale to replace the dispatchable capacity the utility seeks.

Council members also questioned why the utility is pursuing confidential direct‑purchase contracts rather than relying solely on the all‑resources RFP process. Austin Energy staff replied that developer‑owned proposals returned in the RFP did not meet the utility’s needs for ownership and control and that direct negotiations with major equipment manufacturers are sometimes conducted confidentially to avoid raising market prices and to preserve competitive negotiating positions.

On disclosure, the utility told the council it models guardrails and deployment scenarios internally and with third parties, but that certain contract pricing and vendor details may be protected under the state’s competitive‑bidding exceptions. Mayor Pro Tem and council members emphasized the political sensitivity and said the council would take public comment, then move to an executive session on Thursday under the Texas Open Meetings Act competitive‑matters exception to consider the terms; the council said it would announce the outcome after that closed deliberation.

No final vote or contract award occurred at the May 19 session. City officials said additional modeling, community engagement on siting and follow‑up environmental analyses would continue and that staff would present any proposed contract and related emissions/guardrail details to council before final action.