Why I voted against the CPS Energy rate hike
Every time we recognize important historical moments and commemorate their leaders, we are reminded of the ways in which legacies are often co-opted by those who would have loudly opposed all threats to the status quo. Martin Luther King Jr. fought for the working class, the poor and communities of color. He always stood shoulder to shoulder with community through times of struggle regardless of whether it was politically convenient.
As a first-year councilwoman, I have learned what is “politically convenient” is commonly against the best interest of District 5 residents, the community I was elected to serve. “Politically convenient” usually means defending the corporate-backed status quo. A status quo that heroes like King worked tirelessly to overcome. “Politically convenient” is business as usual, with a rubber stamp at the ready to approve funneling our hardearned money up to the rich and powerful. Big business is always consulted, while working people are characterized as too naïve to understand the inner workings of policy.
The City Council vote on the CPS Energy rate increase is the latest example of political convenience. Numerous comments were made on the dais suggesting that as elected leaders, we should not listen to our residents who overwhelmingly said no to the rate increase. Our constituents
put us in office because they trusted us to act in their best interest, and to do otherwise is insulting and anti-democratic. We can either choose to listen to our community or not — and I chose to listen to District 5 residents.
Our District 5 team fields hundreds of calls each month connecting residents with utilityassistance programs and case management to ensure those who have fallen through the cracks are not left out in the cold. My position and motion on the dais to delay the vote on the rate increase was an effort to ensure our residential customers would
not be left to subsidize lower rates for higher-usage customers or pay for the mismanagement of our public utility.
Instead of making residents and small businesses bear the brunt, why not first look at restructuring rates so high-volume users pay their fair share for using more power rather than being incentivized to use more? Under the current rate structure, 54 percent of our total energy is used by commercial and industrial accounts that provide 48 percent of revenue.
For example, a high-volume energy customer uses about
500,000 kwh/month, or kilowatt hours per month, which would add up to a $50,000 monthly bill if large commercial and industrial accounts were charged the same rate as residents. Instead, such a company has a special commercial rate deal, paying $17,000 per month — less than 3.5 cents per kwh. Look at your recent CPS Energy bill, and you will see residential ratepayers pay about 11 cents per kwh.
I argued that inclining tiered rates would promote energy efficiency and conservation. The current rate structure incentivizes large commercial and industrial ratepayers to use more energy with lower rates instead of conserving energy.
Further, contributions made by those who continue to expand and stress the grid should be increased to represent a more significant contribution. The full burden for these line extensions, particularly for new developments, should be shouldered by those that benefit most. Innercity ratepayers should not have to subsidize new developments that increase urban sprawl and place more strain on transportation, utilities, environmental sustainability and other critical infrastructure.
I voted no on CPS Energy’s rate increase because my constituents did their due diligence by communicating their discontent with the proposal. In the past year alone, the local median rent has soared by 29 percent. More residents will be nickel-anddimed out of a meal, prescriptions and their homes, and CPS Energy will come back to City Council to request an additional increase to the $1.26 fuel adjustment charge, leaving San Antonio residents on the hook for the remainder of the $1 billion in disputed charges incurred during the winter storm.
I was not elected to rubberstamp deals that do not hold our public institutions accountable. I commend my council colleagues in District 2 and District 10, Jalen Mckee-rodriguez and Clayton Perry, for joining me. Tomorrow is a new day. I am rooted in this struggle and will continue to fight for a San Antonio that works for all of us, not just a select few.