Texas is the highest energy consuming state in the second highest energy consuming nation in the world (EIA 2017). In fact, Texas has led the US in energy consumption rates every year since 1960, when the Environmental Information Administration started keeping track. Texas also has a long history and reputation as an energy producer and is currently the nation’s highest producer of crude-oil, natural gas, and lignite coal, and accounts for 30% of the United States’ total oil refining capacity (EIA 2017). On the other hand, Texas has recently become a world competitor in renewable energy. This has been achievable in part due to Texas’ unique state autonomy in concern to energy production and distribution, granted by the fact that Texas’ is the only electric grid in the US that does not incur federal regulation as it does not cross any state boundaries.
Within Texas, Austin has shown a sustained commitment to developing its renewable energy infrastructure. Beginning with its innovative GreenChoice program in the late 80’s, Austin has been among the most fervent of US cities leading the charge for renewable energy integration. In the 1990’s, when Texas passed legislation to deregulate its energy market, Austin was one of the few Texas cities to retain control of its municipal utilities. By abstaining from deregulation, Austin maintained a higher capacity to alter its resource mix in accordance to the needs and desires of local residents. Today, Austin Energy the 8th largest publicly owned utility in the US. Austin’s utility also has strong connections with local university. The city’s clean energy initiatives receive substantial support from the University of Texas, whose Energy Institute is at the cutting edge of energy challenges and opportunities. Within this institute, UT’s Webber Energy Group and Pecan Street Inc. are particularly influential local actors, researching clean-energy initiatives such as the newly launched Austin Shines Program, which tests performance and efficiency of multiple scales and of solar plus storage combinations.
The history of struggle to define and develop Austin’s economy and legal infrastructure has also taken shape in and through spatial practices. Austin lacked many of the “natural advantages” of other cities undertaking modernization in Texas and elsewhere (Busch 2017). The land had no real mining potential, and the location was not at a port or at the nexus of trade routes like Dallas and San Antonio. Thus, unlike Dallas-Fort Worth and the Houston/Galveston metroplex, Austin emerged as a global center without a manufacturing or industrial base. Instead, Austin has taken advantage of the government jobs associated with the state Capital and the production of knowledge and arts from the flagship University of Texas campus. Indeed, from its infancy, the aesthetics of the Austin landscape combined with the vibrancy of the population would serve as the twin pillars of the city’s growth (Swearingen 2010).
In 1996, the Watson City Council—also known as the “Green Council”—adopted the Smart Growth framework that was based on a “three legged stool” of economy, environment, and equity. This established the contemporary environmental discourse in Austin, “where ‘environmentalists’ shared power, and the direction of the city, with business groups and real estate people” (Swearingen 2010, 192).
While this early victory in the City Council cemented the establishment of a strong environmentalist contingent in Austin, the developers superseded this authority by appealing to the industry-friendly sensibilities of the state government for support in obstructing the city’s environmental protections. The state began to pass a series of what came to be referred to as “Austin-Bashing Laws” that were intended to put this city’s more uppity environmental politicians in their place. For instance, by ending Austin’s power to annex local lands into their
jurisdiction, developers were able to side-step the City’ Council’s attempt to limit development over the Edwards Aquifer. The state also passed HB 1704 (a “grandfathering” law) in 1997, which that allowed developers to ignore any city ordinances that passed after a permit had been granted. With new ordinances being ineffective towards extant permits, the City’s ability to intervene and shape Austin’s development was substantially decreased.
