The $75 million windfall that CPS Energy will contribute to the City of San Antonio for its fiscal 2023, $1.51 billion General Fund budget might not seem like a lot of money. But it is.
The unanticipated funds are part of the $436 million — instead of the projected $361.2 million — CPS Energy will direct to the city’s budget. The energy utility contributes 14% of annual revenues to the city, an amount swollen this year by customers’ record energy use during one of the hottest summers on record.
As an aside, imagine city government straining to operate without those funds were it not to own CPS Energy. A for-profit utility would take that $436 million and deliver it to shareholders.
Most of the general fund’s dollars in the city’s overall $3.4 billion budget, which includes the capital and fixed cost budgets, is spent on public safety and civilian payroll, streets, infrastructure and parks. A relatively small percentage of the general fund budget is available to address other spending priorities.
That makes the $75 million an opportunistic sum for council members and staff to allocate. Should San Antonio’s increasingly hot climate continue to lead to more extreme summer temperatures, as it surely will, CPS Energy’s annual contribution will continue to grow, but so will all the costly and negative effects of climate change on the city and its population.
City Manager Erik Walsh originally proposed using two-thirds of the $75 million to fund a customer rebate credited to July utility bills. That failed to win support from the council majority, with alternative proposals put forward to address climate change, domestic violence and street and sidewalk maintenance.
I side with council members who want the funds to be used to mitigate the negative impact of weather extremes in the community. That can be done with tree plantings, weatherization of older homes and buildings to make them more energy-efficient, and by expanding CPS Energy’s Residential Energy Assistance Program and its energy efficiency and conservation program. Those programs address the burden of rising utility bills on the city’s most economically vulnerable citizens and climate change.
Perhaps the city should accelerate its migration to an all-electric vehicle fleet. There is no shortage of smart ideas that represent community investments rather than one-time, feel-good measures like a rebate projected to average $31. And I say “average,” because bigger households with higher utility bills in affluent neighborhoods, home to people who do not need a handout, would collect bigger rebates than less-affluent households.
A lot of the city’s working poor were unable to pay their CPS Energy and SAWS bills during the two-year pandemic, when many lost jobs or were forced by circumstances, including closed schools, to stay at home with their children and elders. Amending the Walsh proposal to only give rebates to low-income ratepayers would address the questionable value of reducing the July utility bill for affluent ratepayers who live in San Antonio and the surrounding communities serviced by CPS Energy.
One size does not fit all in a city with one of the highest poverty rates of all major U.S. cities. Walsh’s rebate proposal would merit more consideration if all of the windfall funds were directed to those in need. That also would mean a more substantial rebate credited to those who most need assistance.
Sooner or later, the conversation at City Hall and in the business community has to focus more on practical measures to mitigate climate change. Right now it’s an us-versus-them dynamic that vilifies legacy energy producers when the reality is almost all of us remain dependent on a fossil fuel-driven economy. Redirecting efforts to get all businesses and individuals on board to adopt small, steady steps to address this global crisis would prove more effective and reduce the mistrust that currently is felt by stakeholders on all side of the climate debate.
When additional unbudgeted funds do become available, elected leaders can set a positive example by allocating the monies to tangible investments that enable everyone in the city to see the net positive effects. No one objects to mature shade trees, a shaded bus stop, functioning public water fountains or neighborhood sidewalks that make walking safer in a city designed more for cars than people.
It continues to surprise and disappoint me how many of our inner city streets have never had sidewalks, or to take my street as just one example, are in such poor shape people tend to walk on the street.
The annual budgeting process is a complex undertaking, but a $75 million windfall has given citizens a window into one aspect of how elected leaders and city staff work to allocate scarce resources. It’s a good civics lesson.
