Browsing by Subject "texas"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Analysis on various pricing scenarios in a deregulated electricity market(Texas A&M University, 2006-10-30) Afanador Delgado, CatalinaThe electricity pricing structure in Texas has changed after deregulation (January 2002). The Energy Systems Laboratory has served as a technical consultant on electricity purchases to several universities in the Texas A&M University System since 2001. In the fiscal year of 2006 Stephen F. Austin State University joined with the TAMU campuses and agencies, and there are now 183 accounts in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) North, Northeast, South, West, and Houston areas of Texas. From the 183 accounts, 9 Interval Data Recorder (IDR) accounts consume 92% of the total load. The objective of this research is to find the most economic price structure to purchase electricity for the Texas A&M System and Stephen F. Austin University by analyzing various pricing scenarios: the spot market, forward contracts, take or pay contracts and on/off season (tiered) contracts. The analysis was based on the 9 IDR accounts. The prices for the spot market were given by ERCOT and the other prices by Sempra. The energy charges were calculated every 15 minute using the real historical consumption of each facility and the aggregated load of all facilities. The result for the analysis was given for each institution separately, as well as for the aggregated load of all facilities. The results of the analysis showed that the tiered price was the most economical structure to purchase electricity for each individual university and for the total aggregated load of all 9 IDR accounts. From March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2006, purchasing electricity on the tiered price would have cost $13,810,560. The forward contract, that is, purchasing electricity on a fixed rate, was the next cheapest with an energy cost of $14,266,870 from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2006, 3% higher than purchasing electricity at the tiered price. The most expensive method to purchase electricity would have been the spot market. Its energy costs would have been approximately $18,171,610, 36% and 31% higher, respectively, than purchasing electricity at the tiered price and the fixed rate.Item Session 4B | OER Roundtable: How to Deal with a Legislative Mandate?(Texas Digital Library, 2022-05-26) Louis, Lisa; Ivie , DeeAnn; Davis, SabrinaTexas Digital Library’s OER Ambassadors will host an informal and informative roundtable discussion around implementing legislation such as TX SB 810 and TX HB 1027 on their campuses. Topics will include how to build your campus team and challenges and forecast barriers to implementation. A moderated open forum / airing of grievances / Q&A session will follow three brief presentations from academic librarians. This session will not be recorded but we will develop a community notes and resources document to share with attendees.Item Understanding Participation in Wildlife Conservation Programs on Private Lands(2010-01-14) Sorice, Michael G.One major lesson derived from the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) over the past 30 years is that direct regulation is not the only nor the optimal way to protect endangered species on working lands because of an undue burden imposed on private landowners. The role of a voluntary conservation program is to rearrange incentives so that society bears the cost rather than the landowner. Employing a survey research methodology, I used theories of reasoned action and random choice to explore landowners? stated preferences for conservation programs. I found landowners? stated interest in compensation programs to be moderate at best. For those willing to consider programs involving endangered species, associating land management requirements for species conservation with direct benefits to the landowner is important, but perhaps not as important as ensuring that the program provides adequate financial incentives, consideration of the term of the program, and a level of certainty regarding the landowner?s future obligations under the ESA. Landowners are not a homogenous group. I identified two classes of landowners according to preferences for program structure. One group was highly sensitive to program structure, aside from financial incentives, while the other was likely to participate if adequately compensated with financial and technical assistance. These differences related to opinions on endangered species protection and dependence on their land for income. Voluntary incentive programs increasingly are a popular tool to maintain and enhance conservation; however, these programs are only successful insofar as landowners choose to enroll. This research demonstrates that improving recovery efforts on private lands requires program administrators to have a more complete understanding of landowners? views on endangered species and conservation programs in general, as well as their motivations for owning and operating their land. By doing so, programs with broader appeal and greater efficacy can be designed and implemented.