Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to [email protected]. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    As a union electrician with a decade of experience, I'm excited about Austin Energy's partnership with Exceed Energy Inc. to pilot a 5-megawatt enhanced geothermal project. This initiative could position Austin as a national leader in geothermal energy while creating sustainable, well-paying jobs.
    Geothermal energy harnesses the earth's natural heat to generate clean electricity. Recent technological advances have made this ancient power source more accessible and efficient than ever. Unlike solar or wind, geothermal provides reliable 24/7 power without requiring fossil fuel backup. While natural gas prices fluctuate and face increasing regulations, geothermal costs are likely to decrease over time as the technology improves.
    Texas is uniquely positioned to lead in geothermal energy thanks to our existing oil and gas expertise. The drilling and well construction skills required for geothermal projects are similar to those used in the oil and gas industry, making for a natural transition of our workforce. We're already seeing success with Sage Geosystems' project in Christine, Texas, which will soon provide three megawatts of power to the grid.
    The upcoming Dec. 12 bond vote is crucial for funding Austin's geothermal project. This is more than just an energy initiative – it's an opportunity to create sustainable careers with skilled labor opportunities and training programs. As a municipal utility, Austin Energy could set a national example for how cities can invest in clean, reliable energy while supporting good local jobs.
    I urge the Austin City Council to raise awareness about this technology and ensure strong labor standards are part of the project's framework. With the right support, this initiative could demonstrate how geothermal energy can benefit both our environment and our economy while capitalizing on Texas' existing workforce expertise.

Dear Editor,
    To me the soul of Austin has already vanished, my own childhood block of Rainey Street is 100% gentrified with condos. Regrettably, most of the Texas Legislature is Republican and many of Austin's city officials and staff are not originally from Austin; they don't feel the old, authentic Austin deep in their hearts and soul. They tend to ignore the wishes and demands of the community, especially those of us who have been here for many generations.
    There is a great deal of ignorance about this city's history. In the 19th and first part of the 20th century, West Downtown was Mexican and Mexican American. But businessmen from the East Coast swept down here and bought most of the lots and established their own businesses. These carpetbaggers wiped out the many small Mexican businesses! Now, all of the many Mexican bars and stores on East Sixth Street are gone. For several years some of us have been working toward saving and preserving the old Palm School building at East Cesar Chavez and I-35, that is right across the street where a historic building was demolished for a new IHOP. The Palm building is not only significant historically but is also known for its Mexican culture and heritage. Considering that many of our icons in East Austin have been demolished and most of the original residents pushed out, the city has the moral obligation to allow us to use this site as a Mexican museum, archives, classrooms, etc.

Dear Editor,
    I am writing in response to "Austin Energy Proposes New Gas Generation as Part of 2035 Resource Plan Update," [Daily News, Dec. 9]. This alarming proposal demonstrates Austin Energy and the City Council's lack of commitment to meaningful climate solutions.
    While energy demand grows alongside our city, expanding fossil fuel infrastructure undermines the very goals of the 2035 Resource and Generation Plan. Cities across the country are adopting innovative strategies to reduce emissions, yet Austin lags behind. Rather than investing in outdated energy sources, we should explore community-owned electric grids and other equitable, renewable energy solutions that protect residents and beloved Texan ecosystems alike.
    As the article notes, Austin’s Eastside is especially vulnerable to pollution from fossil fuels. Burdening this community further is unjust and poses serious health risks to all Austinites. Increased air pollution threatens not only residents but also the outdoor activities and green spaces that define our city’s character.
    Austinites face a critical moment in our city’s history. The decisions made today will shape whether future generations inherit clean air, green spaces, and healthy families. I urge my fellow residents to submit public comments during the Council’s work session today to demand bold, comprehensive climate action.

Dear Editor,
    Just read Lina Fisher's piece on the Austin Water Forward plan update ["Council Updates Austin’s 100-Year Water Forward Plan," News, Dec. 6], which listed "implementing non-potable reuse" among the strategies to meet Austin's water supply needs over the next several decades. While that article focused on what might be termed crowd participation conservation, how much supply from reuse we can attain will indeed be a critical part of the overall strategy.
    My reading of the 2024 plan update is that in this arena, Austin Water has shown an astounding lack of ambition. Today I posted "Astounding in its lack of ambition" on the Waterblogue (waterblogue.com). I urge you to read the argument posed, that we have the opportunity to greatly increase the supply from wastewater reuse, and do this while saving money, by changing the infrastructure model, focusing more on project-scale and building-scale reuse systems. Instead of piping the wastewater "away," and only when it's passed through an expensive array of pipes and pumps, and issues from the treatment plant do we start to think of it as a resource. At which point, we have to build another set of pipes and pumps to get this water to where it can be used as a water supply. All very expensive, thus following that model, by Austin Water's own reckoning we would be reusing only about 12% of the total wastewater flow by 2080, after 55 years! While each project-scale system would likely attain 75-80% reuse, and building-scale systems could approach 100% reuse. So should we accept a plan that is astounding in its lack of ambition?