Climate and energy

From the press release:

20% WIND REPORT CARD: B OVERALL, TRANSMISSION LAGS AT C-
National Policy Commitment Urgently Needed to Ensure
Greater Use of Clean, Abundant Energy Source

Washington DC–The U.S. gets a solid “B” for its 2008 progress toward reaching 20% of electricity supply from wind energy by 2030, but could be “at the high-water mark” for wind without a strong and immediate national policy commitment to renewable energy, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today.

AWEA’s “20% Wind Report Card” follows up on the release of the 20% Wind by 2030 Technical Report by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in May 2008. Prepared by an in-house team of experts, some of whom worked on the DOE report, the report card examines progress in four key areas–Technology Development, Manufacturing, Siting, and Transmission & Integration.

“With Americans back to work after a long 4th of July weekend celebrating America’s independence, we think it’s an appropriate time to take a look at one of the key ingredients of energy independence: expanding our use of renewable energy,” explained AWEA Senior Vice President-Public Policy Rob Gramlich.

“The DOE report found that 20% wind energy is feasible and would carry with it a host of benefits for our economy, environment and energy security, including half a million jobs. While headway has been made, today could become a high-water mark unless Congress enacts a Renewable Electricity Standard with strong near-term targets.”

The AWEA Report Card gave a C- to the nation’s efforts on Transmission, with the other indicator areas graded as follows: Technology Development A-, Manufacturing B+, and Siting B. (The report card does not grade progress on national policies to advance wind power, as those were not examined in the DOE report.)

In 2008, the nation made great strides toward 20% wind, with wind accounting for 40% of the nation’s new generating capacity, the Report Card notes. In 2009, wind farm development is expected to slow sharply.

According to AWEA, key policy ingredients needed to put the U.S. back on track to reach 20% wind by 2030 include:

o A strong Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) with aggressive near-term targets in energy legislation now pending in Congress. “A strong RES is essential to give businesses the certainty they need to invest in factories in the U.S. and create new jobs,” Gramlich said. “There is an opportunity to reach 500,000 U.S. jobs related to the wind industry alone under a 20% scenario, but a commitment from manufacturers and wind companies to add jobs requires a commitment from the U.S. policymakers to domestic renewable energy.”

o Energy legislation that addresses top transmission issues—planning, paying for, and siting new power lines. Commented Gramlich, “New transmission is critical, not only to develop our abundant renewable energy resources, but to upgrade and improve the reliability of the existing transmission system.”

The full AWEA 20% Report Card is available at:
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/pdf/AWEA20%25ReportCard09.pdf

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Transmission – for renewables, or for coal power?

From NYTimes, by Noelle Straub of Greenwire:

Fourteen conservation groups and a Colorado county sued the federal government yesterday over 6,000 miles of electricity transmission corridors on Western public lands, saying they link to coal-burning power plants and not renewable-energy generators.

The lawsuit against the Interior, Agriculture and Energy departments filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California says the transmission corridors perpetuate the use of coal-fired power throughout the West and leave stranded or underserved many areas with renewable energy resources.

The groups include the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and San Miguel County, Colo.

The lawsuit charges that the agencies “created a sprawling, hopscotch network of 6,000 miles of rights-of-way” without considering environmental impacts, analyzing alternatives, weighing federal policies that support renewable energy, ensuring the corridors’ consistency with federal and local land-use plans and consulting other federal agencies or Western states and local governments.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs federal agencies to designate corridors for the development of electricity transmission and distribution facilities on federal public land in 11 Western states, and to perform any environmental reviews that may be required for them. As the proposal developed, many of the conservation groups criticized it during public meetings and through written comments, which they accuse the federal agencies of ignoring.

In January, just a week before the Bush administration left office, the Bureau of Land Management and the Agriculture Department signed a “record of decision” amending their respective land-use plans in the states to designate preferred areas, known as “West-wide Energy Corridors,” for expedited federal siting of electricity transmission lines, pipelines and other energy infrastructure.

The lawsuit says the agencies violated a host of laws, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land and Policy Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The 11 states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

A BLM spokesman said the agency cannot comment on any pending litigation.

Katie Renshaw, an Earthjustice attorney who helped lead the suit, said the groups are hoping the Obama administration will decide not to defend the corridors and to instead sit down and discuss a possible settlement. She said the administration’s and the groups’ goals are in sync.

“In order to develop solar and wind, you have to have transmission to connect that to the cities and the need,” Renshaw said. “It’s a really good opportunity, a good shift from old dirty energy to new clean energy.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has often charged the Bush administration with focusing on oil and gas permitting and ignoring renewable energies and has promised to shift that focus. His first secretarial order established a task force to help the department identify specific renewable energy zones on public lands. But he also expressed support for moving forward with the transmission corridors already identified by the department (E&ENews PM, March 11).

The other plaintiffs include Bark, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Oregon Natural Desert Association, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Western Resource Advocates and the Western Watersheds Project.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

One of his alternative sites is in KS.

From the Dallas News, by Elizabeth Souder:

T. Boone Pickens’ plan to build the world’s largest wind farm is off.

Instead, Pickens said he will build five or six smaller wind farms, in the Midwest and possibly Texas, though he hasn’t settled on locations.

Last year, Pickens announced that he would build a 1,000-megawatt wind farm in Pampa, Texas. The problem a lack of a transmission line to bring the juice to population centers, Pickens said in an interview last week.

“I don’t think the first place we build, though, is where we thought we would because we don’t have the transmission,” he said.

Remember that idea he had to build his own transmission line? “It was a little more complicated than we thought,” he said.

In May 2008, Pickens announced that his company, Mesa Power LP, would order 687 wind turbines, or 1,000 megawatts of capacity, from GE for about $2 billion. By 2014, he expected to expand the Panhandle wind farm to 4,000 megawatts.

That’s a massive amount of wind power. One nuclear power reactor is typically about 1,000 megawatts of capacity. Most wind farms offer only a few hundred megawatts.

Shortly after announcing the plan, Pickens ran into roadblocks. Natural gas prices took a dive, bringing electricity prices down with them, and making it difficult to finance a new wind farm.

“You had them standing in line to finance you when natural gas was $9″ per million British thermal units, he said. “Natural gas at $4 doesn’t have any people trying to finance you.”

But, he said, he’s lined up financing.

He couldn’t easily line up a transmission line.

The Public Utility Commission created a plan to build $5 billion in transmission lines to bring wind power from several areas of West Texas to North Texas and the Houston area. The lines will reach as far as the Panhandle but won’t follow a path that Mesa had suggested for the Pampa project.

Still, Pickens already ordered the initial round of wind turbines.

GE will start delivering them in the first quarter of 2011. Pickens has about 18 months to find a place to put them.

“I don’t have that big a garage to put them in, so I’ve got to start getting ready to use them,” he said.

Pickens said company officials are considering six sites, including places in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. He aims to build three or four wind farms with around 150 turbines each.

He said he still wants to expand to 4,000 megawatts, but he hasn’t placed that order yet.

Pickens also said he is rebuilding his three hedge funds after turning them into cash last year.

When the markets dropped, Pickens decided to allow his investors to take their money out of the funds early.

Before the markets declined, Pickens managed more than $4 billion in the funds. Now the funds hold about $1.5 billion.

Pickens is reinvesting the energy funds and said, “We got a good year going.”

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – saving energy at home saves you money, not just by reducing your utility bills – but now you can receive federal tax credits as well.

Federal Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency include:

Tax Credits for Consumers - Tax credits are available at 30% of the cost, up to $1500 in 2009 & 2010 (for existing homes only) for:

• Windows and Doors
• Insulation
• Roofs (Metal and Asphalt)
• HVAC
• Water Heaters (non-solar)
• Biomass Stoves

Tax credits are available at 30% of the cost, with no upper limit through 2016 (for existing homes & new construction) for:

• Geothermal Heat Pumps
• Solar Panels
• Solar Water Heaters
• Small Wind Energy Systems
• Fuel Cells

Tax credits are now available for home improvements:

• Placed in service from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010
• For taxpayer’s principal residence, EXCEPT for geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, solar panels, and small wind energy systems (where second homes and rentals qualify)
• $1,500 is the maximum total amount that can be claimed for all products placed in service in 2009 & 2010 for most home improvements, EXCEPT for geothermal heat pumps, solar water heaters, solar panels, fuel cells, and small wind energy systems which are not subject to this cap, and are in effect through 2016
• Have a Manufacturer Certification Statement to qualify (for record keeping, save your receipts and the Manufacturer Certification Statement)

Improvements made in 2009 will be claimed on your 2009 taxes (filed by April 15, 2010) — use IRS Tax Form 5695 (2009 version) — it will be available late 2009 or early 2010

Energy Star has a great website to help you figure out what kinds of energy efficiency measure qualify for tax credits. So whether you’re sealing the envelope by adding insulation, windows or doors or changing to a more energy efficienct geothermal heat pump – find out how to save energy and save yourself some money at the same time!

Also, the Kansas Energy Office does a great job of listing all of the Federal and State incentives for homes and small businesses - so check it out!

-Dorothy Barnett, climateandenergy.org

I get asked this a lot… is CEP’s Nancy Jackson related to the EPA’s Lisa Jackson?

Answer: No, not to our knowledge.

From the EPA:

Statement of Lisa P. Jackson Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / Hearing on Energy and Climate Legislation / Committee on Environment and Public Works / U.S. Senate

WASHINGTON – Chairman Boxer, Ranking Minority Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about new legislation to get America running on clean energy. Let me begin by commending you for starting Senate hearings on this, the second legislative day after the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Immediately after that historic vote on June 26, President Obama called upon the Senate to demonstrate the same commitment we saw in the House to building a clean-energy foundation for a strong American economy. I am grateful that this Committee has wasted no time in answering that call.

The House bill reflects the principles the President believes are essential for our nation’s energy future: decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, creating millions of new jobs in emerging clean-energy technologies, and reducing the pollution that is a danger to our children. I know there are a variety of proposals pending in the Senate that have the same goals, and I am looking forward to working with all the Committee members as you move forward on this effort.

Clean energy is to this decade and the next what the Space Race was to the 1950s and ‘60s, and America is behind. Governments in Asia and Europe are ahead of the United States in making aggressive investments in clean-energy technology. American businesses need strong incentives and investments now in order for this nation to lead the 21st Century global economy.

We are also coming late to the task of leading the world’s major greenhouse-gas emitters to reverse our collective emissions’ growth in time to avert catastrophic climactic changes that would severely harm America’s economy and national security within our children’s lifetimes.

The necessary shared effort will not begin in earnest unless and until the United States leads the charge.

The advantage of the kind of legislation the President has called for is that it ramps up investment in developing new clean-energy technologies while giving companies an effective incentive to use those technologies to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution. It does so without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

I do not mean to say that we can get something for nothing. But according to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the net cost to the average American household in 2020 would be less than 50 cents a day. For the wealthiest fifth of American households, the net cost would be less than 70 cents a day. The poorest fifth would actually see a net gain of more than ten cents a day. That is what your economists have reported to you.

People have pointed out that the per-household impact would not be uniform across the country – that the costs would be higher in a few states where people drive very long distances and rely almost exclusively on coal for electricity. Yet even if the cost borne by the average family in such a state were double the national average, it still would be just a dollar a day.

That figure does not account for the economic benefits of saving our children from living with increased drought, fire, pests, flooding, and disease. It does not account for the benefit of decreasing our dependency on foreign oil. Can anyone honestly say that the head of an American household would not spend a dollar a day to safeguard the wellbeing of his or her children, to reduce the amount of money that we send overseas for oil, to place American entrepreneurs back in the lead of the global marketplace, and to create new American jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced?

Labor unions support this kind of legislation because they know it will indeed create millions of high-paying American jobs that cannot be exported. Manufacturing companies support it because they know it will provide needed investment in research and development while creating markets for the American clean-energy technologies born from that investment.

Electric utilities support it because they know it will expand our use of reliable, domestic sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal – and, yes, safer nuclear power – and, yes, cleaner coal.

Consumer advocates support it because they know it will strengthen the long-term economic foundation for all Americans without imposing short-term economic hardship on any Americans.

And environmental groups support it because they know it is our best chance of preventing catastrophic harm to public health and our natural environment.

Of course, there are still interest groups out there opposing this effort. But I think the tide is turning against the defenders of the status quo, who want more of the same policies that made us dependent on foreign oil and that caused America to forfeit the lead in the burgeoning global competition to sell clean-energy technology. I think Americans want reform that harnesses the country’s can-do spirit. I think they want to fuel long-term economic recovery with a wise investment that sparks a clean-energy transformation in our economy and that protects our children and grandchildren.

Read the rest of this entry »

From the LATimes, by Jim Tankersley:

Reporting from Washington — President Obama’s landmark energy and global warming bill squeaked through the House only after the White House made dozens of concessions to coal, manufacturing and other interests.

Now, as the battle moves to the Senate, Obama faces demands for even more concessions — including pressure to open the nation’s coastlines to offshore oil and gas drilling.

The Senate also will take up a series of controversial issues that were glossed over or omitted from the House legislation. Among them: giving the government sweeping powers to approve thousands of miles of new transmission lines to carry electric power to coastal cities from wind turbines in the upper Midwest and solar power generators in the Southwest, regardless of local objections.

Aware of the challenge, Obama repeatedly has called attention to the House achievement and urged the Senate to keep up the momentum.

“There are going to be a series of tough negotiations,” he said last week. “But I think the ability of the House to move forward is going to be a prod for the Senate toward action.”

Even so, with Republicans forming a near-solid phalanx of opposition and many Democrats concerned about the effects of specific sections of the bill on their constituents, the prospect is for a long, slow legislative process.

Senate leaders say they will benefit from lessons learned from the way House leaders built their majority. Chief among them: the need to cut specific deals to ease the effects of new emissions restrictions — which could translate into higher costs for businesses and rising prices for consumers — in particular parts of the country.

“We need to absolutely work this bill one on one,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee that is drafting emissions limits, “because everybody’s got different passions about it, different feelings about it, different hopes about it, different fears about it.”

Making those deals is harder in the Senate than in the House, some analysts say.

“In the House, you can move blocks of votes,” said Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress who works on global warming issues. “In the Senate, it’s hand-to-hand combat.”

Although a climate bill is expected to be hundreds of pages long, it will boil down to an attempt to start weaning the U.S. economy from dependence on fossil fuels.

The centerpiece is the so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set limits on carbon dioxide and other emissions that scientists say are a major factor in global warming. The allowed level of such emissions would decline over time. And major polluters, such as power plants and factories, would be required to obtain permits to cover their emissions as a spur to reducing pollution.

The original idea was that the government would sell the permits, but the House voted to give out many of them free to ease the economic effects.

The Senate bill also is likely to include a variety of provisions designed to encourage development of energy sources, including wind and solar power. Those could include financial and legal provisions to speed construction of transmission lines to move power from the remote deserts and plains — where it’s easily produced — to coastal cities where it’s needed.

The quest for new energy sources is expected to reopen the politically explosive issue of offshore drilling.

Looming over all the provisions is cost — a focal point of Republican attacks.

“The public is especially wary of passing this during a major recession, and public skepticism is growing about the man-made climate fears,” said Marc Morano, editor of the global-warming-skeptic website ClimateDepot.com.

Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them control 60 Senate seats. But more than a dozen have expressed concern over costs. They include Democrats from industry-heavy Ohio and Michigan, coal-dependent Indiana and oil-rich Louisiana.

Only a few Republicans appear open to emissions limits, notably two moderates from Maine — Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe — and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who championed emissions limits in his presidential campaign (though he has expressed reservations about the House bill).

The Senate bill will emerge from several committees — including the finance, foreign relations, commerce and agriculture committees — with dramatically different memberships and priorities.

The energy committee already has approved its chunk with wide bipartisan support. It includes a requirement to produce more electricity from renewable sources, but also expands drilling — a possible deal-breaker for environmentalists.

Boxer’s committee will center its work on cap and trade. The House bill would cut U.S. emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050. Environmentalists expect Boxer, who said she was “looking closely” at those limits, to strengthen them.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

From the Denver Business Journal:

A new wind-power project by Duke Energy Corp. on Colorado’s Eastern Plains will supply electricity to customers of Tri-State Generation and Transmission, the state’s second-largest power supplier.

The wind farm is to be build by Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK), with power supplied to Westminster-based Tri-State under a 20-year power-purchase agreement, Duke said.

Duke said it will develop the 51-megawatt Kit Carson Windpower Project on 6,000 acres near Burlington under a long-term lease. The project will be the company’s first in Colorado and fourth in the region.

The project is expected to start commercial operation by the end of 2010.

The Kit Carson project will consist of 34 GE wind turbines, each capable of generating 1.5 MW of electricity, Duke said.

“We’re proud to be partnering with Duke Energy on our first utility-scale wind power project,” said Ken Anderson, Tri-State executive VP and general manager, said in a statement released by Duke Monday. “The project will further diversify our resource mix, bring value to our member cooperatives, and support jobs and investment in the rural areas our members serve.”

Tri-State announced April 10 it would shift its focus from building more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, renewable energy and efficiency.

It was a major change of policy for Tri-State, which supplies wholesale power to 18 electric-distribution cooperatives in Colorado and 26 in Wyoming, New Mexico and Nebraska. The utility’s two-year-old resource plan had called for the construction of 2,100 megawatts of new coal-fired power plants by 2012.

Critics had blamed nonprofit Tri-State for not embracing alternative energy in its future plans, the way investor-owned utility Xcel Energy has.

Ritter supported Tri-State’s policy change, telling Tri-State’s board: “You deserve a lot of credit for making efficiency, renewables and new technology investments a high priority as you look for new and better ways to provide affordable and reliable electricity to your rural customer-owners.”

Tri-State has said it also plans to develop a 30-megawatt, 500,000-panel solar photovoltaic power plant in northeastern New Mexico by late 2010.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

It’s worth reminding Kansans (although many of them have no need of this reminder) -recall, a major precipitation gradient splits our state right down the middle. In the eastern part, rainfall can reach over 40 inches per year. In some parts of the western half, you might get as low as seven inches.

My guess is that what the following article defines as the “Midwest” really only covers the traditionally wet eastern half of KS. The western half of the state lays in the “West.”

From the Star, by Scott Canon:

Many of the world’s great rivers are becoming less so.

Yet in the Midwest, the wet is getting wetter.

So says a study that finds global climate change shifting weather and water patterns around the planet.

“In terms of water, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

And, he said, the poverty of precipitation is more dramatic than the wealth of water around the world.

He’s a lead author of a study that looked at the flow of water in 925 rivers over 50 years.

The researchers found significant shifts in about a third of the large waterways, with most seeing less rainfall in their basins and consequently less water washed out to sea.

The drop-off in all the river water dumped into the Pacific Ocean between 1948 and 2004 nearly equals the amount that was flowing from the mouth of the Mississippi River.

But in the giant basin that feeds the Missouri, Ohio and Mississippi rivers, rainfall increased over the 50-year period — even as the region saw greater swings from drought to flood and drought again.

While the researchers accounted for various human diversion of water for city and farm use — the sort of uses that shrink the Colorado River from a whitewater gusher in the Grand Canyon to a mere trickle by the time it reaches the U.S.-Mexican border — climate mattered more.

“Human activities on yearly stream flow are likely small,” the researchers wrote, “compared with that of climate variations” created by the buildup of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.

With the atmosphere warming and able to hold more evaporated water — on average 4 percent more today over the world’s oceans than in 1970 — that means much of the world’s more arid regions are becoming drier.

The study’s authors say the trend could set up increased competition to tap into the world’s lakes and rivers.

The study published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate noted rivers that serve large and fast-growing populations — such as the Colorado River in the southwest United States — are seeing declines.

The study said that is “in sharp contrast to the perceived but unjustified notion” that the amount of water a river ultimately spills into an ocean should rise with warmer temperatures. Instead, the global warming trend keeps more evaporated water vapor suspended in the atmosphere.

There was one dramatic exception. In the Arctic, the researchers found “an earlier onset of spring … induces earlier snowmelt and associated peak stream flow in the western United States and New England and earlier breakup of river ice in Russian Arctic rivers and many Canadian rivers.”

The amount of fresh water poured into the Pacific Ocean fell 6 percent during the period measured by the study.

In the Atlantic, Amazon River declines were offset by high flows in the Mississippi and South America’s Parana River.

Meanwhile the Northwest’s Columbia River captured about 14 percent less water because of both dropping precipitation and growing municipal and agricultural use.

The Missouri River is coming out of a nine-year drought, with the mountain snowpack that feeds its headwaters measuring 27 percent above normal this year. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says records dating back a century show no significant shift in runoff in the basin.

“If it’s increasing,” said the corps’ Paul Johnston, “it’s not enough extra to be noticed.”

Even if the region saw slightly more precipitation, disputes are not likely to dry up between upstream Missouri River states that want to keep their reservoirs filled for recreation and downstream states that need water to float barges and supply cities.

“There will still be plenty to fight about,” said Richard Opper, the former executive director of the Missouri River Basin Association. “It’s not just a question of total rainfall. What you really need is snowpack, and the long-term trend is that’s diminishing. Snowpack can be doled out over the course of the summer by controlling the dams. Rain is quick and doesn’t necessarily come where and when you need it.”

Still, water is not nearly as scarce in the Midwest as in the West. Las Vegas is so thirsty that it is contemplating building desalination plants for Southern California in return for the right to draw more from the Colorado River.

Those sorts of developing water crises might make the Midwest more attractive to development.

“Some areas are beginning to see real limits,” said Heather Cooley, a researcher at the Oakland, Calif.-based Pacific Institute. “I don’t think you’re going to see population shifts right away, but that might be a long-term consequence.”

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

From the Eagle, by Rhonda Holman:

Gov. Mark Parkinson already got what he wanted out of his deal to allow a new coal-fired power plant near Holcomb. Things are less certain for those on the other side of the handshake — Hays- based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and its champions in the Legislature.

By personally engineering the agreement for a coal plant, the new Democratic governor ended a two-year standoff with the GOP-led Legislature and won passage of clean-energy initiatives that newly position Kansas for the wind power boom, such as net-metering and a renewable portfolio standard.

That achievement stands.

But there are reasons to wonder whether the deal will deliver a coal plant.

The latest comes from President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, which decided Wednesday that Sunflower’s plans had changed so much it must reapply for a state permit. (Kansas has the authority to issue such permits, but the EPA is responsible for ensuring the state complies with the Clean Air Act in the process.)

The EPA’s decision makes sense. In February 2006, Sunflower sought approval of an air-quality permit for three generating units totaling 2,100 megawatts. The plan was scaled back to two plants by the time Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby denied the permit in October 2007, citing carbon emissions. The new proposal calls for one 895-megawatt unit.

There also are three years’ worth of new technology and legal rulings to consider. For example, EPA wants Sunflower to evaluate whether to use a cleaner-burning technology at the plant.

The new opportunity for public input should satisfy the Sierra Club and Earthjustice, which asked Bremby last week for new hearings on the plant.

Among the questions going forward is how much it will matter that the governor agreed to controversial language stripping KDHE of its power to deny an air permit for future coal plants based on concerns about carbon emissions.

What might seem a sure thing for Sunflower is subject to federal standards, which are expected to change quickly under the Obama administration. It’s also unclear what kind of impact the House-passed energy bill, should it clear the Senate, might have on such a proposal. Some environmentalists have complained that the bill, in order to attract votes from coal-state Democrats, would give utilities a financial incentive to continue burning coal and restrict legal efforts to block new plants.

And even before the economy fell apart, some banks and other lending entities, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service, were balking at financing new coal-fired plants.

A Sunflower spokeswoman suggested the EPA’s decision was expected, and said the company planned to submit more information to KDHE this fall.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Still, starting over at KDHE could take another 18 months, with no guarantee of success for Sunflower at the end.

From the Wichita Eagle, by Dan Voorhees:

Behind every graceful wind farm generating power stands the decidedly less-glamorous high-voltage lines transporting it.

The two go hand in hand. Without a more robust electrical grid, wind-driven energy in America won’t happen, say experts. For Kansas and other states of the windy, sparsely populated High Plains, it means utilities will spend billions of dollars to build high-voltage lines.

Last month, Prairie Wind Transmission and ITC Great Plains agreed to split a project to build a 200-mile-long 765-kilovolt line that links western Kansas with Wichita and lines from Nebraska and Oklahoma. The two competed against each other before agreeing to each take half of the project after the state strongly encouraged them to reach a compromise.

Prairie Wind is a partnership of Westar Energy and Electric Transmission America — a joint venture of subsidiaries of American Electric Power and MidAmerican Energy Holdings. ITC Great Plains of Topeka is a subsidiary of ITC Holdings, which is based in Michigan.

The lines must first get approval from the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Southwest Power Pool, before they are built. The Southwest Power Pool is a federally sponsored cooperative of more than 50 utilities in nine states that regulates the operation of the grid.

It will take four to 10 years to get the lines into operation, said Carl Huslig, president of ITC Great Plains.

The 765-kilovolt lines are the largest capacity lines built in the country. They carry great loads of power a long way with relatively little loss, say the utilities. Other utilities are seeking to construct such lines in order to reinforce the nation’s power grid and facilitate alternative energy.

The western Kansas power lines would also carry energy generated by the proposed 895-megawatt Sunflower Electric coal plant near Holcomb.

The project is necessary to develop the state’s wind potential, say the utilities.

“There is not really the capability left in the system to develop much more wind in western Kansas,” said Kelly Harrison, president of Prairie Winds and Westar’s vice president for transmission operations.

Why new lines>

The key things to know about wind power are these:

* To cut carbon emissions, the amount of wind energy supplied by utilities all over the country is likely to grow dramatically over the next decade.

* The greatest amount of wind is on the High Plains.

* It can’t be stored and has to be consumed immediately. Because wind generation dies when the wind dies, utilities typically estimate that only 20 percent of their power demand can be supplied by wind.

Kansas has just entered the top 10 for wind generation, with slightly more than 1,000 megawatts of capacity, but it has the potential to be third with thousands more megawatts, according to studies.

The untapped potential, plus the political demand for up to 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply to be renewable, is expected to lead to new wind farms in western Kansas and the western sides of other Plains states over the next decade. That growth, however, has been temporarily shut off by the credit crunch.

Our newest export>

Much of that power will be exported out of Kansas to other states in the region. The area covered by the Southwest Power Pool has the potential for more than 70,000 megawatts of wind potential, Huslig said.

“We can’t consume it, so we’d have to export it to other parts of the country,” he said. The power would go to the other utilities of the Southwest Power Pool, and beyond.

The electricity will displace existing electricity generated in those markets and send it farther east. Ultimately, the wind power produced in western Kansas will be credited with reducing carbon emissions on the East Coast.

The cost of the line is $600 million to $800 million, but Harrison and Huslig said they will seek approval to spread the cost over the ratepayers of the entire Southwest Power Pool, rather than just those in Kansas. That includes Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and parts of Missouri, Mississippi, Texas and New Mexico.

Harrison said that Westar ratepayers would be liable for 12 percent of the cost.

The benefit for Kansas ratepayers is that generating and then transferring the excess wind energy out of the Southwest Power Pool is almost like exporting any other product. The power will be sought by other regions who have to meet mandated minimums for alternative energy, said Huslig.

Those sales would serve to reduce rates for Kansas ratepayers.

So, Huslig said, Kansas could see more wind farms, more wind farm manufacturing plants and lower rates in the future.

But it depends on getting the power lines, say the utilities.

“Kansas will not be able to develop its wind potential without this, period,” Harrison said.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Go forth (ha) and play safely with fireworks, and encourage renewables and energy efficiency :) happy 4th of July from the staff at CEP!

We will be back hard at work on Monday July 6, bringing you the climate and energy news that you crave.

An editorial from the High Plains Journal, by Ken Root:

The climate change front moved through a couple of years ago. We all felt it, as even Republican presidential candidate John McCain acknowledged that action had to be taken to alleviate man’s impact on our planet. The legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week was 20 years in coming and yet many in agriculture and industry are still in denial. The final outcome of action by Congress is still in question but the focus is clear and the change is real: We are going to reduce carbon emissions in the United States.

Those who played this game to maintain the status quo have lost. The steady insistence of the environmentally conscious moved the pieces very skillfully. The result, to date, is that industry is boxed in with no escape strategy visible. It will either be the EPA enforcing the clean air act, under its current authorization, or Congress passing laws to accomplish the same purpose.

We are an awakening species. When we launched the first satellites to view the earth, we saw it from a vantage point man had never witnessed. In 50 years of observation of ourselves, we have determined our actions are harming our home. In 20 years of debate, we have concluded that our factories and farming practices are a hazard to the long-term health of the planet. Whether this is right and whether our reaction will achieve the desired outcome is irrelevant. We are going to make fundamental changes to address global warming.

The reactionary debate in the House of Representatives showed the division that exists on the subject, with some looking at it philosophically and others examining only the economic impact. It appears that we will all pay for this change and that regulation will reach down to each individual farm and home. The challenge for business and industry is to find a way to continue to produce under the new requirements.

Actually, agriculture is more up to the task of working the system than smokestack industries. Farmers have been farming the government since the 1930s. In the Cap-and-Trade scenario, farmers have to expand practices that pay them and reduce practices that cost carbon credits. Early adopters of conservation practices showed how earth-friendly farming can be accomplished in a sustainable fashion. For those who raise livestock and grow crops in a traditional fashion, this is not a time to hole up and wait for the regulators to come to you. It is a time to inventory your resources and be ready to lead with your strongest suit.

We may not be able to project how much we’ll lower the earth’s temperature in 100 years, but we should be able to estimate the cost to produce grain-fed beef, pork or dairy under the new programs. If you get an exemption for five years, you at least know the deadline for compliance. Keep in mind you always have the option to forfeit and do something else. Harsh as this may seem, it is a great scenario for the young and innovative to step into an industry that has lived on its equity and incumbency for too long.

As we feel the pain, or see the gain, you can bet we will impose our change on the rest of the world. The Kyoto protocol of the 1990s will probably be the starting place. Here’s the capsule view:

As of January 2009, 183 parties have ratified the protocol, which was initially adopted for use on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and which entered into force on 16 February 2005. Under Kyoto, industrialized countries agreed to reduce their collective Green House Gas emissions by 5.2 percent compared to the year 1990. National limitations range from 8 percent reductions for the European Union and some others, to 7 percent for the United States, 6 percent for Japan, and 0 percent for Russia.

We may change our buying practices so China and India have to adopt clean coal technology to maintain access to the U.S. market. Our demeanor in world trade won’t change in the new carbon age. Thanks to the financial crisis, we have trashed two of our major car manufacturers; so, we soon have little loyalty to vehicle species. The one that gets the greatest mileage at the lowest cost under the green umbrella will win. The restrictions on trucks and tractors will be just as unforgiving.

You can read in political or social agendas and label individuals and groups who embrace change to address global warming. It is counterproductive to do so. The battle has been lost. The question now is how business and industry adapts to meet regulatory requirements while making a profit. It is the ultimate exercise in capitalism, as some will fail and others will rise to the challenge and gloriously succeed. We always back a winner and discard a loser. The new game is on.

Editor’s Note: This is Ken Root’s 35th year as an agricultural reporter. He grew up on a small farm in central Oklahoma and started his career as a vocational agriculture teacher. He worked in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri as a broadcaster and was the original host of AgriTalk. He has also been the executive director of the National AgriChemical Retailers Association in Washington, D.C. and the National Association of Farm Broadcasters in Kansas City. Ken is now the lead farm broadcaster at WHO and WMT Radio based in Des Moines, Iowa. He has been a columnist for HPJ and Midwest Ag Journal for eight years.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

NRDC’s Switchboard blog picked up on a recent study put out by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. From the study -

ACES Puts World on Course to Avoid the Worst Impacts of Global Warming

Scientists at Duke University have made an analysis of how the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) will affect global emissions of heat-trapping gases and global temperatures, given reasonable assumptions about how U.S. leadership will influence policies adopted by other major countries. They conclude that ACES can help drive a global policy that would stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million and limit global temperatures increases to less than 2 degrees above 1990 levels.

The analysis (pdf) is found here.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

From NAWindpower:

ITC Holdings Corp., an independent electricity transmission company based in Novi, Mich., has raised concerns about the lack of comprehensive electricity transmission policy reforms included in the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The company also praised the Senate on its proposal addressing how to plan, build and pay for transmission in the U.S.

ITC commended efforts by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Jay Inslee, D- Wash., to expand the transmission title of the legislation, but the outcome was a very limited proposal that is less helpful than its Senate counterpart, according to the company.

“Chairman Waxman and Rep. Inslee clearly appreciate the critical role transmission plays in facilitating the achievement of the energy policy goals and objectives of the legislation, including the development of renewable, emissions-free resources,” says Joseph L. Welch, chairman, president and CEO of ITC. “Unfortunately, they were unable, in the limited time available, to craft the needed provisions to be included in the bill.”

The House bill does not address the issue of how needed transmission will be paid for, Welch adds. While it has provisions related to planning, the measure essentially only serves to codify the disjointed processes that exist today.

Welch goes on to say that the House bill attempts to address transmission siting by giving the federal government the ability to step in if states do not site facilities. But the new provision only applies to the Western Interconnection. Superior, high-quality wind resources are abundant within the Eastern Interconnection.

Welch pointed out that under the current system of balkanized regulatory oversight, it is difficult to develop and implement strategically planned, cross-regional transmission projects.

From the LJWorld, by Scott Rothschild:

Topeka — The federal EPA has essentially told the state and Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to start over in considering a permit to build a coal-burning power plant in southwest Kansas.

Sunflower Electric must submit applications for the 895-megawatt plant, and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment must conduct a comprehensive review of the proposal and open up the process for public comment. Such a process can typically take up to 18 months.

The requirements were outlined in a letter sent Wednesday from EPA Regional Administrator William Rice to Gov. Mark Parkinson, KDHE and Sunflower.

“The redesign of this new unit, as well as public input on the new project, will need to be considered in determining the form and content of any final permit,” Rice said.

The EPA statement was the latest twist in an issue that has consumed much of Kansas politics over the past several years.

In 2007, KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby denied Sunflower’s permit to build two 700-megawatt coal-fired plants, citing concerns about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on Kansans’ health and on climate change.

Former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius stood by the decision, vetoing several bills that would have required Bremby to issue the permits. Once Sebelius stepped down to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, her lieutenant governor — Mark Parkinson — became governor.

Shortly after taking office, Parkinson negotiated a deal with Sunflower to allow construction of an 895-megawatt plant if the Legislature adopted a measure aimed at increasing renewable energy. The Legislature did just that.

Sunflower submitted a revised permit, but the EPA indicated more information was needed.

Since Sunflower filed its original application in 2006, much has changed in regulating air pollution and the project itself has gone through enough transformations to require a comprehensive analysis of the proposal, EPA said.

“Consistent with the approved regulations, KDHE must provide opportunity for a full 30-day public notice and comment period, making the results of KDHE’s analysis of the new project available for public review,” Rice said.

Last month, Earthjustice and Sierra Club called on the state to require a new permit process for the proposed plant, which would include public hearings.

The groups issued a statement praising EPA’s decision. “EPA is correct to require a new permitting process because this will bring out into the light of day the danger posed by this dirty coal plant which the governor and the coal power company sought to keep from the public,” said Amanda Goodin of Earthjustice.

But Parkinson’s office said he was OK with the EPA requirements.

Parkinson spokeswoman Beth Martino said the deal the governor made with Sunflower was not meant to circumvent the regulatory process.

“The governor has always known that the permit would have to conform to the Clean Air Act, and the standards in the permitting process,” Martino said. “He supports that process and would defer to the agencies that are responsible,” she said.

A spokesman for Sunflower could not be reached for comment.

From Solve Climate, by David Sassoon:

Six days after succeeding Kathleen Sebelius as governor of Kansas, Mark Parkinson announced a deal with Sunflower Electric Corp. that would allow construction of an 895 MW coal-fired power plant.

The surprise deal seemed like the end of a long, drawn-out battle, with the coal industry outlasting the steady opposition and multiple vetoes from the former governor, who left the unresolved matter behind when she became the U.S. health secretary.

But it now looks like the battle might not be over after all and that Gov. Parkinson’s back room deal might unravel.

A decision is imminent from the EPA on what Sunflower needs to do to secure a permit to finally build its power plant, and the expected verdict is stark: start over.

State and federal officials say that Sunflower executives met with the governor and EPA representatives from both the regional and national offices to discuss the permit application back on May 28. All parties were represented by legal counsel. Another meeting is planned for today.

At the private meeting in May, EPA told Sunflower that the company would have to submit a new permit application, provide refreshed technical analysis on whether its plans meet the best available technology, and hold new public hearings before EPA could give it the green light to break ground, the officials said.

Failure to go through this process, which could easily take 18 months, would likely be a direct violation of the Clean Air Act.

“We can give states implementation authority under the Clean Air Act, and Kansas has indeed opted into the process,” said David Bryan, a spokesman for EPA Region 7, which includes Kansas. “But EPA still maintains review authority over permit decisions, and as a result, we’ve been in discussions on the issue with all parties.”

Sunflower originally applied for a permit to build three 700 MW coal plants back in 2006. Soon afterward, the company amended that application, cutting out one of the three coal plants. Under the deal with the new governor, Sunflower now wants a permit to build one 895 MW coal plant, and the company’s lawyers are arguing that they should be allowed to file another amended permit application, instead of starting over.

But the turbine for this latest single plant is structurally different from those in the previous plants Sunflower wanted to build, and it would require modification to the stack height of the plant. In addition, it has been three years since the company performed a required BACT (Best Available Control Technology) analysis, and on May 28, the EPA told Sunflower it would have to refresh that analysis.

“The Holcomb plant has really changed over that time,” Bryan said. “We believe they need a new permit. It’s procedural in nature more than anything else.”

EPA confirmed that another meeting is scheduled for today with all parties to hash out the details. If the talks are conclusive, an official announcement could be forthcoming.

Sunflower had sent a revised permit application to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, prompting consultation with the EPA regional office. A KDHE spokesperson said that the application was incomplete and that a full revised permit application was not expected until the end of the year. If EPA requires the company to start over, it could take even longer for Sunflower to submit its paperwork.

Earlier this week, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club sent a letter to KDHE calling for a new process for permitting the proposed coal plant. In a press release, the organizations wrote:

Earthjustice and Sierra Club remind the state that more than three years has passed since Sunflower Electric submitted an application for a different coal plant in 2006. The law requires Sunflower Electric to submit a new permit application with updated environmental analyses for the newly proposed power plant.

The permit application has been discussed at all levels of the EPA. Once a permit is issued, it provides a property right, which means that once a plant gets built, it is almost impossible to shut it down.

“Building a massive, new polluting coal facility will have serious long-term consequences for Kansas, and the public’s voice should be heard on such an important matter,” said Stephanie Cole of the Kansas Sierra Club.

The case is sure to attract national attention, especially with the progress of a climate and energy bill through the U.S. House last week. The bill would set performance standards for coal plants initially permitted after Jan. 1, 2009, and that would include the proposed Sunflower plant. If the federal bill passes through the Senate and gets signed into law, by 2025 the plant would have to reduce its emissions by 50 percent. It would add a further large expense that would have to be passed on to Kansas ratepayers.

Local advocates of clean energy solutions say the plant is not needed in Kansas. Most of the power from the plant is slated to flow out of state to customers in Colorado and Texas.

The Sunflower project first made national news in 2007 when KDHE Secretary Roderick L. Bremby, denied the permit application. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency, which gave EPA authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

“I believe it would be irresponsible,” Bremby said at the time, “to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing.”

Over 15,000 Kansans in 30 congregations are now participating in Kansas Interfaith Power and Light-  working to be good stewards of our energy use – through energy conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy.

Congregations across the state are doing energy audits, changing out light bulbs to CFLs, switching appliances to Energy Star, and even installing solar panels!  Check out the success stories on our new website.

Check out this interactive Google map for a Kansas IPL congregation near you!

Kansas Interfaith Power and Light Member Congregations

Not a member yet? Read the Kansas IPL congregational covenant and sign on to this exciting effort!

-Eileen Horn, climateandenergy.org

We published the first round of notes from the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority (KETA) meeting yesterday – the briefing by SPP.

It occurred to me, I never mentioned the general atmosphere of the meeting – it’s really nice to have the ITC/ Westar transmission line at least partially settled, because as politics goes, it was a very amiable gathering.

Also, it looked to me as if KETA members were planning how to get on with the next steps for transmission in Kansas. The Extra High Voltage (EHV) picture is moving, albeit slowly, and those big projects (like Spearville to Knoll to Axtell, and Spearville to Wichita – the “V” plan) are progressing about as fast as transmission is able to.

Both KETA and the KCC are keeping eyes on that progress. However, the big lines are only part of transmission planning. No use having a highway without enough entrance ramps, is there?

KETA is planning on revisiting its business plan soon, and likely they will consider how to get lower high voltage lines – maybe 230-115 kV, maybe lower – where they need to be, for Kansans to have better access to the big lines.

ITC Great Plains briefing on the KETA line

One transmission line can have several different names, which I know can make it confusing for readers. Just to help out – the KETA line, the Spearville to Knoll to Axtell line, the ITC/ KETA line – this all refers to the same line. The actual transmission owners are Sunflower Electric and Midwest Energy. ITC Great Plains is building the line. KETA commissioned the 2007 study that said this line will be of huge economic benefit to Kansas.

SPP recently approved the KETA line as part of its balanced portfolio project, at 345kV. The cost allocation will be paid for regionally, not borne solely by the ratepayers of Sunflower and Midwest.

Phase I of KETA line

ITC has Phase I of the line – Spearville to Knoll – underway. They held open meetings in the affected communities, got Black and Veatch to help them plan various routes, held public and evidentiary hearings.

As of June 24, the KCC staff (not the Commissioners, their order comes last) had found that Phase I of the KETA line was necessary and reasonable. It will cost around $90 million, the benefits will outweigh the costs, it will provide transmission for over 5,000 megawatts (MW) in wind interconnection requests (not all of those will connect, of course), and it will relieve transmission congestion in the existing system.

As a result of the public hearings, six different route changes were proposed. Most of them significantly increased the cost of the line (right turns – very expensive for transmission lines), and/or affected a large number of additional landowners. ITC accepted, and the KCC staff accepted, one line major line alteration out of those six. The route was also found to go thru two prairie chicken sites, and ITC is working on mitigation with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Energy auditor jobs available – read on. From the press release:

Topeka, KS- The State Energy Office (SEO) today announced partnerships with three institutions—Kansas Building Science Institute in Manhattan, Metropolitan Energy Center in Kansas City, and Neosho County Community College in Chanute—to provide training for all energy auditors qualified to work in a new program, funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

“I am excited to announce our partnership with these three institutions,” said Thomas Wright, Chairman of the Kansas Corporation Commission. “The training of new energy auditors will assist in the creation of green jobs and in the improvement of energy efficiency in Kansas.”

The State Energy Office is anticipating an increased demand for energy auditors as it prepares to launch a new revolving loan program to improve the energy efficiency of Kansas homes and small businesses. All projects financed through the Efficiency Kansas loan program must be based on energy audits conducted by qualified auditors.

“Energy auditors are critical to improving the energy efficiency of a home and there simply aren’t enough in the current marketplace to meet the demand,” Wright said. “The energy auditor training will provide individuals with the opportunity to enter a growing field or expand their current business.”

To assist Kansans who wish to become energy auditors, the State Energy Office will use ARRA funds to provide 100 scholarships to cover the full cost of training at one of the approved training institutions. To be eligible, scholarship recipients must be 18 years or older, a resident of Kansas, and knowledgeable in construction, remodeling, and/or HVAC.

The comprehensive training programs will incorporate the best practices of energy auditing, including the ability to identify energy-savings opportunities, recommend design options, and oversee the implementation of an energy conservation plan. Individuals who complete one of the training programs at any of the three partner institutions will be eligible to participate in the new energy efficiency program as qualified auditors.

Metropolitan Energy Center and Neosho County Community College were also awarded competitive grants in the amount of $50,000 each, to aid the institutions in upgrading their facilities, hiring new staff, and expanding their operations.

For more information about auditor training or to apply for a scholarship visit: http://kcc.ks.gov/energy/arra.htm or call 785-271-3185.