Climate and energy

… CEP staff is taking one of our few yearly blog breaks! Don’t worry. There will still be plenty of energy drama and tension when we return to posting in a couple of weeks or so. Think of it as your favorite soap going into re-runs for a short while.

Everybody stay cool out there – oof.

And during the extended comment period, the entire draft application is up for review.

Check back at that link – details to follow. You will also be able to track the details of the second comment period at gpace.org.

The hearing in Overland Park yesterday was quite interesting. I know we’ve all been here before, but this time things do seem a little different, at least to me. The points of the discussion have shifted, and wow, the information is a million times more solid than it first was. Not that it’s perfect, but what is.

This round of hearings felt more like an energy conversation. A difficult one, true, that part has NOT changed. There is no clear solution here, and there are some pretty big problems. But there are also many engaged people, and at least there is some sort of exchange and cross-pollination happening, especially between the public, regulators, labor, and the utilities.

Ie, the talking points have evolved.

There were also a few parties who needed to catch up on that, BTW.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Some problems with Sunflower’s permit application were discovered, and the public comment period was extended 45 days (at least – perhaps. Check back for details). But the hearings this week are still on.

From the LJWorld, by Scott Rothschild:

Topeka — Environmentalists want more time for the public to comment on a proposed 895-megawatt coal-fired electric power plant proposed for southwest Kansas.

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that represents the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said not enough information about the plant’s impact on air quality has been released yet.

And it said “recent advances in pollution control technology and changes in the federal regulations governing air pollution must also be considered in this permitting process.”

The period for written public comment on the proposal started July 1 and is set to expire Aug. 15. Earthjustice has requested a 60-day extension.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment may decide this week whether to grant an extension, officials said.

The project’s developers, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., said it would leave the decision up to KDHE.

There has already been one change in the public comment period.

Last week, KDHE said that meteorological data that Sunflower Electric Power Corp. used in air pollution dispersion modeling did not adjust for differences in time zones.

KDHE said it will take approximately 30 days to receive the revised information. After that data is reviewed, KDHE will issue an additional public comment period and hold an additional public hearing. But there has been no word on when that will be yet.

Meanwhile, there will be three public hearings this week on the project, which has been the focus of a heated political battle for three years.

In 2007, Sunflower Electric and its partners had proposed two 700-megawatt plants near Holcomb. Under the proposal, most of the power would go to out-of-state customers.

But KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby shocked the utility industry by denying the permit based on concerns about the health and environmental impact of climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions from the plant.

Supporters of the project in the Kansas Legislature tried to overturn Bremby, but they were blocked by then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

However, when Sebelius left her job in 2009 to join President Barack Obama’s Cabinet, the second political shock was delivered when incoming Gov. Mark Parkinson signed a deal that would allow Sunflower to build one 895-megawatt plant.

Please join Sierra Club & GPACE for a rally right before the Overland Park coal plant hearing on Monday! Speaking will be Bruce Nilles, recently named “Big Coal’s Worst Nightmare” in Rolling Stone’s “Top 100 people Who Are Changing America.”

RALLY

When: 1:30 pm,  August 2nd

Where: Overland Park, Blue Valley Northwest High School (135th and Switzer) – same location as the hearing

(Note: the hearing will be in the auditorium. For the rally we will meet in the Commons Area, just inside the main entrance to the school)

HEARINGS

·     Overland Park – Monday, August 2 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Blue Valley Northwest High School, 135th and Switzer, Overland Park
·      Salina – Wednesday, August 4 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Highway Patrol Training Center Auditorium, 2025 East Iron, Salina.
·     Garden City – Thursday, August 5 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.  801 Campus Drive, Garden City

If you are unable to attend a hearing, you can still provide comments on this project to KDHE. Submit your comments by August 15th at www.beyondcoalkansas.org

For factsheets, talking points, and carpool information, visit our Kansas Beyond Coal website: www.beyondcoalkansas.org

CONTACT: Stephanie.Cole@sierraclub.org

Of course, the best way to negotiate a transmission easement is to first call your lawyer – an easement is a binding legal document, ergo, it needs expert review.

But to familiarize yourself with the issues involved, do indeed read the following! Published originally on the Kansas Farm Bureau website, and authored by Mike Irvin of the KFB Legal Foundation:

*************************************

Recently, the Kansas Corporation Commission has approved several new massive electric transmission lines (two phases) that will run from Spearville to the Nebraska border.  Other lines are in the planning and development stages.  They will travel south from Spearville to Coldwater and then on East to Wichita.

The lack of transmission lines have been a fundamental issue in Kansas and are becoming more and more of an issue elsewhere.  These projects should improve the state’s power grid system that is somewhat antiquated.  It will also ease a bottleneck that has become a major obstacle to the development of wind rich Kansas plains and other areas suitable for wind generation.

Kansas is already one of the largest producers of wind power, with over 1,000 megawatts installed.  However, this growth has all but stalled in recent years partly due to lack of capacity to move electricity to major markets.

With the encouragement of state officials, new transmission lines will be sprouting up across Kansas.  Many landowners will be approached by an agent for the developer seeking an easement across their land.  In order to run these electricity lines on your property, the power company will want the landowner to sign an agreement.  During this process, the power company will need to acquire what is known as a “Transmission Line Easement”.  In layman’s terms, you will be asked to allow the power company to take some of your rights in order to use your property under certain conditions.  Consequently, landowners need to arm themselves with knowledge and understand the legal ramifications of entering into these agreements.

The developer seeks to obtain a Transmission Line Easement to acquire the property rights necessary to construct electrical distribution system such as electrical lines, substations, switching facilities, and operation and maintenance structures.  The property rights to be taken are normally spelled out within the easement instrument.

Once a legal easement has been established, utility companies move forward with construction.  Construction involves clearing of trees and other obstructions from the 150’ (up to 250’) wide easement, erecting towers that are at least 70’ to 125’ tall, and using cranes and whatever other special equipment is necessary to complete and maintain the project.

A number of issues should be addressed prior to signing any type of agreement.  The Transmission Line Easement, like any easement agreement, is a legally binding agreement that needs to be carefully reviewed and understood before executing the same.  This type of agreement will have a long-term effect on you, your land and future generations.  It is important that you not agree to or sign any agreement until you have had an opportunity to discuss it with your attorney.

If you are approached by an agent of the transmission line company wanting you to execute such an agreement, take your time, and consider all the aspects of it.  These agreements usually are in perpetuity.  This means the easement will last forever.

The following is a checklist provided as a guide when reviewing Transmission Line Easements.  The document represents the types of issues landowners may wish to consider as they enter into an agreement.  Every contractual agreement between a landowner and a developer has unique possibilities that differ across regions and operations and must be negotiated with the help of legal counsel.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s been obvious for quite a while to everyone else, but the Senate has finally admitted that there are currently not enough votes for a comprehensive climate bill, ie, for putting a price on carbon. (What might occur in the dim future, if there is a reconciliation process with cap and trade in the House bill, during the lame duck session in November? Who knows.)

The fight is now over what a streamlined energy bill will look like – and whether there will be a federal Renewable Energy Standard in it.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is fighting the good fight, trying to get such an amendment tacked in there. Advocates say there are 62 votes for the measure. Senator Reid appears to have a different, and lesser count.

We shall hopefully soon see.

Refresher: Why the intense fight? Several reasons, but consider this one – Midwestern wind is cheap. Offshore wind is not. A federal RES will result in $$$ poured into wind development. Which would you choose, as an investor? And ultimately, what will utilities buy most of over time?

I doubt the answer is offshore.

From E&E News (subs. only), by Evan Lehman:

The Senate’s small energy package unveiled last night flirts with Republican opposition and turns its cheek to clean-power Democrats. Its first vote, nonetheless, is planned for next week.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) resisted mounting efforts in his own party to include a renewable electricity standard (RES) in his last-ditch attempt to pass an energy bill this summer, even as several Democratic senators openly questioned his assertions that the electricity standard lacks support.

Reid instead raced toward debate this week on the $15 billion bill that offers $5 billion in rebates for energy efficiency retrofits in homes, $3.8 billion to encourage the use of natural gas trucks, and $400 million to study electric cars. The measure would be paid for by increasing a tax on the oil industry.

The bill would also remove the nation’s current $75 million liability cap on offshore oil companies responsible for spilling crude. The provision would be applied retroactively to BP PLC and other firms, making them pay the full cost of a spill.

Republicans might see that as an invitation for dissent. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the top Republican on the Energy Committee, who offered her own bill last Friday with a plan to spread the risk of major catastrophes across the entire oil industry, said yesterday that Reid’s liability cap is the “biggest-ticket item” for her party.

“I think that unlimited liability will be a very significant issue. Not just for Republicans,” Murkowski said, warning of economic reverberations. “It is not an issue that the Democrats are united on.”

Industry supporters also charged out against Reid’s provision, warning that unlimited liability threatens to push small and medium-size drilling firms out of business in the United States, leaving the Gulf of Mexico open only to those international conglomerates that can afford to insure themselves against catastrophes.

“This would cut domestic production, kill American jobs, slow economic growth and cost billions in federal oil and natural gas revenues,” Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said in a statement.

62 senators want RES

But the bill rubs Democrats for what it’s omitting. Many see an RES as an achievable goal that could spark construction of manufacturing plants for wind turbines and drive the development of clean energy. Several senators, including Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), said yesterday that support for a modest RES that requires utilities to find 15 percent of their power by 2020 exists in the Senate.

“It seems to me that would be logical to include that [RES] in the energy bill that was going to be brought to the floor,” said Dorgan, whose state stands to be a key generator of wind power. “I hope maybe there’s a way to be found to do that.”

Udall said there are about 62 senators who would support the 15 percent standard.

Read the rest of this entry »

From the Pratt Tribune, by Gale Rose:

From the Cap Journal:

Very sad. From KCTV5.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — More than 2,000 cattle have died in Kansas from a recent mix of extreme heat, high humidity and little to no wind, according to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

The deaths mainly occurred from Thursday through Sunday at feeding operations among heavier cattle that were ready to be slaughtered, said Ken Powell, a KDHE environmental scientist. A single feedlot in south-central Kansas lost 400 head of cattle.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Powell, who has worked at the agency for almost 17 years and makes sure the dead animals are disposed of safely. “Usually, we will have a few hundred head in the summer. Two-thousand is a lot higher than normal.”

Todd Domer, a spokesman for the Kansas Livestock Association, said the losses from the animals who died and the slowed weight gain among the remaining cattle will be in the “in the millions.” He said it will be impossible to come up with an exact figure because no one collects the information.

A Livestock Indemnity Program can compensate producers for livestock lost during extreme heat and other weather events. But Domer said many won’t qualify for the program, and even for those who do, it will cover only a portion of the loss.

With more than 2 million head of cattle feeding in Kansas at any given time, the deaths didn’t constitute a huge percentage of the overall herd being fattened for slaughter. Still, the deaths strained the system.

That’s because the dead animals can’t go into the food supply for human consumption. Instead, rendering companies often will buy dead animals, strip the hides and cook the carcasses to produce products like blood meal, which is used as a fertilizer.

Because so many animals died in such a short span, the renderers couldn’t handle all the carcasses. Powell said 800 to 900 of the dead cattle had to be buried, and another 120 to 130 will be composted.

During the height of the muggy, hot weather, feedlot operators were kept busy, giving them more water and making beds on the ground out of hay.

Powell said the feedlot operators got a break Sunday when a breeze started blowing and the humidity dropped, putting an end to the large volume of cattle deaths. He says would like to see the breeze and lower humidity continue for the remainder of the summer.

“I’m hoping it will cooperate and we won’t have another batch,” he said.

Domer also was hopeful but remained cautious.

“Typically, we don’t see that many days when those three conditions come into play,” Domer said of the combination of heat, humidity and lack of wind. “I suppose it could come back in here and do it again. We don’t know if we are out of the woods yet.”

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

For people who might think it’s weird that I read PorkMag – perhaps I think it’s a little weird that you don’t.

Quotable from below: “Whether one believes that climate change is man-made or naturally occurring, it is clear that climate is changing and if it continues, agricultural production will be affected.”

Kline & Company, a worldwide consulting and research firm, announced a groundbreaking new research initiative designed to gather research on climate change and its implications for agribusiness companies in the U.S. region.

The first edition of Implications of Climate Change on Agribusiness 2010: U.S. Analysis is designed to help marketers with the essential long range planning in today’s investment-heavy agricultural sector. Whether one believes that climate change is man-made or naturally occurring, it is clear that climate is changing and if it continues, agricultural production will be affected. For example:

* The 10 years between January 2000 and December 2009 were the warmest since records began 130 years ago.
* The incidence of extreme events such as droughts and storms has been much more frequent.
* At the same time, it is predicted that agricultural output will have to increase by 70 percent to feed the 9.1 billion global population by 2050, putting added pressure on existing crop land.

If the current trends continue, climatic factors will alter where crops are produced and perhaps what crops are produced. The effects of these changes will vary regionally, but warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons, and higher carbon dioxide levels are likely to favor certain pathogens, insects, and weeds.

These changes could in turn affect suppliers to agriculture in many ways: land use may change, weed and pest complexes could be altered, seed attributes or use patterns are modified, and fertilizer and equipment are translocated.

“It is not axiomatic that these trends will continue, but constructing scenarios as if they were, and perhaps making strategic investments at a low risk level as if they were, should be part of every Ag input company’s strategic planning process,” notes Dennis Fugate, Industry Manager, Specialty Pesticides at Kline.

This report will help business planners and executives think through potential problems and opportunities inherent in climate change. It is an invaluable resource for crop-based research presentations and implications to develop a deeper understanding of potential crop geographic shifts and qualitative scenarios that can be drawn from the information.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Open invitation from GPACE and Sierra Club – free snacks and coal plant info. Fun!

Please join the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy and the Kansas Sierra Club to learn more about the proposed coal plant and how you can provide effective comments to KDHE. A speaker at both events will be Leslie Glustrom, a biochemist recognized nationally as an expert on coal issues.

JULY 22 – LAWRENCE – 5:30 – 7:30 PM
The Depot (and Visitors’ Center)
402 North Second Street
Dinner and beverage provided by Local Burger
FEATURING: Rep. Annie Kuether, Ranking Minority Member of the Kansas House Energy & Utilities Committee

July 23 – OVERLAND PARK – 5:30 – 7:30 PM
Johnson County Community College
Capital Federal Conference Center
12345 College Boulevard
Light sandwiches, appetizers, and beverages
FEATURING: Nancy Jackson, Board Chair, Climate and Energy Project

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

And some climate change thrown in there. Interesting observations on the impact for production agriculture’s crop yields.

From the NYTimes, by Lauren Morello:

Choices the world makes about whether to cut man-made carbon dioxide emissions will determine the severity of climate change over the next thousand years — or longer, according to a new report by the country’s leading scientific advisory body, the National Academy of Sciences.

That’s because the greenhouse gas lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years.

“The bottom line is that because CO2 is so long-lived in our atmosphere, it could effectively lock the Earth and future generations into warming — not just for decades or centuries, but literally for thousands of years,” said committee chairwoman Susan Solomon, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The report was sponsored by the Energy Foundation — a coalition of major philanthropic foundations with an interest in energy policy — and U.S. EPA.

It breaks down how each additional degree of warming would affect the Earth, cataloging impacts on forests, fresh water supplies, fisheries, Arctic sea ice, sea level and agriculture.

The picture it paints is stark:

• Every 1 degree Celsius of warming — roughly 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — would reduce rainfall in the American Southwest, the Mediterranean and southern Africa by 5 to 10 percent.

• Stream flow in some river basins — including the Arkansas and the Rio Grande — would drop by 5 to 10 percent.

• Yields of some crops, including U.S. and African corn and Indian wheat, would fall 5 to 15 percent.

• And 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming is enough to double or even quadruple the area burned by wildfires in the American West.

Sea ice and forests disappear

Determining what would happen if Earth warms beyond 2 degrees Celsius is difficult, the NAS committee said, because there would be little forested land left to fuel flames — meaning parts of the West that are now tree-covered would transform into entirely new ecosystems.

Focusing on effects of incremental rises in temperature, rather than different levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, revealed commonalities in the projections of climate models that appeared to disagree, the scientists who wrote the report said.

One example is models that attempt to project how warming will affect sea ice cover in the Arctic.

“When you look at the various models, you may see quite a range in what they have to say about how fast sea ice looks like it’s going to disappear,” Solomon said. “But when you actually look at it as a function of temperature, it’s really kind of amazing how consistent they all become.”

That’s because sea ice, like many of the other parts of the environment discussed in the report, is most sensitive to temperature change, she said.

While the report focuses on how climate change could affect life on Earth into the far future, it also takes stock of the present.

Welcome to the ‘Anthropocene’

Humans have already changed climate to the point that Earth has entered a new geologic epoch, which the analysis dubs the “Anthropocene.”

And even if the primary human activities that produce greenhouse emissions — cutting down forests and burning fossil fuels — were to stop immediately, a certain amount of additional warming is already baked into the climate system.

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has jumped from roughly 280 parts per million in preindustrial times to 390 ppm today, raising Earth’s temperature roughly 0.9 degree Celsius along the way.

The seas, slow to warm, have absorbed a lot of extra heat trapped by that CO2, along with about 80 percent of CO2 emissions. But over time, that will change. As oceans start pumping some of that accumulated heat and CO2 back into the atmosphere, the CO2 emitted up until now will cause another 1 degree Celsius of warming.

Building a backlog of more heat

“It’s like we’re paying for things with credit and running up a deficit and we won’t have the full consequences of that for some time,” said David Lobell, a Stanford University scientist who studies climate impacts on agricultural crops.

Ultimately, whether the Anthropocene will amount to a blip in Earth’s history or a major climate shift lasting “many thousands” of years depends on the choices society makes about whether — and how much — to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, the new report says.

That requires making value judgments about the level of risk we’re willing to endure — a question that goes beyond scientific projections, said experts who worked on the new report.

“When I think about things I can do in my own life where I can go back and reverse them, I treat them differently from things that are irreversible,” Solomon said. “If I knew that every piece of cheesecake would give me a pound of weight gain that would never be reversed, I would eat a lot less cheesecake.”

The new report doesn’t make the call on what level of warming is tolerable, the scientists who worked on the analysis said, but it is designed in part to help lawmakers understand the likely impact of different policy choices.

It does note, however, that “emissions reductions larger than about 80 percent, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations.”

Click here to view the NAS report.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

From the AP (Staff):

DENVER — Vestas Wind Systems said Tuesday it will hire more than 1,000 people at three Colorado plants that manufacture wind turbine components after receiving a surge of orders for the electricity generators in the U.S. and Canada.

Vestas said 850 of the jobs will be at two plants that make blades. One is already operating in Windsor and another is nearing completion in Brighton.

An additional 167 new jobs will be created at a Pueblo plant that makes towers for the turbines.

Vestas plans to hire the new workers over the next 18 months, bringing the company’s Colorado work force to about 2,200, said Denna Randall, director of finance and information technology for Vestas Blades America.

Vestas has a second plant in Brighton that makes nacelles, housings that contain the turbine’s generator, transformer and gearbox.

The jobs announced Tuesday are in addition to as many as 240 positions announced last week for a Vestas research and development office planned in Louisville, Colo.

One of Vestas’ recent orders is for a 250-megawatt wind farm at Cedar Point, about 75 miles east of Denver, which would be the second-largest in Colorado. It’s scheduled to be substantially complete in late 2011.

Broomfield-based RES Americas will build the wind farm, and a U.S. affiliate of the Canadian firm Enbridge Inc. will own it. The electricity will be sold to Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. under a 20-year contract.

Xcel is the largest electric utility in Colorado.

RES Americas also will build a 42-mile transmission line to connect the wind farm to Xcel’s grid.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Obama administration giving the EPA and other federal agencies a little feedback on emissions, in particular biomass. From E&E News (subs. only), by Gabriel Nelson:

The White House released draft guidance today that tells agencies how to proceed with plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and exempts — for now — biomass and biofuels from reduction targets.

After issuing Executive Order 13514 last year, President Obama challenged agencies to shrink their energy usage, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent over the next decade. Today’s guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality tells agencies how to measure emissions, focusing on land use, carbon offsets and the burning of biomass.

Now available for public comment, the guidance is scheduled to be published in tomorrow’s Federal Register along with a technical support document.

The executive order requires agencies to establish an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions for the current fiscal year and submit it to the White House by Jan. 31. The agencies will then be required to break down their total greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis while working toward an effort to shrink the government’s energy bills by between $8 billion and $11 billion.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” Obama said in a statement earlier this year. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Renewable energy credits are acceptable under the directions given by the guidance document, but agencies will not be able to use carbon credits to offset their emissions.

In at least one contentious area, the burning of biomass, the White House guidance seems to run counter to the direction given to industry by U.S. EPA as the agency prepares to begin regulating greenhouse gases for the first time.

Industry groups have complained about the agency’s decision not to exempt biomass emissions from new permitting rules, but the White House has told agencies that they will not be initially required to track greenhouse gases produced by the burning of biofuels and biomass.

Those fuels are “not subject to agency reduction targets at this time,” the guidance says.

Industry groups have argued that biomass emissions do not increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because plants are part of a natural carbon cycle of growth and decomposition. If a power plant burns a fallen tree that would have broken down anyway, they say, no extra carbon dioxide is being sent into the atmosphere.

The White House document notes a difference between biomass and fossil fuels. Burning petroleum produces carbon that “was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, hence its combustion represents a net increase in atmospheric carbon relative to what may have otherwise naturally occurred,” the guidance document says. “The CO2 from biogenic sources is assumed to be naturally recycled, since the carbon in the biofuel was in the atmosphere before the plant was grown and would have been released normally through decomposition after the plant died.”

Critics calling for an accounting system for biomass argue that biomass harvested in the wrong fashion will release additional carbon dioxide and prevent the planet from absorbing the same amount of carbon dioxide. EPA announced yesterday that it is seeking more information on whether to subject biomass to the greenhouse gas rules.

Under the executive order, federal agencies may also eventually need to report the greenhouse gases trapped by plant growth. Changes in an agency’s land-use policy could make a difference, so future revisions to the guidance will incorporate the advice of a federal work group analyzing methods of “measuring the carbon fluxes and biological sequestration that take place on federal lands as a result of land management practices,” the guidance document says.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

From the LJWorld, by Scott Rothschild:

Topeka — The Kansas utility that has been pushing for construction of a controversial coal-fired electric power plant is also promoting development of nuclear energy.

Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. has joined a consortium that supports the construction of smaller commercial nuclear reactors and the regulatory changes needed to bring them to market.

“Sunflower’s board is pretty visionary. We are always investigating new technology,” Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel said Friday.

The consortium includes a number of utilities promoting a proposal by Babcock & Wilcox Co. to build small nuclear reactors that can be built in factories and then shipped to sites. Babcock, based in Charlotte, N.C., now makes small reactors for the Navy.

Babcock got a big boost in its effort this week when leading engineering company Bechtel Corp. announced it would partner with Babcock to develop the 125-megawatt plants that would be housed underground.

The alliance is being called Generation mPower. “The formation of Generation mPower is a turning point in the nuclear power plant industry,” said Jack Futcher, president of Bechtel’s power business. Futcher said the alliance hopes to advance development of nuclear power with the first plant deployed as early as 2020.

Sunflower Electric’s Hertel emphasized the consideration of nuclear energy is in the beginning stages. “We’re just part of a consortium that says this is a viable technology that needs to be pursued,” Hertel said.

Sunflower Electric currently is seeking a permit to build an 895-megawatt coal-fired plant in Finney County. Public hearings on that project are scheduled next month in Overland Park, Salina and Garden City. Under the proposal, most of the power would be sold to out-of-state customers.

Environmentalists have been opposed to nuclear energy. The Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club said Sunflower’s energy needs don’t merit consideration of either a new coal-fired plant or nuclear unit.

“If we’re thinking about what’s in the best interest of ratepayers, new nuclear and coal capacity is not the least cost option, and that’s exactly why there aren’t new coal and nuclear plants being built now,” said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Sounds like the MISO criteria for an MVP line (not a football joke, right?) are less clear than the FERC-approved SPP highway/ byway cost allocation rules.

From NAWindpower, by Mark DelFranco:

Stakeholders in the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (Midwest ISO) footprint received advance notice of the contents contained in the system operator’s re-filing this week with the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC) regarding its cost allocation proposals for transmission.

FERC deemed the Midwest ISO’s so-called “90/10″ generator interconnection cost allocation methodology proposed in a July 2009 filing “interim” and ordered the system operator to take a broader look at the integration of resources.

The outcome was a new category of transmission projects called multivalue projects (MVPs), which target regional transmission lines, including those used to integrate wind.

Cost allocation for these MVPs will be postage stamped throughout the region, according to the Midwest ISO.

“The difference between the [July 2009] interim filing and now will support the buildout of the region, which should make the pool of costs for general interconnection projects smaller than it has been,” according to Jennifer Curran, executive director of transmission strategy at the Midwest ISO.

Regional overlay lines, typically 345 kV and higher, are longer transmission lines that span from transmission provider to transmission provider.

The reaction was mixed among the wind community.

The most important revision found in the MVP announcement was the removal of the 20% chargeback fee for new and existing generators, which was contained in earlier Midwest ISO proposals, says Natalie McIntire, technical policy consultant at Wind On The Wires, a regional partner of the American Wind Energy Association.

While McIntire characterized the MVP plan as “a step in the right direction,” questions remain.

Of interest to wind developers is the fate of the Brookings line, one of four primary lines of the CapX2020 project – a $2 billion initiative designed to ensure grid reliability and ease congestion in the upper Midwest. The Brookings line, a 200-mile, 345 kV transmission line running from Brookings County., S.D., to Hampton, Minn., includes 19 wind projects from 14 developers.

The wind community says Brookings has all the attributes of being an MVP line under the Midwest ISO’s definition.

“Brookings has to be considered an MVP line,” says Christina Brusven, an associate at Minneapolis-based law firm Frederikson & Byron. “If Brookings is not classified as MVP, we don’t know what is.”

Although Curran would not definitely say if Brookings is or is not MVP, she says the line comprises several characteristics of an MVP.

“Conceptually, Brookings is the type of project that could be deemed as an MVP,” Curran says. “Timing and further study will ultimately be the deciding factor.”

Although the re-filing could benefit wind developers, there are some significant hurdles and unanswered questions remaining.

An issue the Midwest ISO leaves unaddressed is the 90/10 cost allocation approach for generator interconnection that requires wind generators to pay 90% of the cost of network upgrades for projects rated 345 kV and higher. For projects rated lower than 345 kV, generators are required to pay the entire cost. Network upgrades can mean anything from replacing simple equipment to adding an entire transmission line.

Although the 90/10 generator interconnection cost allocation method remains, Frederikso’s Brusven says additional designated MVP lines should decrease the number of instances where generators are burdened with shouldering the overwhelming majority of costs for large, regional backbone transmission projects.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Getting 25% of the customer base to adopt this technology is a pretty significant goal.

From the KCStar, by Steve Everly:

Soaring temperatures used to mean one thing for Kansas City Power & Light: Fire up the power plants, because everyone’s air conditioner is going to need extra juice.

But another option came into play when things got hot Wednesday, thanks to 46,000 KCP&L customers who signed up for the utility’s Energy Optimizer program.

The utility was able to send electronic signals to make those customers’ central air conditioners and heat pumps cycle on and off in 15-minute intervals for a few hours. The energy saved, in effect, creates a “virtual power plant.”

“They don’t know they’re doing it, but they’ve created a generating asset,” said KCP&L spokesman Chuck Caisley.

For years, conservation has been a hard sell in the Midwest because of the region’s relatively cheap electricity. But programs like Energy Optimizer, which got off to a slow start in 2005, are beginning to get traction.

Now, the utility optimistically projects that 210,000 residential and business customers eventually could join.

“We think we can get 25 percent of our customers in the program,” said Jason Jones, manager of KCP&L’s demand response programs.

Customers who sign up for the program get a free programmable thermostat, which lets them save money throughout the year by making it easier for them to adjust their heating and cooling.

In return, customers agree to let the utility cycle their central air conditioners or heat pumps on and off for up to four hours on days of peak demand. Typically, that’s no more than four days a year and raises the temperature 2 degrees. Customers can opt out one day a month.

KCP&L says Energy Optimizer and a program that pays about 500 commercial business to curb electricity consumption on peak days can cut peak demand by 145 megawatts, about 3 percent on Wednesday.

Without those savings, the utility would have to fire up generators powered by natural gas to meet the extra demand — at up to three times the cost of the optimizer progam.

The utility eventually could need another plant to help meet peak demand, but the optimizer program is expected to put off that need for years.

“This is going to be a permanent part of the way we do business,” Caisley said.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Found this interesting. For Sunflower mention, read clear thru article to end.

From the WSJournal, by Rebecca Smith:

Engineering and construction giant Bechtel Corp. is expected to disclose Wednesday that it will partner with nuclear vendor Babcock & Wilcox Co. to bring a small, commercial reactor design to market.

Closely held Bechtel declined to reveal its investment in the venture other than to say it is “substantial” and affirms its optimism about prospects for new plant designs that could make nuclear power affordable to smaller utilities and get new plants into operation faster.

Under the partnership, Bechtel will help Babcock complete the design of a modular reactor, called mPower, and seek necessary approvals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to begin sales in the U.S.

Bechtel, of San Francisco, will have exclusive responsibility for engineering, procuring key components and building the plants. The companies have not yet said what the likely cost of plants using the modular design would be.

After a few units are built, the partners hope to offer standard versions for a fixed price, something that has eluded nuclear vendors in the past. Unpredictable costs plagued the nuclear power industry in the past and stalled new U.S. nuclear-plant construction after the 1980s.

Although the average size of reactors globally has gradually gotten bigger, some observers think there’s room for smaller reactors. Babcock’s reactor can be built in factories, shipped by rail, barge or truck to sites, and then assembled in cookie-cutter fashion. The small size allows faster construction, with less money tied up in equipment before power sales begin.

Babcock, of Lynchburg, Va., now makes small reactors for the Navy, as well as nuclear fuel and plant components. It has designed big reactors in the past but wanted something it could build in its existing, domestic factories.

Its partner, Bechtel, is one of the most experienced nuclear construction and engineering firms in the world. It has a contract to build a large reactor in Maryland, and has built or done major modifications to 64 of the nation’s 104 operating reactors.

“We think we’re the premier [contractor] with 5,000 engineers with the word ‘nuclear’ in their resumes,” said Jack Futcher, president of Bechtel Power Corp.

Bechtel’s Mr. Futcher said it will be challenging for firms like his to find enough skilled workers to build the next generation of nuclear plants. Small, modular reactors offer certain advantages because utilities could start with one or two and add more.

“You’ll need fewer people to build them and they’ll get really good at what they’re doing, through repetition,” he said.

Christofer Mowry, president of Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy in Charlotte, N.C., said Bechtel’s participation will help the reactor gain traction as a serious rival of large reactors. “Bechtel doesn’t get involved in science projects,” said Mr. Mowry. “This [agreement] is a confidence builder that the promise of this small reactor is going to materialize.”

Babcock’s reactor currently exists only on paper. Still, it is attracting interest, especially from smaller utilities that want substitutes for coal-fired plants but can’t afford standard-sized nuclear reactors that are 10 times the size of Babcock’s 125-megawatt unit.

In recent days, a dozen utilities, including Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PowerSouth Energy Cooperative and Nebraska Electric G&T Cooperative, have joined a consortium designed to help Babcock move ahead. They join founding consortium members FirstEnergy Corp., Tennessee Valley Authority and Oglethorpe Power Corp.

Utility interest is critical because the NRC devotes more staff to reactor designs whose vendors have waiting customers. Babcock and Bechtel intend to file an application for reactor certification in 2012 and would hope to start construction after 2017.

One new consortium member, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. in Hays, Kan., wants to diversify its generation portfolio by adding some nuclear capacity. Sunflower furnishes electricity to electric co-ops in Western Kansas from 1,200 megawatts of coal, natural gas, wind, hydroelectric and biomass generation.

In the past, small utilities purchased minority stakes in large reactors, alongside large investor-owned utilities, but sometimes felt powerless in the arrangements. Small reactors have appeal, said Earl Watkins, chief executive of Sunflower Electric, because even smaller utilities could own their own units. If batched together, utilities could share security and maintenance staffs to control costs.

Babcock’s reactor is designed to be buried in the ground, for added security, and to run twice as long between refueling outages—approximately four years—as existing reactors.

Babcock is talking to the NRC about reducing the staff at small reactors. For example, a plant with a single reactor unit might have 80 security people, versus 400 for a large reactor. The work force would rise as more reactor units were added, with an eight-unit plant having a security staff equivalent to a big, single reactor.

“We need to get more efficient with staffing or the economics won’t work,” said Babcock’s Mr. Mowry.

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Ripple effect. Throw a pebble into a pond… wait, not to compare Siemens to a pebble.

From the Wichita Eagle, by Bill Wilson:

South-central Kansas’ future as a wind energy hub is rising out of a field on Hutchinson’s southeast side.

Work is progressing on Siemens’ $50 million, 300,000-square-foot nacelle manufacturing plant just off Airport Road. The first products are due out in December.

And the company is adding staff, city officials said, hiring salaried workers and sorting through a pile of almost 2,000 applications for production work from a June job fair in Hutchinson.

“They’re not taking more applications so they can process what they’ve received,” said former Kansas Senate president Dave Kerr, the Hutchinson Chamber president who led the city’s bid for Siemens.

“And they’ve got a number of people assigned to it, too.”

The facility, which includes a service center on the site, will employ 400 people and produce an estimated 650 nacelles annually.

Nacelles are the oblong structures at the top of wind towers that include the generators, gears and electronics.

“It’s a big deal for us,” Reno County Commissioner Frances Garcia said. “It couldn’t have come at a better time for our economy.”

Meanwhile, a builder of wind turbine bases has acquired land in Newton for a plant, and Wichita economic officials are targeting the growing industry for more jobs.

“We have wind supply (and) twice the national average of skilled manufacturers,” said Vicki Pratt Gerbino, president of the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition.

The Siemens plant has triggered regionwide interest in wind power as an economic driver.

“We’re very pleased if our project has had a beneficial effect on surrounding communities,” Kerr said. “We are the beneficiary in Hutchinson of a very strong state and local effort, so it’s only right that the entire region gain some long-term benefits.”

Siemens said it has referred some suppliers to state and local economic development groups.

“We are aware of several suppliers that are considering Kansas,” Siemens’ Roger Brown said in an e-mail.

Newton and Harvey County officials already have landed Tindall, a builder of bases for wind turbines, for the Kansas Logistics Park.

“Wind power is what we’ve been looking at and talking about with the Kansas Logistics Park for two years,” said Mickey Fornaro-Dean, executive director of the Harvey County Economic Development Council. “We see our logistics park as an industrial logistics park, but we’re leading with wind energy.”

Two big reasons for leading with wind energy, Fornaro-Dean said: Available land and transportation.

“We started looking at our process and project with U.S. 50 in mind, along our corridor,” she said. “And in doing our due diligence, we saw a lot of opportunities with alternative and wind energy. It doesn’t hurt anything at all that Siemens is 30 miles west of us and Tindall has decided to locate with us.

“We look at it as starting the opportunities in this corridor.”

That’s exactly the effect Hutchinson and Reno County officials hoped for when they landed Siemens, Kerr said.

“We clearly expect to build off of Siemens in two ways,” Kerr said.

“There will be a number of suppliers to their plant. They will be bringing over a billion dollars a year worth of inputs into the facility, and some of those suppliers will land not only in our community but surrounding communities as well.

“And then there’s the effect of putting us onto the radar of other companies. The very favorable publicity the Siemens project has provided causes other companies to say, ‘Siemens knows what they’re doing, so Kansas better be on our potential list.’ Doors have already been opened, not only for Hutchinson but other areas.”

Read the rest of this entry »

From the LJWorld, by Christine Metz:

Along with the price of using energy, utility bills across the state could soon include the cost of conserving it.

In the past few months, public utilities have come before the Kansas Corporation Commission with energy efficiency plans. These plans will ultimately be paid for by an increase in the rates charged to customers.

“Consumers need to be aware that this is happening, that there are costs and there are regulatory questions,” said Dave Springe, the consumer counsel for the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board.

Traditionally, Kansas has ranked among the bottom tier of states in its efforts for conserving energy, according to a scorecard published by the American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy.

Dorothy Barnett, director of energy and transmission for the nonprofit the Climate and Energy Project, views the utilities’ proposals as a promising sign.

“We know energy efficiency costs at least half as much as any new generation,” she said. “Energy efficiency is really our first fuel.”

In her 2007 State of the State Address, then-Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius asked energy producers to take on efforts to reduce energy consumption. In response, the KCC requested that investor-owned utilities come forward with energy efficiency plans.

Energy resource

KCC sees energy efficiency as an energy resource, similar to coal or wind, that is needed to meet existing and future energy demands, KCC communications director Cara Sloan-Ramos said.

“They have determined that reducing or postponing the need for construction of big generation plants or reserving the capacity of natural gas are goals that will benefit all utility customers,” Sloan-Ramos said.

Springe agrees that energy efficiency programs make sense for electric companies, where reduction in energy use allows utilities to avoid having to build expensive power plants to meet the peak demand that occurs during hot summer days. In those cases, even those who don’t participate directly in energy-saving programs would pay less by not having to contribute to the cost of a new power plant.

However, he doesn’t see an equal benefit for natural gas utilities, where only those who access the programs benefit, he said.

Last week, the KCC had a public meeting in Lawrence to gather input on Black Hills Energy’s energy efficiency plan.

It’s the first comprehensive plan to come before the commission. As Black Hills seeks approval from the KCC, Sloan-Ramos speculates that other utilities are waiting to see what gets passed before submitting their own plans.

Springe, who spoke out against the Black Hills plan, saying it was far too expensive and offered unwarranted incentives for the utility, worried that the KCC’s request for individual plans will produce a piecemeal approach to energy efficiency throughout the state.

“If you are going to make energy efficiency a priority, you need to offer it to everyone and it should not be based on where you happen to live,” he said.

He would prefer to see an independent state agency that oversees all energy efficiency programs.

‘Tailor the program’

While different models of energy efficiency programs are popping up throughout the country, Gina Penzig, manager of consumer services for Westar Energy, said it makes a lot of sense for the utility companies to be the ones offering the programs.

“We already have a relationship with our customer and we are in a good position to know what they are looking for because of those relationships. So we can pretty easily tailor the program to reach those needs,” Penzig said.

Third party providers of energy efficiency programs have been successful, such as a statewide agency established in Vermont, Barnett said. But those programs also come with a substantial bump in the cost of energy.

While Barnett said that it would be nice for everyone in the state to have access to the same program, the majority of Kansas customers are served by either KCP&L or Westar. Both of the electric companies has energy efficiency programs in the works.

The trick is providing an incentive for utilities and their investors to offer energy efficiency programs, which cut into how much of their product is consumed. And, finding out what incentives utility companies will get is exactly why the Black Hills case in front of the KCC holds so much interest.

“If a utility can show it has delayed the need for building expensive new generation at a cost lower than the new generation, we all win. The rates stay lower, pollution is reduced and consumers save money for today and tomorrow,” Barnett said. “We think it is important that shareholders are rewarded for their prudence. And we hope that is the direction they will head.”

— posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org