Gov. Sebelius responds to proposed energy bill
January 31, 2008
In sum: She does not support it. For the full text of her remarks, see this release from the Governor’s Office. In addition, Sebelius also announced that she had offered her own compromise deal, which the utilities rejected. I have reprinted that letter in its entirety below. (For a sample of legislators’ reaction to her statement, see Hays Daily News, AP story by John Hanna).
January 31, 2008
Dear Legislative Leaders:
As I expressed to members of the Legislature in my State of the State Address on January 14th we face an unprecedented challenge of finding clean, affordable, and secure sources of energy to meet our growing demand as a state and a nation. Clearly, one of the toughest challenges we have faced in years as state policy makers relates to the issues surrounding Secretary of KDHE Rod Bremby’s denial of Sunflower Electric’s application for permitting of two 700 MW coal-fired power plants in Holcomb.
The proposed plants have been promoted as an opportunity to bring jobs to Western Kansas, to ensure base-load power for Sunflower and Midwest Energy customers for the future, and to reduce rates in Western Kansas, which now exceed electric rates in Eastern Kansas.
The Lt Governor and I have been in discussions with representatives of utility companies, environmental groups, scientists, alternative energy experts, labor and business leaders, health experts, members of the faith communities and legislators over the last several months. As a result of those discussions, we made a proposal to the representatives of Sunflower and Midwest Energy, which has been rejected. But I thought it was important, as this dialogue proceeds, for you to be aware of this compromise offer.
The proposal is based on the following principles: we share the concerns about adequate base-load power for Western Kansas and believe those needs should be addressed so that we can continue our economic development efforts in that part of the state. We recognize that adding additional coal-fired power is likely to lower the high rates currently being paid by some Kansas customers who rely completely on natural gas for electricity.
Finally, our operating principles include a growing concern about carbon and its impact on the environment of our state and the health of our citizens. We believe that any proposal to generate significant amounts of new carbon needs to have an accompanying offset plan, recognizing that we are at least a decade away from clean coal technology.
In the spirit of reaching a true compromise with utility company officials, representatives from my office made the following offer which we would support:
- Build one new plant similar in size to the Sand Sage permit previously approved (660 MW);
- Kansas base load power needs must receive top priority;
- Plant must be able to implement carbon sequestration technology;
- Commitment for 20% wind power (132 MW)
- Commitment for 100 MW of energy efficiency
- Net metering allowed in the Sunflower service area
The framework of this proposal seeks to find a middle ground between all parties concerned and allows for the construction of one power plant that is reasonable and sensible in terms of scope and size. While there has been some discussion that a one permit strategy could not be financed, there are similar projects underway by rural electric cooperatives in other states, including a plant which has recently been approved in Montana.
A project of this size provides the base load power needed in western Kansas so that economic growth can continue, while allowing time for Kansas to engage in a process underway or completed in 36 other states that would allow our state to develop real and meaningful carbon regulations. Once those state regulations have been adopted and implemented, applications for additional power plants could be fully considered.
I would like to invite you as legislative leaders to join me in not only reaching a consensus on the Holcomb issue with the appropriate utility company officials, but committing to a thorough study, based on scientific evidence and input from community and business leaders across Kansas, to develop a comprehensive climate change action plan.
In conclusion, I sincerely believe that by successfully addressing the energy challenges we currently face as policymakers we have an opportunity to make Kansas a national leader on energy policy for the future, while also protecting our environment and growing the economy. I look forward to working with you and the other members of your respective caucuses in the days and weeks ahead on these critically important issues.
Sincerely,
/s/
Kathleen Sebelius
Governor of the State of Kansas
cc: Kansas Legislature
check out CEP’s sizzling new “Report Summaries” ! which are so much more interesting than that title.
January 31, 2008
Now posted on our website, due to popular demand - CEP’s fascinating “Report Summaries” ! What the heck are those (you may well ask)? Well, when we read cool stuff on climate and energy… sometimes we also write it up.
Primarily, we clip out the most relevant direct quotes and stick them in a summary so that you, dear reader, do not have to wade through the volume of paper that we do here at CEP. Then we stick the link in there so you can track back and read the original, if you so desire.
Currently offered in this exciting new series:
CNA Corporation, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” (.pdf, 84 KB)
Renowned Religious Leaders and Major Faith Traditions’ Statements on Climate Change (.pdf, 108 KB)
Renowned Scientific Organizations and their Conclusions on Climate Change (.pdf, 116 KB)
McKinsey & Company, “Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?” (.pdf, 92 KB)
IPCC, Climate Change Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (.pdf, 92 KB)
Enjoy.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
not speaking the same language
January 31, 2008
Are closed, secretive meetings hallmarks of the democratic process? The Lawrence Journal-World thinks not, in its observations about the drafting of the Holcomb bill currently before the legislature. Quotable: “Bills addressing the top environmental issue of the legislative session were written in secret by those who support construction of two coal-burning power plants in western Kansas.”
“The four legislators involved in drafting the bill were state Rep. Carl Holmes, R-Liberal, chairman of the House Energy and Utilities Committee; state Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, chairman of the Senate Utilities Committee; state Rep. Annie Kuether, D-Topeka, the ranking minority member of the House committee; and state Sen. Janis Lee, D-Kensington, ranking minority member of the Senate committee.
“The four of us have worked on this off and on since November,” Emler said.
The four also are members of the seven-member Kansas Electric Transmission Authority.
Under the state open meetings law, meetings with a majority of a quorum of a public board must be public. A quorum on the Transmission Authority is four members and a majority of a quorum is three members. But Emler said public notice wasn’t necessary because the officials weren’t working on KETA business.”
According to the KETA website, their mission is “to ensure reliable operation of the electrical transmission system, diversify and expand the Kansas economy and facilitate consumption of Kansas energy through improvements in the state’s electric transmission infrastructure.” However, New Section Nine of the bill (House version) would establish a “Kansas electric generation, transmission, and efficiency study commission.”
I guess I’m just missing how those two are materially different in a substantial enough way not to invoke the sunshine laws.
A “Future Gen” coal plant in Illinois gets dumped by DOE, which means (so far) that the plant won’t be built (Associated Press). If you want to whack your way through the bureaucratese tangle of the DOE press release, they spin it a totally different way.
What is “Future Gen”? Future Gen is the kind of Orwellian name that DOE uses to describe one of its very ambitious carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies currently under development. The goal of Future Gen is to create a clean coal plant that produces electricity and hydrogen and mitigates its greenhouse gas emissions. CCS technologies in general are estimated to be 10-20 years away from being market-ready. This Future Gen plant faced an additional problem - an enormous hike in construction costs.
Why Future Gen matters to you: It serves as proof that “clean coal” is a long way into the future. Also a reminder that all coal plants proposed to be built are likewise facing enormously increased construction costs. For a variety of reasons, coal is no longer a cheap source of power.
— Maril Hazlett
Curious about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
Danger buffet - The new KS energy bill
January 30, 2008
As a few various media outlets have already reported, the long-awaited “how exactly is the Kansas legislature going to react to the KDHE denial of the Holcomb coal plants?” energy bill was introduced into the Kansas legislature today (LJWorld). In the House, the bill number is HB 2711, I believe. I don’t think it’s posted yet but you can check the Kansas legislature online yourself later on.
To sum up - it’s a giant buffet of a lot of things that, on the surface, climate and clean energy advocates dream about. Carbon offsets. Increased fuel standards for state vehicles. Energy audits, green buildings, net metering and easy interconnection… except, whoops, someone poured chocolate sauce all over the lovely spread. Even on the mashed potatoes.
That seems a little weird. Then you get a little closer, and just as you are about to grab a plate and dig in, you get a real strong whiff -
And honey, that ain’t chocolate.
(Oh, come on! Mud. I mean it’s mud. What did you think I meant?)
Since that metaphor surely primed everyone for a little hardcore intellectual analysis, let’s give it a shot: First and foremost, it’s really hard to build new coal plants that will spew 11 million new tons of CO2 into the air, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think therapists refer to this phenomena as “magical thinking.” Part of being a grown-up, though, means realizing that it is not in fact possible to have your cake and eat it, too (especially when it’s covered in mud). The fact that the bill can even propose such a combination argues for (but is not limited to):
- Some really fuzzy math, including especially creative ways of counting emissions, and/or
- A very narrow definition of what constitutes a power plant affected by this legislation, and/or
- A delusional estimate of the upcoming price per ton of carbon under federal carbon legislation (the current standard estimate in most studies is at least $50 per ton), and/or
- A better than one-to-one carbon offset ratio, a mitigation strategy that I have a little problem believing that any electric utility would go for. Of course I could be wrong.
Having recently read through way too much of this session’s proposed energy legislation, though, this bill - and its unexciting mix of mud and chocolate - does seem to fit a general trend. The energy powers that be know that because of climate change, their industry is no longer going to be able to do business as usual. They don’t like this. Since Kansas itself often tends to be a state that takes a good hard look at change before it goes along with it (which generally I feel is wise) the industry has lighted on us as their battleground, and they are using our legislators to advance a corporate agenda at odds with the good of our state and the nation.
They know generally what the public increasingly wants - fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, net metering, renewable energy - and they use all the yummy stuff to entice us. Then they drizzle all over it with mud. They take the “green” concepts, use that as their title, and then write extremely regressive legislation that in fact moves Kansas backwards in terms of energy policy, not forward at all.
You want net metering? Here’s your bill, but we can make net metering so ugly and unattractive that no homeowner or small business owner will ever explore the option of renewables. You like energy efficiency? OK, but you also have to choke down two - and possibly even three - new coal plants. We’ll make promises, but we’re not actually going to compromise or change. We’ll throw up a bright shiny object, you scamper after it, and then we’ll keep on just doing what we do.
(Is it just me - or is this a very insulting assessment of Kansans’ basic intelligence? I object.)
However. As much as this buffet is not to my particular taste, it is entirely likely that other folks will at least try a bite. Which is entirely their right, although I admit I don’t understand it.
What gets me, though - whatever those individuals may choose, Kansas as a state deserves so much better.
We deserve chocolate!
— Maril Hazlett
Want to learn more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
The grid in Kansas - picking up after the ice storm
January 29, 2008
Something all Kansans, regardless of political party, can agree on about electricity - our grid needs to be upgraded and improved so it can better withstand extreme weather, like the recent ice storm that took out so many of us.
A really nice, thorough story in the Hutch News considers the storm’s aftermath, FEMA disaster funding (possibly up to 75% for repairs), and the possible implications for rebuilding worn and patched sections of our grid. The dollar amounts of damage are pretty staggering.
The head of the EPA is in trouble, it seems, for ignoring the conclusions of his staff regarding the dangers of greenhouse gases . They found that “greenhouse gases pose a threat to the nation’s welfare, which would require federal regulations to rein in emissions from vehicles, factories, power plants and other industrial polluters under the Clean Air Act” (LATimes). Ironic, I suppose, that Secretary Bremby of the KDHE is under fire for exactly the opposite thing here in KS, re the Holcomb decision.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
Happy Birthday, Kansas! and the State of the Union
January 29, 2008
Today is Kansas Day. All over this great land. (Well, probably just in Kansas.) And coincidence or not, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius got to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union address last night - Bob Dole was also there. So was Steve Hewitt, the mayor of Greensburg. Kansas looked pretty darn good.
State of the Union. I’d expected to have more to say about this, but I don’t. Here’s the quotable from President George Bush that mattered most to me (full text available at NPR):
The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change.
And from Sebelius, giving the Democratic response (also available at NPR):
You and I stand ready - ready to protect our environment for future generations and stay economically competitive. Mayors have committed their cities to going green; governors have joined together, leading efforts for energy security and independence; and the majority in Congress is ready to tackle the challenge of reducing global warming and creating a new energy future for America.
Conclusion: Nationally, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much on the same page - climate change is happening, and we have to deal with it. None of them are denying that. This issue is bigger than partisanship. I even dare speculate that few in the national majority would seriously consider climate change denier Fred Singer’s book, if it crossed their desk.
Now, how the two parties will confront climate change is of course still up in the air. But none of them are debating that it is happening, and that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is because of many things, but in particular, such actions will strengthen our nation’s energy security and independence.
This next bit is just me worrying. I could be totally off base, but read through and give this reasoning a chance.
As you all know, the Kansas state legislature is facing lots of energy decisions this session. Holcomb is of course a big one, but there’s actually a lot more on the table. And it is my impression that many of the legislators are considering as a factor in these decisions - whether climate change science is reliable, and whether global warming is actually happening.
This is not a question that the rest of the nation is asking. If Kansas makes these important energy decisions on the basis of rejecting the science behind climate change - which is overwhelmingly accepted by political and religious leaders across the globe - well, I shudder to think. There’s all sorts of reasons for legislators to go either way on the energy policies before them, but please don’t let them choose that one.
Why? I guess, in large part, I am thinking about the evolution debate that pops up in Kansas every so often. Whatever their thinking on evolution or the teaching of it in schools, most Kansans have been universally appalled at the national spectacle that has resulted every time the issue has arisen.
On one level, I don’t particularly care too much what outsiders think of Kansas, to the extent that I like to keep my own opinions at least somewhat homegrown. But what I do care about is how our general attitude on science is portrayed as hostile and regressive.
This reputation compromises our economic development. It’s understandably often hard for investors to see Kansans as a scientifically engaged populace that is ready to develop and pursue good jobs in the important fields of the 21st century. It compromises our political capital and our credibility when we do get involved in debates over science and technology - and as renewable energy advances, Kansas is going to want to say a lot about this topic. And most of all, the negativity about science compromises our imaginations - and imagination is the heart of invention. We’re going to need a lot of both to get through the uncertain times ahead.
If Kansas legislators make their upcoming energy decisions on the basis of whether or not climate change is happening, they will marginalize this state in a way that could make the evolution debates look minor.
Generally, I don’t have a single problem with swimming against the flow. (Obviously, look at my job.) In this case, though, it goes against not just the accepted science, but basic common sense and prudent risk management. Even if you have questions remaining about the findings of climate science, surely the weight on the other side of the question is enough to make you pause and think. Is denying climate change a risk you really want to take?
George Bush thinks it isn’t. Kathleen Sebelius feels the same.
It’s really up to you.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
news update from the weekend - biofuels, water worries, and Peabody Coal does something interesting
January 28, 2008
Water use and food and energy production - these three spheres are forever intertwined in our economy. And our ecology. (Note the common prefix: eco-. Think about it for a moment…)
People with brains think about these connections a lot. Last week, a bunch of international power brokers with enormous pull in the financial sphere did so at the annual Davos gathering in Switzerland. I ended up in OKC last week, not Switzerland, but from the news coverage, it sounds like a fair number of economic forecasters at Davos found themselves very concerned about a coming perfect storm - existing water shortages, the possibility of increased water shortages from climate change, increased use of water for biofuels cultivation and production, recent poor crops and food shortages (and riots as a result), and the increased use of staple food crops for biofuels (AFP).
If it were a recipe for a cake, I sure wouldn’t make it. Or eat it, if someone else did. That intersection of factors sounds like a potential world of hurt to me.
This next one made me say - hmm! Coal giant Peabody Coal is evidently investing in technologies that promise to convert dirty coal to comparatively less carbon-intense natural gas - also known as coal gasification (Greentech). On one hand - hello. And yay. Just when you think no one is listening about upcoming carbon regulation and the need to adjust our energy economy… On the other hand, oh yeah, where does the dirty stuff go after they remove it? (Not to mention, putting any more carbon into the atmosphere at all is pretty problematic.) Quotable:
But there’s still some question about what to do with the unwanted elements. While a market for mercury already exists, the viability of sequestering carbon and pumping it into the ground still is unproven. Peabody, which said it is pursuing coal-to-gas projects to help build energy security and ease reliance on expensive natural-gas imports, also is working on carbon capture and storage.
And as to where CCS (carbon capture and storage) technologies get us - they’re great ideas, and over the next twenty years or so, some of them will hopefully pan out. However, that also gets us right back to water. Lots of CCS technologies use a great deal of water, and when they release it afterwards, there is some pollution and sedimentation involved. Farm run-off, existing energy uses of water, other forms of pollution - it makes you wonder when the burden that our water carries will get to be too much. And imagine how all this might play out in a world where water becomes more scarce and more valuable, like oil.
Just to get a little perspective from surrounding Midwestern states - some news out of Iowa. They are leaps and bounds ahead of Kansas in terms of climate change policies (yes, those crazy Iowans. Such nutty radicals. They’re getting as bad as California) so this next point is a little advanced for us. However: If not carried out correctly, carbon regulation (which is expected to occur as one policy strategy for mitigating climate change) could have have an especially severe impact on those less fortunate, because more of their limited budgets will go to cover basic needs such as gas and electricity. States need to make sure that their carbon-cutting climate policies don’t hurt low-income families (DesMoines Register).
Finally, to answer a few concerned emails - sorry I was out of commission for a few days last week! I clearly need to learn better how to use the web function on my phone, so I can post when I am on the road. Or I need to let people know that I am going to be on the road. Of course, this makes some folks happy, not sad 
but, we can’t please everyone.
I must say - it is certainly no hardship to drive down to OKC and back. Lots of good classic country music stations. The one downside was that I drove down and back in one day - so I missed the Flint Hills both ways, in the dark before dawn, and the dark after dusk. That part made me sad. This might sound crazy, but winter is one of my favorite seasons in Kansas, and I find the Flint Hills especially beautiful this time of year.
I guess it is a little crazy. But since I’m from here, it also doesn’t matter.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
on a sunday evening…
January 27, 2008
Sitting here on an early Sunday evening - technically, I am at my desk working. However, what I am actually doing is reading over the 2008 World Day of Peace Message from His Holiness Benedict XVI (aka, the Pope). So there is a little bit of contemplation involved.
The excerpt linked above is posted at www.catholicsandclimatechange.org. This text focuses on climate change, “urging the human family to begin to act prudently, responsibly, collectively, and urgently to solve global climate change which threatens our ‘home’, the earth.”
A lot of this message is clearly aimed at the current international discussion on climate change. Right now, that revolves around making sure that the costs and benefits of dealing with climate change are distributed fairly between developing and developed nations. However, there general language in the statement that speaks very well to the moment and the questions even here in the Midwest. Quotable:
Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.
In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions (italics in original).
If you like the sentiments but would also like to read perspectives in addition to the Catholic one, of course check out one of the CEP website’s most popular pages - Tips for Congregations. Scroll down to the listings of creation care sites, click on one, read it, hop to their links and resources - like the Energizer Bunny, you can keep going and going.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
falling into line - notes from the SPP Transmission Summit
January 27, 2008
Last week, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) held a Transmission Expansion Summit in scenic Oklahoma City in the lovely Jim Thorpe Building, and the seats in the courtroom were really, really comfortable. Two out of those four statements are true.
The summit was open to the public, so, I went. I’m probably the least qualified of the CEP staff to have gone, but the following is what I learned. If you’d like to follow along with the materials I am referring to, the SPP has promised to post them at their website linked above. If they do not, remind me and I will bug them. Or any of you can do so as well. (Edit - click here and here and here - these are all very big pdfs, though, so go lightly.)
This entry got way too long, so I will summarize the highlights up front:
1 - KS has 1,975 megawatts (MW) of wind interconnection agreements signed, with another 7,911 MW under study, and a projected 5,000-10,000 MW of wind development possible by 2030. While this might seem like a lot, OK is way ahead of us.
2 - There’s at least four new transmission lines going into KS, but they are mostly 364kV (not the bigger 765 kV) and SPP doesn’t seem to be planning much more for our state.
3 - The wind export market for our region is primarily in the east (Chicago) and southeast (Atlanta), not to the west.
4 - SPP is going to ask its board to pursue a “postage stamp” system of cost recovery
The point of the summit seemed to be: The wind rush has created both opportunity and challenges, and while SPP is not entirely sure of how they are going to respond, they do plan to do so. They are studying all the ramifications and plan to let us know their final results, but for the moment, here’s a snapshot of where things stand.
A little bit of background first. SPP wears several hats, but for our purposes they are best understood as the guys - and presumably gals, although I didn’t actually see very many of those - who control the transmission lines (not distribution lines) of our regional electric grid. They’re the traffic cops for the electrons that power our daily lives.
SPP serves 4.5 million customers (you’re probably one of them, although little did you know it), covers 255,000 square miles of service territory with 52,301 miles of transmission lines, and manages 42.4 gigawatts of peak demand. Physically, the SPP region covers all of KS, OK, part of the TX panhandle, an smidgen of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Louisiana - all of which lie in the Eastern Interconnection zone of the United States.
SPP members - the folks (utilities, municipalities, private developers, etc.) who actually own the transmission lines and the power generating stations - have to ask SPP for permission before they can use the grid, and they have to obey SPP rules in how they do so. SPP is one of eight ? or so regional transmission operators (RTOs) in the country, all of whom derive their authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
So, more or less, when the wind equivalent of a gold rush is going on in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, SPP really cares. They have to. It’s their job - their mission - to ensure the safe and reliable transmission of electricity, and to make that system accessible to all users.
In a perfect world. In this world, it strikes me that SPP faces some obstacles in doing their job as well as they would like. My general understanding: Today’s grid is fairly constrained and congested. Nor is it getting any younger - some upgrades are needed for basic safety. And when you expand a grid, or improve it, that costs money. As always with money, if you spend more and spend wisely up front, that usually lowers your costs in the long-term - but all prices these days, everywhere, seem to be Wal-Mart-ed. Lots of people seem to prefer to spend less money up front and don’t care how quickly the product falls apart, and I think SPP faces exactly this mindset when they propose grid upgrades. A quote, from whom I forget, maybe SPP’s Jay Caspary: “Least cost planning is sometimes at odds with long-term grid planning.” He said it much nicer than I just did. Someone also said something to the effect of - we need to move away from putting band-aids on our system.
So the grid has some issues. Then the wind rush came along. Yikes. SPP had already completed a nice big study on future transmission needs. Then NREL came out with some amazing wind development numbers, the SPP wind development applications shot through the roof, and they realized - oh heck. Maybe we need to do a “re-study” no, I had never heard that word before, either. However, I’m glad they’d rather be better safe than sorry.
Frankly, though, I don’t see how anyone could have anticipated the numbers. Kansas alone has 1,974 megawatts (MW) of wind generation interconnection agreements signed, and OK has 1,089 MW. (This status means that all the relevant studies have been done, SPP has approved it, and now the applicant has three years to get it together and make the facility happen.) KS has another 7,911 MW of wind applications under study with SPP, and OK has 8,964 MW.
blog harvest and YouTube
January 23, 2008
Most Midwesterners have spent a good chunk of their vacations in Colorado. It’s close, it’s cool, it’s gorgeous; good hunting, fishing, hiking, off-road activities, etc.; you can camp and not have to spend money to stay in a hotel…
Colorado is like a big wonderful backyard for many of us, but climate change is threatening that. As Timothy B. Hurst reports on Sustainablog, rising average temperatures are contributing to the spread of a massive pine beetle epidemic that is devastating Colorado forests. And, I might add, after the beetles pass through, intense forest fires often follow.
From Think Progress - the clean coal PR folks (ABEC) sponsored the CNN Democratic presidential candidate debate last night - and, oddly enough, there were no questions asked about global warming. If you read that entry thru there is a great post linked from DeSmogBlog, who got ahold of the “ABEC request for proposals for PR assistance in Nevada, in which it hopes to ‘image and credibility of ABEC’ and increase ‘public awareness of the importance of coal to America’s energy mix.’ One of the key ways it hopes to achieve these goals is through a ‘comprehensive presidential outreach program.’”
Great video clip over on Earthnotes about the recent climate summit in Bali. Papua New Guinea, 1 - U.S., 0.
Energy efficiency notes - from BuildingGreen.com, a fascinating and sobering look at how the boom in small electronics (iPods, cell phones, PDAs, Crackberries I mean Blackberries, big screen TVs, etc.) is contributing to load growth in the U.S. A lot of the problem could be lessened by more efficient batteries and chargers… and of course, by consuming less. *cough cough* (says the woman who just had to buy a new cell phone).
How to help solve the problem now? Beware of phantom loads in your home, make copious use of power strips, don’t overcharge your small electronices - and just generally, check out the CEP energy tips section.
And then just a little spurt of funny … an EnergyStar commercial, for your viewing enjoyment.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
the possible future of carbon regulation in Kansas
January 22, 2008
CEP’s Community Energy Forum in Salina went very well last night. (There is another in Overland Park tonight, and another in Topeka tomorrow - see CEP press release for details.)
CEP invited analysts from energy consulting firm Synapse Energy to the forum, and they had some interesting things to say. If you’d like to see the .pdf of the powerpoint presentation by David Schlissel and Ezra Hausman, please click here (.pdf, 1.3 MB)
From the Harris News coverage, some quotables:
Synapse senior consultant David Schlissel said federal limits on coal plants’ carbon emissions are “more than likely” in the near future.
“A proposal before Congress right now would mandate steep reductions of 50 to 80 percent in CO2 emissions,” Schlissel said. “The adoption of these federal regulations will mean substantial costs for new power plants that are coal- or gas-fired. Coal, of course, is the most carbon intensive.”
Synapse has developed a forecast of expected costs related to carbon emissions for power plants and other businesses.
If the regulatory cost, for instance, becomes $20 per ton each year, companies such as Sunflower that emit 12 million tons annually will have to purchase allowances of at least $240 million.
Part of Sunflower’s response that I found interesting - they again mentioned the potential of their bioenergy project (which is not contained in their proposal) as a partial offset to some of the problems with the proposed coal plant.
A while back, an argument you heard a lot was that Kansas wind power couldn’t be developed without transmission lines for coal power, and that turned out not to be the case. Now the coal cart is getting hitched to biofuels - but there’s a lot of lower cost ways to produce biofuels, with a lot more proven technology.
Also re renewables - on one hand, renewables are booming right now. On the other hand… that could all go south pretty quick (or at least take a significant detour) if the federal government does not renew the production tax credits for wind and solar. The renewal of these credits did not make it through the highly contentious battle over the energy bill, and the initiative is now up again before Congress (CSMonitor).
-– Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy issues? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
CEP Conversations: Dan Nagengast on community wind
January 21, 2008
Welcome to CEP’s new Conversations series, where we interview experts on climate and energy topics.
Dan Nagengast, Kansas Rural Center (KRC) Executive Director and community wind advocate, recently sat down for a chat with Maril Hazlett of the Climate and Energy Project (CEP).
This spring, KRC and CEP will sponsor community wind development workshops for six to eight interested counties in Kansas. For more information, please email info@climateandenergy.org.
Maril Hazlett: Hi, Dan. Why don’t you start out by telling folks little bit about who you are, what you do for a living, and how you came to the issue of community wind.
Dan Nagengast: I have a long history of trying to figure out how to make rural areas more economically viable and trying to find opportunity for young people and existing farmers. I grew up in western Nebraska on a farm 15 miles outside of a town of 300 people and spent all my young years there. I spent many, many years in west Africa working in communities there. Then I came back to Kansas and worked on hunger programs for Church World Service. We raised money through Crop Walks for years and years.
Now I work for the KRC. A little while ago I had the good fortune to visit Minnesota with a group from the Kansas Energy Office and the Governors Rural Life Task Force, which I was chairing. We went to southwestern Minnesota -
MH: Wow. Cool stuff going on there.
DN: Yes, it’s the hot bed of community wind. You can see hundreds of towers out in farmers’ fields - not in grasslands. These towers are owned by farmers, as much as possible, or by municipalities or schools.
And you can just see the prosperity of the countryside. You can see the tax benefits flowing into the school system and into the bridges, into the county commissioner’s office, all those sorts of things.
MH: Why wind? Why right now?
DN: Wind is a form of renewable energy, and it doesn’t emit the greenhouse gases that lead to climate change. It’s a natural resource-based crop.
It used to be – well, there was soil, water, feed, farmers, and we cussed the wind. And now it could be soil, waters, feed, farmers - and oh, we like the wind. If it is structured right, the wind could function as entirely another crop, and its harvest could help firm up rural economies.
over the weekend… stuff happened.
January 20, 2008
Who distributed the climate change denier Fred Singer’s most recent book to all of the Kansas state legislators? According to Climate Progress, it was House member Larry Powell. If you click thru on that link, Joseph Romm (his assistant Kari Manlove is a Kansan, BTW, yay) also has some interesting comments on the book.
The Hays Daily News took a good look on the energy industry special interest money currently ricocheting around the state. They also spoke to the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy, whose website is run by Sunflower Electric. Quotable:
Bob Kreutzer, a Garden City resident who is campaign chairman of Kansans for Affordable Energy, said he believed his group adequately spread its message, which argues coal power is needed to keep energy affordable.
He said he expected to see his group take on a “perimeter role” in the debate, leaving the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy, recently started by Sunflower, at the forefront.
Yet Brian Moline, the alliance’s chairman, said he doesn’t expect his group to be a large lobbying presence.
The alliance’s list of members also includes the Finney County Board of Commissioners, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, Kansas Farm Bureau and two labor unions, in addition to Sunflower’s member electric cooperatives.
Moline said he expects the group to offer testimony to the Legislature on energy policy, with an emphasis on balancing the development of renewable energy in the state with ensuring the state has “base-generation capacity.”
“I certainly don’t anticipate us spending huge amounts of money or maybe any money at all,” said Moline, a former chairman of the Kansas Corporation Commission. “We will be taking our message to the Legislature, and our intent would be to monitor legislation and see if that fits within our agenda and our program.”
This story also notes that “Lobbying is defined in state statute as promoting or opposing, in any manner, action or non-action by the Legislature on any legislative matter. Groups that spend $100 or more in a year are required to register and file reports with the state.”
Carbon offsets are a fascinating topic, and I have plans to develop more content on that topic in the near future. However, for now just take a look at the Energy Legal Blog, and their discussion of the FTC’s plans for examining some of these offsets more closely. If you are an electricity and transmission junkie, this is a cool blog to watch. If you’re not maybe you shouldn’t.
Also along these lines - ha! (get it? get it?) - the Southwest Power Pool is holding what looks to be a pretty cool summit on January 24 - in Oklahoma City. Quotable:
SPP is working with the OEPTTF on a transmission expansion study for wind development scenarios ranging from 1,000-6,000 megawatts in Oklahoma. The study will be based on the SPP Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) 2008-2017. Since transmission expansion plans to accommodate wind developments in Oklahoma are affected by assumptions of wind development and transmission projects in Kansas and Texas, SPP’s study will make comparable assumptions for wind development in those states. The goal of the summit is to share with stakeholders the study scope and milestones. The summit is free and open to the public.
Downloaded the agenda - it looks quite neat.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
updated event information for Take Charge! CEP’s upcoming climate and energy panels
January 18, 2008
Updated event information is now available on CEP’s upcoming Take Charge! community forums in Salina, Overland Park, and Topeka (January 21, 22, and 23 respectively). Click thru to the press release on our home page for times, locations, and pdf fliers listing the names of panel members.
These panels are going to be so darn cool. The participating experts are listed below. CEP couldn’t be more delighted to have these folks participating:
Salina - Kansas Wesleyan University - Monday, January 21, 7-9 p.m.
Jim Ludwig, Westar Energy
Frank Costanza, Tradewind Energy
Carl Huslig, ITC Great Plains
David Schlissel, Synapse Energy
Wes Jackson, The Land Institute
Overland Park, JCCC - Tuesday, January 22, 7-9 p.m.
Bill Riggins, KCPL
Ezra Hausman, Synapse Energy
Mark Lawlor, Horizon
Kimberly Gencur, ITC Great Plains
Topeka, Washburn University - Wednesday, January 23, 7-9 p.m.
Jim Ludwig, Westar Energy
Johannes Feddema, IPCC Researcher
Mark Lawlor, Horizon Energy
Kimberly Gencur, ITC Great Plains
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
coal special interest dollars (coming soon to a town or TV near you)
January 18, 2008
More on coal from today’s Washington Post - $35 million being spent on PR to build coal plants and fight climate change legislation. (I’ll reprint it in full below, because I have noted that the Post’s links often expire on me.)
Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 18, 2008; Page D01
A group backed by the coal industry and its utility allies is waging a $35 million campaign in primary and caucus states to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change.
The group, called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, has spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina.
One of its television ads shows a power cord being plugged into a lump of coal, which it calls “an American resource that will help us with vital energy security” and “the fuel that powers our way of life.” The ads note that half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants.
winding up the week
January 18, 2008
Big story on coal from the LA Times. A selection of quotables:
America’s headlong rush to tap its enormous coal reserves for electricity has slowed abruptly, with more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states canceled or delayed in 2007 because of concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportation problems…
The setbacks have energy regulators jittery about the prospects for meeting America’s ever-increasing hunger for electricity. They say that any delays in building new capacity — coal-fired or otherwise — add pressure to an already strained electricity infrastructure, raising the prospect of shortages or sharply higher prices….
A recent study by the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute projects that coal power will cost more than nuclear power or natural gas by 2030 if coal’s carbon dioxide problem is solved the way most experts envision. Still unproven, that method involves separating carbon dioxide from the gas stream before it heads out of the stacks, collecting the vapors and then storing them underground. That would also require a new network of pipelines to move carbon dioxide from the power plant to a geologically sound site….
Another industry analysis predicts that wholesale electricity prices will rise 35% to 65% by 2015 if the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill — one of the more conservative plans put forward in the Senate — is enacted…..
A more immediate challenge is transportation, from missing links in the rail routes to silted-up Great Lakes shipping channels, which raise concerns that coal may not be so simple to get at after all. “Can coal deliver?” asked Gary Hunt, president of Global Energy Advisors, a Sacramento-based unit of Global Energy Decisions. “The answer is no,” he said — not without “billions and billions” spent on improvements for mining capacity, railroads and shipping….
Go ahead and read it all, don’t be at the mercy of my editing skills. There’s a lot more to the story that the parts I just clipped out. The overall article is good in that it takes a good overview of the coal power issue, beyond the will-the-plants-get-built-or-not perspective. (I’m as guilty of that limited view as anyone, I know.)
The piece sure could have stood to mention, though, how increasing our energy efficiency can help get some of our demand (our increasing demand, mind you) better under control.
Finally, a short video clip from our friends Down Under - the “black balloons” approach to envisioning how carbon dioxide emissions in our daily lives.
I completely blew out my right arm while playing Wii Tennis the other night. I doubt you’ll hear much more from me today typing is hard. everyone have a good weekend.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
soundenergypolicy.net website is registered to Sunflower Electric
January 17, 2008
Just up in DeSmogBlog - I will reprint here in its entirety:
Kansas coal kings have set up another front group to fight back against an October decision to block construction of two coal-fired electricity generators.
The Alliance for Sound Energy Policy advertises itself as “a statewide, non-partisan organization committed to balancing our growing energy needs with environmental stewardship.”
But there are no “environmental stewards” on its list of members, and its slick website is registered directly to Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, the failed proponent of the canceled power plants.
This is the second time that coal interests, including Sunflower, have launched an Astroturf group to fight the October decision. In early November 2007, a group calling itself “Kansans for Affordable Energy” ran a series of expensive and outrageous ads, suggesting that Kansas legislators were playing into the hands of people like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But the Washington Post quickly discovered that the ads had been purchased by Sunflower and by coal giant Peabody Coal.
If you’d like to see the website registration for yourself, just go to this link: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=soundenergypolicy.net.
Right now, as of 11:12 a.m. January 17, that site is registered to: Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, PO Box 1020, 301 West 13th St., Hays KS, 67601.
So if Sunflower owns and administers this site - what else connected with www.soundenergypolicy.net (the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy) do they run as well? To what extent are they dictating its entire agenda?
How can an organization with such a mammoth stake in current Kansas energy policy - in the midst of a brutally partisan-ized battle, where many Republican legislators firmly identify with Sunflower’s agenda, and see their main target as Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her adminstration’s decisions - credibly claim to be “a non-partisan organization”?
The exact relationships here call for further explanation and investigation. It’s important for the public - and for the legislators who serve us - to know what these connections are.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to learn more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
morning news updates
January 17, 2008
Here’s one note on the energy special interests money flying around KS right now - yesterday, the state ethics commission declared that anti-coal, pro-natural gas group Know Your Power, sponsored by Chesapeake Gas, was a lobbying group. This means that they had to disclose their expenses, which ran around $405,000. Kansans for Affordable Energy, sponsored by Peabody Coal, spent $100,000.
My thinking - this is only a drop in the bucket.
Along those lines, there’s at least 15 energy bills up for consideration this session (LJWorld). There seemed to be two interesting “shell” bills that could later be filled in with language regarding the coal plants and/or KDHE. (This is going to make me seem woefully uneducated about the legislative process - but I had no idea you could do that. Fill in the blank legislation…? That sounds way too much like Mad Libs.) Quotable:
However, Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, also a supporter of the coal plants, said he didn’t think lawmakers had the authority to reverse the decision, which was made by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Morris said some of the bills may eventually deal with KDHE’s regulatory process when considering plant permits. He said KDHE took too long to make a decision on the plants.
Nice bit from Spain, who is light years ahead of the U.S. on developing wind power - yesterday, wind power briefly provided 25% of their electrical needs (Reuters). President Bush has set the U.S. wind goal at 20% by 2030. NREL, the Utility Wind Integration Group, and a study by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Part I and Part II) all estimate that in its current configuration the U.S. electrical grid can handle up to 20% penetration by wind without significantly impacting base load.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
KDHE DID NOT CREATE REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY
January 17, 2008
BY NANCY JACKSON
reprinted from the Wichita Eagle, 1/17/2008
In Kansas energy debates, we have heard a lot lately about “regulatory uncertainty.” But what does that mean, exactly?
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. CEO Earl Watkins has asserted that regulatory uncertainty is bad for business (”Regulatory process needs to be certain, impartial,” Jan. 15 Opinion). So has Amy Blankenbiller, CEO of the Kansas Chamber. They are right. Businesses do need a set of clear and consistent rules.
Ironically enough, that is precisely why some of the nation’s leading corporations — and largest greenhouse gas emitters — are calling for carbon dioxide regulation.
As Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers said last year, when elected to chair the Edison Electric Institute, “I’ve seen several surveys that say 70 or 80 percent of the executives in our industry think there will be carbon regulation. In a sense, we’re all building our business plans around the carbon scenario. The only issue is what the regulations will look like and when they’ll be implemented.”
Duke and other corporate superstars — including Caterpillar, Deere & Co., Dow Chemical, General Electric and Shell — have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Together, they are working toward a cap-and-trade system that would, in effect, put a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
These Fortune 500 companies believe they can “slow, stop and reverse the growth of U.S. emissions while expanding the U.S. economy.” Presumably, they know a little something about economic success and regulatory certainty.
They also know that if you’re not at the table when the rules get set, you’re on the menu later. That is why they are actively working to shape carbon dioxide regulations. Kansas businesses should do the same.
Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby’s decision in October did not create regulatory uncertainty; it reflected regulatory uncertainty:
• As of July 2007, members of the 110th Congress had introduced more than 125 bills, resolutions and amendments specifically addressing global climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Decisions made now under the specter of such regulations may be deemed imprudent under law and subject retroactively to penalty.
• In the past 18 months, proposals for 20 coal plants have stalled nationwide because of public concerns about air pollution, increases in greenhouse gases, rapidly climbing economic costs and future liability.
• Regional agreements between governors in the Northeast, West and, most recently, Midwest provide clear targets for emission reductions and allow for a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on carbon emissions.
Neither Bremby nor Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is “out front” on this issue. They are, in fact, arguably behind — 22 states already have climate action plans and another 14 are creating plans.
Regulatory certainty is needed, and in the wake of Bremby’s decision, Kansas has a historic opportunity to lead the nation in creating it. Let’s stop considering false choices between economic vitality and climate stability, and start talking instead about how we achieve both.
Nancy Jackson is executive director of the Climate and Energy Project at the Land Institute in Salina.
Want to know more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
science, pseudo-science, climate change, and the legislative process
January 16, 2008
CEP has been informed that Kansas legislators - all? some? don’t know, hopefully a reporter or two will pick up on this and then ask around - received a very interesting book in their box yesterday - Fred Singer, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.
Singer is well known as a climate change skeptic. He and a small handful of others are making a pretty good living writing books that contradict the established science that states climate change is influenced by human actions, such as the burning of fossil fuels that release excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming and climate change.
(Side note: I think that might be the same Fred Singer who years ago said that second hand cigarette smoke did not cause cancer, while he was supposedly being paid by Philip Morris, but I can’t confirm it.)
This incident brings up a great question. How do you talk to people about the science of climate change? How do you help them distinguish between science and pseudo-science, between all the competing claims and facts that are being slung around like weapons right now?
Smarter brains than mine have answered this. My very favorite resource comes from the New Scientist - Climate Change: A Guide for the Perplexed. Also one from Grist - How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic.
However, I don’t think the KS legislature is being asked - or should be asked - to sort through the evidence of a complicated scientific discussion. No policymakers, at any level, are being asked to debate the science. They’re not scientists. That’s not their job.
What they are being asked to do, though, is to make smart decisions about the risks of climate change, the risks that scientists have discovered. This is the legislators’ job. Frankly, on this topic I come down hard on the side of the military leaders who put together the CNA Corporation report on climate change and national security. (I also posted the video a few days ago.) These guys understand how to manage risk. A few quotes I especially liked:
“As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failure to act because a warning isn’t precise enough is unacceptable.”
“We will pay for this one way or another. We will have to pay for greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.” - General Anthony C. Zinni, USMC (Ret.)
“We never have 100% certainty. We never have it. If you wait until something is 100% certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.” - General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
Risks matter. Regardless of whether you understand or accept all of the science regarding how human activities play a role in climate change, there is just too much at stake to gamble. It’s not worth the risk to our national security, it’s not worth the risk to our economic prosperity - do we tweak and adjust a few things now, or do we really go through heck later? Worse, do our children go through it because we couldn’t face it ourselves?
All that said. I have a horrible confession to make. I have a soft spot in my heart for climate change skeptics. I realize that many of them are just in it for the money, and I realize that lots of their work is also horrendously misused and misinterpreted by business special interests who have zero interest in the scientific discussion at all, and just want to keep making money the same way they always have.
Still. I have always liked contrarians. Not that all skeptics are contrarians, not by a long shot - but when I say contrarians, I mean the people who want to remind us that groupthink on any issue is dangerous. You can’t be reminded of that enough. While we now understand that the risks of climate change are extremely high and that human actions certainly play a role in how it works - this understanding will continue to evolve over decades, hopefully even centuries.
Knowledge grows and changes, just like humans do (ideally). What I appreciate about contrarians is that they remind us to keep an open mind.
You can do this and still be smart about how you manage risk. That’s practical, that’s pragmatic, and I hope to heaven that that is darn near the heart of what it means to be a Kansan.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to learn more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
