Climate and energy

Chairman calls meeting to order. Monday, he will work this bill. Tuesday ? KDHE Secretary Bremby has agreed to appear before them ? or Wednesday?. Hearings on 469 and 468 Thursday (?). Friday, possible actions on bills already heard.

Meeting is being recorded on video.

Are there questions?

Sen. Franscisco – my questions are general regarding bill, and the reasoning behind some of the statements. Ie, mechanisms for offsetting CO2 emissions. Is the intent to try and encourage actions that take place in Kansas? IS the mitgation in state?

Sen. Lee responds – yes, as much as possible.

Sen Francisco – so it would be appropriate to have amendments that make this distinction, between in and out of state.

Chairman – if you have amendments, give them to staff to prepare for Monday.

Sen. Fran. – what is the necessity for the $3 ton charge, if what we are trying to encourage is reduction of emissions. Why should facility pay money rather than take actions to reduce emissions.

Chairman – Its an incentive to do what the bill says.The $3 was based on the Chicago exchange. That was the price on the day we wrote the bill.

Sen. fran. – what is the price of the other mitigation actions? Is this $3 p/ ton an actual penalty or incentive to reduce or avoid emissions… What is the cost per ton of mitigation emissions. Do we know.

Chairman (in essence, we don’t) The price of is even less on the Chicaog Exchange today.

Sen. Fran. – I would be interested in cost of carbon or comparative offsets. We have heard testimony on nuclear reactor. What would a company have to invest to offset carbons, or mitigate carbons. We need to reduce CO2 as quickly as possible. We need to know what the best balance is.

What is cost to construct wind plant, and then compare to this formula in the bill? Can we use that as a measuring stick?

Chairman – we did not calculate this.

Sen. Fran. – can we calculate it? We need a quantified list of mitigations, apart from the $3. One option would be energy efficiency. These are things – we need to put together an accurate list.

Sen. Lee – western Kansas already uses less kW per hr that eastern Kansas. I think this wording was taken from the KCPL (??? may have been KCC) agreement. It would be appropriate to have similar wording in this legislation.

Sen. Fran. – we need to figure out most cost-effective mitigation. This seems like there is a limit on energy efficiency.

Chairman – Monday, have an amendment to clarify this.

Sen. fran. – I would like to, but it is hard to do that without the costs. Or the costs of IGCC/ coal gasification. Or no-till offsets. We do know how to do that. The basic ratio here seems off -

Se. Lee – those numbers came from the IPCC and the value the IPCC attributes to those activities.

Sen. Reitz – I am basically conservation, green, with solar, wind, and nuclear. We’ve heard about nuclear from Jim Ludwig, and I want to set stage for future bill on nuclear. Nuclear is the future. Wind will be too fragmented and not too plentiful. 85% of energy comes from coal. We do not have to have coal over the next ten years – so the bottom line, make it clear, proponents, that we HAVE to have coal – not just for economic development, but because we need energy. And don’t tell me my lights will go out. No one wants that. No one likes conservation, either, but they have to adjust. Energy is going to be incredibly expensive – nuclear and coal both. But you tell me what to do in the next decade. If the plant is critical in the next decade… I’ll come to that. And the $3 is too cheap. That fee needs to be higher. I will offer amendments but I expect them to fail. I’m offering them anyway. We need to know the proponents will take care of the emissions. We’re all watching over your shoulder. Do we really need coal over next ten years? Otherwise, you have to pay for it thru a higher fee.

Chairman – um

Sen Reitze – I had to get that off my chest, I couldn’t sleep last night.

Chairman – i hope you sleep better tonight

Sen. Pine – I don;t know if we have anyone in audience who can talk about bioenenrgy center. I want to know more about what that can do in reducing carbon. Is anyone here an authority? If not, I want someone here on Monday.

Earnie Leahman of Midwest Energy – we can have someone from Sunflower here on Monday to talk about bioenergy.

Se. Fran. – so we can ask questions on Monday?

Chair – within reason. But we are working the bill on Monday.

Sen. fran. – is it reasonable to get the price variations on Monday, too, for mitigations.

Mark Schrieber with Westar – I would be glad to look into that – you are talking about carbon capture mechanisms?

Se. Fran – I will give you a list of the mitigations allowed. I want to know the reasoning behind the various values for offsets. One times, two times for nuclear, etc…. what costs would utilties face in taking advantage of options? What tonnage would be avoided? And how do these costs compare to the $3? Or can we remove the tax altogether, and ask utilities to meet these standards?

Schrieber – I can ask our researchers to get you broad costs for carbon mitigation

Se. Lee – please do an additional. carbon tax offers no futute revenue for utility, but IGCC could bring in a benefit.

Schreiber – like… economic development?

Sen. Lee – well, how that resource could offer additional revenues to utility. benefits.

Sen Pine – I am asking my question because it is my impression that integrated biocenter offers potential for opportunity to reduce the CO2 emissons we are taking about, and we need to hear whole story.

Sen. Apple – for KCPL, and American Council of Engineering, and Westar – requests for changes to language. Will you work with us to get that language by Monday?

Sen. Fran. – my concern – the advisors have a lot of work, we heard about a lot of amendments… lots of work. A lot of language.

Sen Apple – and his assistant – they are working on that language, some of it with SUnflower.

Sen. Fran. – we also heard KDHE concerns about Secretary – are we asking them to enforce entire clean ari act, including small motors, is anyone working on that?

Chairman – not that i know of

Se. Fran – this is av ery complicated bill. Natural resurces is looking at efficiency issue as well – could we take that part out of this bill? and focus on the generating facilities?

Chairman – Natural Reosurces will focus on efficiency next week. We can take that part out. It is appropriate. Sen. Bill 452, thrusday.

Chair – further questions? committee you have minutes. Any discussion?

Sen. fran. I haven’t had chance to read minites. Can we approve Monday?

Chair – minutes tabled till Monday.

Adjourned.