Climate and energy

Just a Kansan moment before we get started here – you wouldn’t believe how beautiful the Senate chambers are, after the renovation. Worth every penny. The columns especially are really marvelous. I took a few pictures with my phone and will try to remember to upload and post them. Someone please remind me if I forget.

Quick note: I will stay here as long as I can. However, live blogging could run headlong into domestic life. The Senate has lots going on today, and I just hope they get to this bill before I have to leave. I’ll still do what I can to make the democratic process more accessible, before I have to get home for dinner.

(Actually, I believe you can also listen in live at this link: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-legisportal/listen.do )

2:30 p.m.

Senate is called to order and roll is taken. Chaplain prays (in part, he asked that we could have the patience of Job to get thru this session, hmm), pledge of allegiance declared, special guests introduced. Senator ??? announces birth of his two new granddaughters! numbers 16 and 17. Wow.

Introduction of bills and concurrent resolutions. Read into record.

Messages from the House read into record.

The pages are figuring out where they need to go.

Reminder – today is last day to introduce bills by individuals.

Sen. Emler – introduces a resolution to non-concur on an internet bill, SB 49, and rqeuests conference committee. Approved.

Final action called for on SB449 and SB 521 and SB301 and SB 419 and SB 430 and SB 431

Roll called, votes taken. Ayes on most except several noes on 301. Senate put at ease to await arrival of Senator Hensley who was unavoidably detained. A preliminary count is taken on SB 301.

More or less, everyone just hangs out on the floor. Some mosey. Up here we sit, a little glumly, in really uncomfortable seats. Easy for them to be “at ease.” Hensley shows up. He votes aye. MH had itme to look up SB 301, it has something to do with being able to expunge milder parts of a police record. SB 301 went down.

They then review more bills for some sort of action. The pages sit very quietly and politely and try not to look bored. Oops, one yawned.

Motion for committee in the whole, Sen. Brumgardt, to consider HB 2066. Committee Report adopted (this is like a test case for the vote – not the real vote on the bill. A final action vote will take place later. Thank you, Jon – )

Sen Emler – this bill was to address concerns of western Kansas and environemntalists re energy sources. Bipartisan effort. Bicameral bill. Committee met for four days of testimony, two more days of working bill. IS presented in substitute for HB 2066.

Goes over bill contents. KS electrical transmission commission. Acknowledges similarity with Kansas Energy COuncil, but he says this one is limited in duration, and it will do its job in advising on policy. Solar net metering – discusses provisions. KDHE provisions – basically, secretary may not adopt rules or regs more strngent than clean air act or EPA pursuant to that act. If Secretary wants to implement more stringent regs must come to legislature to seek autority. Does not preclude Secretary from contracting with applicants for new permits. If an application complies with provisions of act,Secrtary required to approve permit. Next provision – members can opt out, like smaller co-ops, of KCC jurisdiction. And building Holcomb.

There were a wole lot of amendments in committee that took out big part of bill. As man of you know.

Sen. Journey, Sedgewick – ask Sen. Emler to explain how electric rates will be affected by adoption or rejection of this legislation.

Sen Emler – naural gas electricity is aroudn 6 cents. Wind is very competitive with gas. Coal is around 2 cents and nuclear is half a cent – these are all fuel costs. If you go just to gas, rates increase considerably. Increased demand, and home heating bills increase. If Holcomb is not consructed western Kansas will see significant ncrease in their rates, because beginning in 2012 current coal contracts are expiring. They need another source. Current price in parts of western KS is already 100% higher than in eastern KS, for commercial. Residential rate is up to 70% higher in western KSthan eastern KS. That trend will ony ncrease if they don’t get access to reasonable costs= generation, which means other than gas or wind.

Sen Journey – this is a diffcult b=debate but we need to get all facts on table. How many coal plants or electric plants are required to have current licenses renewaed?

Emler – all of them are coming up shortly.

Journey – shoudl the bill today fail to become law, what will happen to them? Will KDHE have impact on their rulings?

Emler – I’m not quite certain how to anser… there is regulatory uncertainty because of KDHE decision. In past, there has never been issue with CO2, now there is one in terms of issuing permits, which came up with Sunflower and Holcomb. Because permit was denied on basis of CO2 decisions. Sec. Bremby yesterdat came to committee and Sen from Smith asked him similar question. Secretary said that with re-permits, he was discussing with them voluntary mitigation of emissions. What happens if they do not agree to voluntarily limit emissions – then Secretary woudl still issue permit.

Sen. Lee – that is the answer I received. I asked twice. We will ask for voluntary compliance, but we will still – mh: what? that answer was strange.

Jurney – the point just made is that we have a situation where operations of administrative branch is arbitrarily punishing an entity, but those same laws will be applied different to other entities.. That is abuse of power. Sunflower has been singled out. Not for dirtiest plant – that is outside Lawrence. But this is a plant that will implement new technology. Emler, pelase explain why this coal at Sunflower is cleaner…

Emler? I think – I’m not prepared to discuss combustion chamber on plant, but senator from sedgewick can help.

Journey – supercritical is process where coal is burnt at higher temperatures than other plants in state. It is cleaner with this technology. It breaks down the nasty stuff faster. (MH paraphrases) this technology is the most effcient we could have, and KS has great opportunity with this plant. Does Sunflower intend to go forward with remediation – the algae farm – even though it was removed from the bill?

Emler – Sunflwoer has ndicated that f they build plant, they will build the energy complex – algae pond is one part of it. That is where CO2 mitigation would occur. Some have said algae is not tested program – it has been around for twenty years, but not on commercial scale, and it has been proven to work. Will it get up to 40% reduction in Co2 – my understanding is yes, that is what their engineers are telling them.

Journey – this energy comolex is such a unique attempt at restructuring our energy infrastructure – we wshuld all be proud. The military wants to do this too. This technoogy has been proven to work in the laboratory, and this is the first industrial size technology application… but look at KS record in biosciences, and our record in excploring nique ways to resolve problems. I support this legislation. This is our day today to really set policy for future in state of KS. Whenever we make a difficult decision we have to make balancing test, positives and negatives… we set a unique precedent today. I know there are tose today who will want to change the debate – it should be about economic opportunity. Or will we base decision today on an unproven scientific theory? (MH: he apparently refers to global warming) Where they prove its data based on poll of other scientists? I know some of those here feel really strong about this issue – don’t go here today though because it detracts from real issue – helping our economy grow. The CO2 produced by this plant is minimal in terms of the world. KIlling this economic opportunity for western KS wont make a difference. Whil KDHE considered tis plant, China put 180 coal plants on line, and they were’t state of the art supercritical generation. China is building lots of coal plants. In effect, why can’t we? If China doesnt get on board then what we do today makes no difference. All that killing this will do will kill our state’s economy.

Sen Apple – amendment turned in. Explains – KCPL, Westar and other folks bringing friendly amendment on technical details and definitions….

Sen Emler – this is a friendly amendment.

Sen. Taddinen – another clarification

Sen. Stevens – we’ve heard a lot about economic development for this region of the state, the money and the jobs, and that is important. But an even more important reason for this bill to pass is our energy securty. If you look at our energy reserves, 95 of our resrves are in coal. Very important for us to have coal in mix as we go forward. we need every megawatt from every source for several decades to feed the hunger of this world. I come from an area with a gas field. That will be gone someday. Much of our natural gas comes from Canada. canada wil use theirs up too, won’t be able to export it, and we will have to look for more expensive sources.Gas produced power is expensive. If you take coal out of the mix – and 75% of this state’s energy comes from coal – you only have gas. Its price is volatile, spikes a lot. Affects your average electrical bill, Wind has been discussed a lot. I’m supportive. This project will make it possible for 3,000 MW of wnd with new trnasmission lines. 200MW of coal will be used in KS, rest will got to CO – for now. That will change. Lots of irrigation wells near Holcomb and right now they use natural gas and diesel. that’s too expensive, and they need to move to lectric.

We’ve talke da lot about mitigation, the bioeneryg cneter. Holcomb would be the most environmentally coal plant in the world.

Sen. Apple – re-offers his earlier amendment. It passes.

Sen Ostmeyer? – he supports Snflower plant. Coming from western KS we like to put our hands around any little thing we can get out there. I have five cooperatives in my district and we need power. All of it. I get calls from my constitutents, they don’t like exporting power. They say we only need a smaller plant, what’s wrong with the Governor’s compromiuse. Exporting is good. I export wheat corn milo all over world. Tis plant might not even be big eough in years to come. We will need more and more electricity in years to come. We get spoiled – we like to plug everything in. Ice storm got us last yea. Electricity is a luxury. I’m not wanting to scare anybody, but we depend on energy and we do an excellent job of it. And we need to embrace nuclear energy. My brother is a nuclear engineer… safest energy in the world. We need to look to it in the future.

Sen. Steineger – would liek to ask questions of Emler. As bill was initially introduced there were standards for emissions of CO2 by plant. Those standards were stripped in committee. Why? That lessened the bill, make it less appealing to me and many others.

Emler – I conjecture – it was based on testimny of opponents. Environmentalists said it wasn’t enough. Other opponents said it was a tax. I don;t think it was a tax, it was a fine or fee. You had the two extremes in opposition to the bill, so the committee just took it out.

Steineger – about the offsets. There were provisions for polluters who did offsets and mitigations. Why were they stripped.

Emler – if you have no limit, there is no need to offset the limit.

Steinger – my views 0 the world will burn coal for a long long time. Chinese are actually on track to build new cleaner power plants. That sets the bar for us. I accept the fact theat humans will burn coal – as na environmentalist, I think we need to find a way to burn it more cleanly, The oribinal bill tried to do this, with penalities and encouragement, with tested technologies. I considered voting for original bill. So I was disappointed. I offer an amendment to put those provisions back in. I asked reviser to use the exact language that was stripped out. He did a copy and paste. It would add back in standards for CO2 emissions for all sorts of plants. I also added back in some of the offset credits, including CCS, chilled amonia, coal gasification, and CO2 storage. (lists offsets) I might even be aliberal environmentalist, but we need to burn coal cleanly. And tis benefits utilities. It makes them more efficient. We have an opportunity here in KS to build best cleanest coal plant in world. Original bill tried to do that, despite governors’ misgivings.

Sen. Apple – does this apply for any power plants in Wyandotte?

Steineger – this wuld set bar for new generation. We have two or three in my district, and they aren;t the cleanest. And they are exsiting generations.

Sen. Lee – Why does this amendment leave out solid fuel mitigation?

Steineger – it should include it, I talked to the reviser.

Sen. Lee – this is not all of original language (she gives examples)

Steinger explains he did leave some aspects out – like the ability to trade or sell CO2 credits. And he reimposes $3 carbon tax that everyone universally hated. Some debate between Steineger and Lee.

Sen. Lee – basically, she says that the carbon tax shoudn’t go back in there. She opposes Steineger’s amendment.

Sen. from Mead – has any other state in the union has imposed this – levy?

Sen. Steineger – not in U.S.

Sen. from Mead – Wht if this affected Lawrence power plant? Any estiamtes of how much revenue would be generated?

Sen. Steineger – that plant is one of the most polluted in our state. The Jayhawks would have to pay a lot. I don’t have figured.

Sen. from MEad – if there is new tax revenue?

Sen. Steineger – we could do a fund for clean coal technology for power plants to clean up emissions.

sen. from Mead – new levies usually have a place to go. What are we having this levy for?

Sen. Steineger- it is a disincentive for bad behavior.

Sen. from Mead – do we allow any other entity to exceed environmental standards – do they get to pay to pollute?

Sen. Steineger – there might be some for water.

Sen. from Mead – but are they strucutured like this – that you pay to pollute and the more you pollute, the more revenue to the government? My understanding there is no state in the nation that does this. I don’t think this is a disincentive for bad behavior. … Has anyone been killed by CO2?

Sen. Steineger – um, yes (more or less)

Sen. from Mead – only if you hold your breath, I imagine. Has anyone been phhsically harmed from CO2 generated from Lawrence power plant?

Sen. Steineger (no)

Sen from Mead – CO2 is not a harmful substance. It’s average ordinary part of our human life anywhere on this earth, it’s in this room – and I’m a farmer and we love CO2 it’s a good thing. If you accept entirety of theory of global warming – if we build this power plant, will we create global havoc?

Sen Steineger – according to National Geographic, GW caused by two things – natural cycles, and human actions. As we use more and burn more, we aggravate natural cycle.

Sen from Mead – the odds of CO2 emissions form Sunflower plant messing with climate are about as good as Powerball – which means you have no chance of winning whether you play the game or not. This plant does not have good odds. There’s lots of plants gojn in china. What are the odds that these CO2emissions will affec the world.

Sen. Steineger – let’s up the ante. What I see over and over in polling all over hw world, people all over the world are concerned about air pollution and global warming. I think this is a rare opportunity – we can be the first ones to develop next generation of clean technology. Whichever state or country figures out how to burn coal cleanly and safely, this is a whole new industry. And all kinds of energy need to be clean and sustainable, whether it be wind or photovoltaic. Whatever state develops the public policy piece – we need to incent clean sustainable energy. The potential for gain is huge here. Yes, the Chines are building power plants, and they are building cleaner technology- and they will export it. We need to give incentives, and play our cards right, and KS could be a global leader. Like Carrie Nation, like John Brown, we could be a leader. We can’t lose that race, or give up without trying… when we gutted tis bill, we gave up.

Sen. from Mead (Huelskamp?) – I lost track of the answer. How much impact will these emissions have?

Sen. Steineger – we will be able to measure that. (MH – it’s 11,000,000 tons)
Sen from Mead, Huelskamp- does Steineger accept the theory under which KDHE denied the coal plants – and shoudl we penalize current CO2 emitters, if CO2 is such a bad thing? And why wouldwe put Sunflower at a competitive disadvantage. And I don’t think China has CO2 standards.

Steineger – I think they do now. And BTW, CO2 is not the only pollutant – well, by-product – of burning coal. When you burn coal in a smart way, you can harvest by-products and use them in further productive way. We need to switch debate from pollution to by-products, which you can harvest and use productively. This gives me further fuel for my amendment.

Heulskamp – he doesn’t know if CO2 is bad for environment, and thinks CO2 is bad behavior – more than ten years the Clinton administation was trying to negotiate a protocol – it didn’t pass. The Kyoto Protocol set standards for US and other countries, but would allow China and India to have no standards. They still do’t have any. The Senate rejected the treaty – it was like unilateral disarmament, we can’t emit and they can. This amendment is an endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol by the state of Kansas. It wil raise our energy costs, there is no question. In my district the cost of electricity is 70% higher. How much higher does it have to be? If we don’t buold this plant it is those of us in western KS who will pay. If you stop this development – Sec. Bremby was worried about CO2 emissions, whcih are not a problem, that is silly and folly and they are natural – I think we need a strong vote to reject this amendment.

Sen. Journey – he opposes the amendment as well. I thought the committee did a good job on original bill. And it goes to places we could maybe end up, but not now and not in this way. I also take issue with assessment of environmental Chinese – they ar einterested in unit cost, that’s why they’re building lots. It all ends up in California and the Midwest. And the Chinese are not using clean technology. They pollute their own environment in search of profit. I am as agreen as anyone in this chamber, and I support wind energy without exception… when governor kept us from building wind farms in Flint Hills I culdn’t believe it. And I am concerned with power costs in western KS too.

Sen Francisco – you have a styrofoam cup on your desk, right? (Laughter) She suggests bringing back in the friendly amendment… and MH missed it, because the servers around here all slow drastically between 4-5 a=for some reason, and she was just able to update the post and she was happy!! and not paying attention.

Sen. Francisco – Hearing bill in committee was difficult, had a lot in it. Asks questions about rates, mentions that costs of coal will increase due to carbon regulation and possible cap and trade.

Emler- the testimony said that there would not be a tax. there weren’t enough votes to pass tax. There would be a cpa and trade that wuld eventually pass. If federal government does pass this, rates will be affected.

Francisco – we have heard about bioenergy center – does naything in this bill encourage other utiltiies to build similar centers?

Emler – no.

Francisco – we have heard about exports of wheat, etc, from export of those commodoities – and there is income tax income from them. Id there any tax revenue from exporting coal power from Sunflwoer and Holcomb.

Emler – (in essence, no, but there would be other economic benerfits from trickle down effect to individuals)

Francisco – Has two amendments to submit. She explains them – regarding elimination of sections from original bill. Her first removes section 23 of bill, which deals with change of definition in cooperative. It would eliminate that section, and statute as it exists right now would remain. Francisco for Emler – did committee hear testimony on tis provision?

Emler – yes. KCC testified regarding this, and Sunflower and they negotiated some language that was acceptable to KCC and the cooperatives.

Francisco – my understanding is that KCC in fact came with a balloon to this, and were nuetral on testifying on change. Some debate here, that no one really testified in favor of this… Emler and Francisco recall differently. Sunflower would escape regulation by KCC< but their consumers could apply for their re-regulation. Clarification by Sen. Lee. No municipal utility in this state is regulated re rates by KCC. regulation differs by utility. Debate over who this amendment affects. No clear answers. Emler says he didn’t pay attention to details because the parties discussing it reached resolution. Francisco – we need more general language, less specific, this affects very specific companies. Also, what would be the positive results from this deregulation?

Emler – positive result of not going thru regulatory process saves money, which means consumers would have lower bills. Francisco – is this a different benefit for cooperatives, versus other consumers? Emler makes distinction with investor-owned utilities. Francisco differs withhis assessment. the basic issue seems to be – when these cooperatives have the capacity to deregulate, is that bad for consumers or not, and do they have adequate rights under this legislation to redress the problems with the co-op board or not.

Francisco – I have heard that it could take up to nine years to change a board. She also brings up definition of a generation and transmission cooperative, and wants to know if it exists elsewhere under statute.

No one seems to know… big pause…

francisco said she checked with legislative research, and they couldn’t find it. There was not adequate time or deliberatons in to review this part of the bill in committee. She wants it out of the bill. Emler disagrees because it impacts existing law, and it was a friendly agreement from KCC and cooperatives, so they worked it out themselves. Lee disagrees as well, says there were six hours in committee to discuss the bill, that’s plenty, more than usual. Francisco – this language was introduced as a balloon on Monday, and there was not tme to discuss it. Also, why if we are deleting this part of the bill… why does it affect existing law?

Vote – amendment voted down. Francisco explains her second amendment which removes a section of this bill, that having to do with KDHE responsibilities. Many of us appreciate how Secretary protects health and environment, and we want him to cntinue to do so. There is also pending litigation that will help us understand existing actions of Secretary. There is also concern that this language will go too far and KS will now have to implement federal Clean Air Act in entirety. Similar language in the House was amended, does anyone know what it is?

No one seems to, Francisco thinks there are some amendments needed for this section. She moves to delete. Emler says her amendment doesn’t do the job and goes too far and eliminates existing law. Francisco moves to withdraw her amenment, Steineger moves to put his back in, which puts mitigation and carbon tax back in.

Senator Wagle – she considers herself and environmentalist and she opened a recycling newsletter – it was educational. Hard to recycle in her community… and she saw talk about reduction of carbon footprint. In your home, if you have TV, DVD player, you create 1,608 lbs of carbon per year. A computer is more. And oh goodness, your drier – 8,022 lbs. of carbon poor year. If the senator wants to disincent bad behavor, maybe the Senator could have his wife hang up her laundry. If you get 30% of your diet from meat – oh no! But you could become a vegan. Maybe the senator from Wyandotte would do something on a personal level.

Sen. Steineger – well, my car is a bit of a polluter…. there is some amount of pollution caused by all human activities. But as well apply the idea of carbn footprint to a power plant – it’s not just pollution coming out of power plant. CO2 can be used to be injected into depleted oil fields to bring out more oil. I think we can incent power companies to be more efficient and think more creatively. I want to reinsert carbon offsets – it is a good way to bring on the idea of lowerng carbon footprint.

Sen from Sedgewck – this would bring economic development in Kansas to a screeching halt. If we start measuring carbn, even if ou have a computer, you have to pay. Businesses won’t like that. My part of the state is proud of its contribution to the aircraft industry. Our businesses are being courted to go elsewhere. If we regulate carbon in kansas they will leave.

Steineger – good point. My town is a manufacturing center, too, KCK. He tells a story about how the meat acking industry was once a big polluter – point – we give incentives to get people to avoid wasteful practices. This is good public policy.

Sen. Wagle – she doesn’t see tis amendment as an incentive to improve wuality of life. This is a huge deterrent to economic growth. Businesses are voluntarily trying to improve without legislation. The proposal before us is an example ??? what?? yes, she said it.

Also, if we start regulating business, when do we start regulating families? We can’t go down tis road.

Se. Taddinen – issue has been discussed for many years, cap and trade, or carbon tax. It is a global issue. We might see something in terms of federal tax and trade. In northeast part of US there is discussion of a regional agreement to address this. It is not wise for a single state to move ahead by itself. KS would become an island and would be at a compeitive disadvantage.

Sen. Emler – staff really drafted this bill…. Emler stands in opposition to bill, even though it is original language of bill – they changed minds due to testimony.

Francisco – has comments re discussion about CO2. Holcomb will have 11 million tons of CO2 emissions. Two opponents to bill talked about their own efforts to reduce CO2. One woman from Prairie Village has been working, things like more insulaton, draft stoppers in chimneys, keeping tires inflated, etc. They want to reduce by 20% over ten years. They could save a lot. It’s nothing compared to what Holcomb would produce. cKansas farmer’s Union also has lots of land enrolled in sequestration program – they are saving 640,000 tons per year, or only 6% of what Holcomb would emit. that puts this in perspective. Another piece of testimony – climate changes are coming much faster than climate models have predicted. Quality of life – we can see these changes coming around us. Fruit and nut trees are having problems producing. This is not good. These changes are more immediate than were thought.

Senator from reno – senator Bruce – he disagrees how the debate has been framed. The carbon tax is supposed to be an incentive, but it won’t produce a deterrent effect. If you were caught speeding, but someone else is paying for your ticket – will that slow you down? This is the same. If we put this tax on Holcomb, Holcomb doesn’t pay – it gets passed to the taxpayer, the ratepayer. This is a mandate on the people in western KS who already pay too high of electric bills. If you vote for this amendment, you are in favor of hiking utility rates for western KS.

Sen ?? – If these plants are built, 85% of power will be exported. Most of tax will be paid by out of state ratepayers.

Sen. Bruce – Kansas’s energy needs are increasing. Kansans’ will need more than 15% of power soon. It will double.

Sen. Franscico, for Bruce – that the transmission lines that will be built for this are headed to the west and would not be available?

Bruce – some go west, some go east -

Francisco – Sunflower has that 85% under contract to someone else, they don’t own it.

Bruce – lots of contracts will expire shortly, and they need that power.

Francisco – there may be increasing demand from Kansas, but that would be met by building third plant at Holcomb, not re-allocating from first two plants.

Sen. from Clay – that energy will not just go to western Kansas. It also goes to my constituents.

Steineger – moves to pass his amendment and keep the original language, because it will probably be vetoed otherwise. He’d rather do it right the first time.

Sen. Lee – says it is not correct that the Governor would sign the original bill that was drafted. She has never said that.

Moderator – says hey, he can speculate in his closing statement, you can’t make a factual correction, Steineger go ahead.

Sen Steineger – we need to set a higher standard, or she will veto it.

VOte – roll call requested. MH is NOT tracking votes, BTW. And also BTW, she texted her husband and he has kindly consented that she can be late for dinner.

Looks like a no vote. The mitigation and etc. does not get back into the bill.

Senator from Riley, Senator Reitz – just wants to talk a bit – thanks for putting this early in session – if it came later, in last five days, I would have taken my life at that point (lghter) My constituents have made a big impression on me with their worries on global warming. My wife is deep into Methodist church and its efforts to fight global warming. I have been deeply uneasy about this bill. We need a lot more energy – I don’t know that case was made – coal is only game in town now. But conservation is so very important and we don’t emphasize it enough. And nuclear and wind – that means a lot. We are talking about a lot now – polar bears, our daily lives. I am going toleave ts whole episode with a great deal of uneasiness. I am going to go yes on this bill, because it is best for Kansas, but I am worried. My constituency is Kansas, and what’s best for Kansas is economic development. I can’t deny it really. I am going to have a hard time going back to my constituency, saying this. I’m really torn. This is the most important thing we will do this session. We are looking ahead – and we may not be making the right decision. I am going to bring legislation in on nuclear… but the only game in town right now is coal, and the way this bill is written we have to rely on Sunflower’s word to deal with CO2. I hope that is what happens. I’m uneasy, uneasy, uneasy about this. Leadership wants this vote. Maybe the rest of you feel the same. I am changing my vote. (MH: is he talking about big vote, or the amendment vote that just happened?)

Francisco – goes back to her first amendment. Emler apologize for misunderstanding her amendment earlier, blame sit on his optomestrist, and says she can go ahead. She is striking section 23 re KDHE secretary. Would allow the court case to be the deciding factor over Secretary’s power, and leave him his responsility to protect health and environment.

Emler – does this include amendment that was just defeated? the same deletions that were include in 567? Francisco – no.

At ease while they figure out something in the amendment. Result: yep, this still deletes any reference to Sec of KDHE from this legislatio.

Sen. Hensley – is the reasoning to wait until the Supreme Court rules on his authority?

Fran. – part of it, yes.

Sen. Hensley – then I support the amendment. It is reasonable to defer to the Supreme Court. I remember during school finance debate we argued that, and I think it applies here as well.

Sen Emler – strongly opposes this amendment. Kansas is a rule of law state. The Attorney General’s interpretation was as erroneous as it possibly could be. There is no reason to wait for Supreme Court decision. The Secretary did not meet any of the standards required. MH: Emler is really, really upset about this, and I won’t get it all down and it is very technical – in essence, he lists long precedents that prove his point. A non-elected bureaucrat cannot be allowed to overrule 161 people. We might just as well pick up and go home.

Sen. from Johnson – I wish Sen. from McPherson would tell us what he really feels about this (laughter). He doesn’t think the Secretary had the authority under law, he just personally didn’t like carbon emissions. That is like Secretary just releasing one thousand felons because he thoguht it wouldn’t hurt public safety. That isn’t rght. Only the legislature has the authority to make policy. There is no reason to wait for Supreme Court decision, because Supreme Court doesn’t have right to make policy. This amendment would keep legialture from reclaiming its power to make energy policy for the state. Otherwise, we will be forsworn on our constitutional duty to this state.

sen. Apple – I support the bill and these senators. Sec. Bremby’s testimony told us that there was a third party compiling info on CO2 in state. I’m sure it will include ethanol and livestock industries, and everyone will have to reduce CO2. They would use permit process to influence voluntary compliance. When you hold the air permit, – that’s not voluntary compliance. We have many coal generating facilities in state of KS, and their permits are coming up for renewal. The impact on that could be uncertainty. We are trying to egulate without regulation and the net effect of KDHE actions will reduce CO2 in Kansas, because they have driven business away. There are posiitive things in underlying bill. The possibility of CO2 going to TX for oil field recovery. A power line that could be built in western KS, with an interconnect to send power west. And an interconnect to SW corner of state, wich would allow 3,000 MW of wind to go west. Some could even stay in central grid. I have a report on my desk, 120 pages, the Sunflower plan for permit – MH: bascially, Sunflower jumped through lots of hoops to get the permit. And CO2 can be good or bad for soil. And there are lots of mercury controls. This bill is good for state of Kansas.

Francisco – questions for Apple. Is there anything in this bill that addresses the pipeline or transmission?

Apple – no

Francisco – does naything address the construction at Holcomb?

Apple – no

Francisco – I know there are objections to this amendment, but this is the nut of the bill. Since the process began, it has not been clear what sections of the bill people should address, and how the sections were related. Nothing I am doing would eliminate the language for debate. This would separate the issues in the bill, so we can tell our constitutents what part of it we do and do not support.

Vote – noes have it, we are back on the bill.

Sen. Emler – yields to Sen Lee. She thanks Holmes and Keether, says how bipartisan and bicameral it was. Her points – our state and our nation are at a crossroads. Baseload is almost fully utiltiized, but demand continues to grow, even with best conservation. Construction is very expensive and requires regukaltory certainty. We must work to deterimne best science for air quality regualtions. this bill restores regulatory certainty in Kansas, It does not discriminate east v. west Ks.

Sen Hensley – concerned about the process in developing this piece of legislation. Using a House bill as a vehicle I had deja vu to the gaming bill, in reverse. That went to a fillibuster. I’m cncerned the same thing might happen in the House. You can’t amend a motion to concur. It is my hope that the House will have a debate and an opportunity to offer amendments because that is what the process is all about. I have been informed late today that they may end up debating own bill, a Senate bill, ironically. But for me, with an issue of this magnitude, ti needs to go thru both houses, with amendments.

i appreciated Sen. reitz comments – I know this won’t be the last tme we see this elgislation. It will consume much of this session, and we will have opportunity to reach a compromise. I don;t think 2066 has got us there.

Sen Emler – closes with one comment – this is and has been since middle of October a bipartisan effort.

Ayes have it (remember we are stil on a test, or preliminary, vote)

Now regular Senate President comes back and clerk reads committee report. Adopted.

Now. Will they vote…? Will I get dinner? Clerk is reading something, dang. this seems to be cover for people to circulate and talk frantically. some aren;t moving at all, though. And I just got caught sneaking a drink of water and am in big trouble.

Reminder: Preliminary vote was ayes, no noes asked for.

AH! Will do final vote on energy bill when they convene tomorrow. Oh no, that is valnetine’s day.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org