Climate and energy

Oh dear. Super-small room. Like - 10×18 feet. And lots of folks who want in.

Oh dear.

Emler makes all too accurate joke about the fire marshall.

We begin.

Reviser - goes over research. Clarifies point about energy efficiency in vehicles, how to word in bill.

Lee - the vehicle energy efficiency wording in this bill sounds good, but too difficult to enforce. Too dependent on gas prices.

Holmes - still, on the other hand, KCC budgets their vehicles.

Reviser - on the meaning of “best available control technology” - this is common language from Clean Air Act, widely defined in literature and practice. Often determined on case by case basis.

Emler - did you see any control technologies for various emissions?

Reviser - EPA maintains database of relevant technologies. It’s accessible.

Lee asks for clarification on part of the definition. Reviser responds. Lee - we have been told that there is no feasible way to take existing coal facilities in state to make them 1910 in terms of CO2 emissions. If this is put into statute, what happens when new technology comes on line in ten years? Are we assuming these plants all have to retrofit? Upgrade? to reduce CO2 emissions?

Holmes - this applies to mercury?

Reviser - CO2 capture. Not necessarily would it apply to amount that comes out of the stacks. This is capture technology, as opposed to emissions technology.

Apple - in permit that was aproved by staff of KDHE, they mentioned two types of control technology - I think one was perhaps better, but not widely used. When we use tis definition, do we mean something that is the best… well, what are the standards.

Holmes - energy and environment impact are part of those standards, in evaluating costs. Some technology is not economically feasible.

Keuther - there seems to be a qualifier on page six that says you do the best you can.

long silence.

more silence.

Reviser - net metering for solar - the difference between House and Senate versions. KCC said that avoided fuel costs is a misnomer, they look at avoided energy cost (MH??? missed it) As to how the calculation works …looked at parallel generation standards.Calculaton = Utilities montly system cost of average per kW hour.

Reviser - energy conservation tax credits on rental property - would adding insulation standard make more of a difference financially? to fiscal note on bill? Would reduce note to $1.75 million from $2.5 million. However, the impact is hard to predict. Assumption is that most of the impact would be on landlords of multifamily dwelling units. This is per year figure.

Emler - this seems odd. For an R-52 rating -

Holmes - but tis is a tax credit, does not take into acount sales tax.

Lee - this is a carry forward tax credit, which always increases the fiscal amount.

Silence.

Reviser - meaning of phrase “annual operating capacity” re renewables in RPS. Commonly understood meaning of the phrase. Moxley - his intent with amednment was to do it on power produced. Across country the most common way is to do it on basis of energy productin, retail sales. Some states have done RPS in terms of additional capacity. Both are legitimate policy decisions for stating an RPS. (she gives figures for conversions) For 5% RPS you would need 310 MW capacity.

Lee - nameplate is always more than productin.

Reviser - nameplate is a capacity measure. But no facility produces 100% of capacity.

Apple - nuclear is right up there, in 90s.

Emler - so annual operating capacity is not standard language, should not be in bill,

Reviser - in essence. To boil it down.

Apple - we are on the right track with retail sales language.

Reviser - goes over side by side of study commission provisions in bill. (MH: I really like this reviser) In introduced version of bill, there was a commission with 11 members. She goes into detail on differences. At issue - who is voting/ non-voting member, and who the governor gets to appoint, who has the legislative appointment, and who has scientific knowledge/ qualifications in what areas of science - climatology, engineering in renewables and nuclear, energy conservation, etc. The mission of the commission is also different, and the goal is different - ie, to make concrete policy recommendations on emissions limits. Consensus with mainstream scientific community. Etc. MH: in essence, these are REALLY different commissions under House and Senate bills. Including no sunset on commission in House version.

Lee - it doesn’t sunset??

Reviser - no.

Emler - wants to break to discuss the commission.

Holmes - this vote on commission was really close in committee. We’re not especially fond of it.

Emler - give me 15 minutes. we’ll go to my office.

MH - and we all get kicked out for 15 minutes while the two sides talk take a few, folks.

Now we’re back.

Emler - we propose to adopt some of the House Committe ideas, but stay with Senate veersion of commission. Keep it at 11 members. leave chairman of house and senate committees on, to have political balance we would leave ranking minority members on but with twist - if you didn;t want to serve, you could appoint someone else fromt he Energy Utiliteis committee. IOnce apponted, that is the person who will serve. We need consistency. We also don;t expect you to acept this right now. We would leave non-voting members on, so I gues the number is 13. We would leav egovernor with one appointment. Speaker wold have two appointments, house minitory would have one appointment, President would have two appts, senate minoroty would have one appt, KHPA exec direc would be deleted, and we can give you list of qualifications for thes e appointess.

Lee - someone expert in global gGHG emission practices or climatology, second with experience in energy conservation, third is baseload generation and regulation (nuclear and fossil technologies), fourth is renewable energy resources. No more than two of a speciality appointed for any of those seven spots, so you would have mix of scientists.

Emler - scientists are fine, but we think you need more of a blanace on committee with poltical people.

Lee - if we assume that the apponitments by governor etc are polotical appts, we try to keep a political balance.

Reviser - do you want the balance articulated

Lee - idenpendent, agnostic, we don’t care

HOlmes - we are going into election cycle. How will this change? Some of us might not be chairs after this.

Emler - wishful thinking.

Kuether - hey!

Emler - you won’t have that big a change

Lee - we might!

huge laughter.

Emler - then we follow the rest of the Senate version on the sunset and the topics of study, and keep KETA out of it.

Reviser - to clarify. Re the chairperson. It’s the House?

Emler - yep. So we need to adjust the language.

Kuether - what about sunset date. June 30, 2010. We’ll be through 2008 before anyone meets. Should we move that sunset date out?

Emler - an its an election year. If we have contested races that is a problem. So June 30, 2011?

Holmes - when I was in DC (NARUC meeting) last week, there was a vote taken. Over 70% of folks there thought there was carbon tax, or cap and trade, within three years. So December 30, 2011. That would cover us in the gap. And now, we need to use your office for five minutes.

House side leaves for a moment. We sit. It’s crowded. I can’t reach my chocolate. Sigh. I need my chocolate. I have to make the chocolate happen!

Chocolate break. Oh no. The House came back. No chocolate. Heaven bless.

When to schedule next meeting. Touch base early tomorrow afternoon. Some banter. No news. We’ll know when we know.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org