Hi there. Here we are again. Right now MH is sitting up in the Senate gallery, awaiting the return of the Senate (they are in recess) to see if they vote to pass the conference committee report on the Holcom/ energy bill. Well, I think we’d all be shocked if they didn’t pass it :) but what is interesting is how these things happen. Endlessly fascinating.
Sometimes. If this vote turns out boring please blame your senators, not me. Remember, the conference committee was the group of senators and representatives who met to resolve differences between their bills.
Gavel CRACK. Senate comes to order. Reader reads. Bills and resolutions. Messages from governor. Communications from state regulators.
H Sub for SB 327. wait, it flew by, reader said something I missed. Wait, it got introduced. Sen. Emler is introduced to talk about conference committee report.
Hi, all. Welcome to the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, where they are considering HB 2949. This bill proposes to establish the framework for a broad, long-term Kansas Energy Plan by focusing on baseload and dispatchable power issues in electrical generation. In particular, as introduced (and amended) it would mandate (or encourage) coal and nuclear, eliminate natural gas, and not particularly address wind, solar, or any other renewables. EDIT: although the committee has not had a whack at it yet.
(FYI – we are missing the vote in the Senate on whether to approve the Holcomb bill. But there’s not a whole lot of suspense there. We will catch that via the grapevine later.) EDIT: I am in the Senate now – I don’t think we DID miss it. They are in recess. I will hang out.)
Today the committee is being briefed by Paul Genoa of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who is going to to speak on the costs of constructing nuclear power plants. Genoa also gave a presentation last week at the KCC’s nuclear power roundtable (where CEP live blogged). Next week there will be hearings on the bill on Tuesday, Wednesday, and possibly Thursday, but the bill might be worked on Thursday.
The committee members today: Chairman Don Myers, Ranking Minority Vaughn Flora, and Representatives Watkins, Light, Whitham, Proehl, and Rardin. Lots of schoolkids here today
MH – this powerpoint presentation looks as if it is the same one the Genoa delivered last week. For those of you who read thru that live blog account, I am going to clip that in here, then modify and add info that I missed the last time around. I am sticking thru the presentation, round two, because I am interested in hearing questions from the representatives. Hit your refresh button as we go along. Also refer to the nuclear power comment I made after the KCC roundtable, where we also heard a lot more about nuclear waste than we will hear today.
I am also cracking up and trying not to. A very funny lobbyist is making jokes behind me, and telling everyone that every good Republican surely know how to pronounce “nuclear” – “new-cule-ee-er.”
Paul Genoa, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction. Finding a middle ground between high expectations and total pessimism.
2007. Operating performance. Great year for nuclear fleet – 104 plants in US, about 10% of installed capacity in US, and generates 20% of electricity because of high capacity factor. Record output – 807 billion kilowatt hours in 2007. 5,222 MW of power uprates approved, 912 MW of uprates pending, 1,751 MW of uprates expected. What is an uprate? MH (still) has no idea. $16.80 per MWh production. Approx. 90% capacity factor. Wait. Let’s google “uprates nuclear power”. Okay, here, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An uprate is where they increase the maximum power level at which a commercial nuclear power plant may operate, typically by where “more highly enriched uranium fuel and/or more fresh fuel is used. This enables the reactor to produce more thermal energy and therefore more steam, driving a turbine generator to produce electricity.” The plant equipment must be upgraded to make this happen.
License renewals continue, and plant restarts (facilities that were closed) ongoing. 48 plant license renewals granted, which helps upgrade operations and infrastructure. 15 renewal apps under review.
Hi all. As blog readership grows in numbers and diversity of interests, we are going to try something new – segmenting the content into more reader-friendly units. Reading the blog should be as convenient as possible.
Check out the categories to the left. They have been silently growing. From reader responses so far, this approach is working well. Some just want to read the live blogging, others prefer news updates, etc. This new category, Research Notes, will hopefully connect with the climate and energy junkies who like to stay on top of the more detailed research and reports.
As always, if you find material that you think the CEP blog should be covering, please just leave a link in the comments or email me – “hazlett at climateandenergy dot org”
On to the research.
WIND. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has just released a “Wind Energy Siting Handbook.” That link will lead you to a page where you can electronically sign the terms of use, then either download the material and/or peruse it online. If you have any questions at all about the environmental impacts of wind project siting (including how you can carry out due diligence, engage in mitigation, work with the public’s concerns, etc.) READ THIS HANDBOOK. It is aimed primarily at commercial scale wind developers, but is also helpful for folks working with those developers.
Also from AWEA, a new reliability fact sheet about wind power and the grid (.pdf, 96 KB). Helpful in sorting out the myths and legends about wind, intermittent power, and baseload. These issues have of course come up again since the recent power failure in Texas that was originally blamed on the wind not blowing – however, it turns out that the problem was caused by an as yet unnamed baseload operator who did not respond with promised dispatchable power. The incident is now under investigation by ERCOT, the TX grid folks. We cited this a few days ago but the link is here (Houston Chronicle) for folks who haven’t seen it yet.
Also, the KCC has recently updated its web page for wind resources, especially in terms of land leasing, easement & siting information.
STATE POLICY. Pew Climate has two neat-o new .pdfs – one on adapting to climate change, the other on how cap-and-trade works.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Why am I here, when this bill (that passed the House with a very high margin) just got folded into the Holcomb/ energy bill that is now on its way to the governor?
A couple of reasons. One, energy efficiency is a very important strategy in creating energy policy for Kansas. CEP likes to keep track of what folks have to say about important energy policies. Two, there is a chance – who knows what size of a chance – that the governor will veto that bill, it will not be overridden, and thus this original bill is still a live and happening thing.
As always, it could be an interesting meeting – or it could be much, much less interesting. However, there is other stuff on the docket as well. I will just summarize that.
The committee is here. Chairman Emler, Vice-Chair Apple, and Senators Taddiken, Lee, Pine, Francisco, and Reitz
hi all. just some follow-up on yesterday’s live blogging of the second House floor vote on the Holcomb energy bill, the vote that sent the bill to the governor. We now await her promised veto.
The final vote was 75 to 47. 3 representatives were absent. It would take 84 for a veto. I have heard all sorts of convincing theories on both sides – that this vote is really significant, to that it means noting at all. I guess we’ll see.
Here’s how they voted. As always, check for your legislator’s name, then contact them to give them either your support and/or constructive criticism. That goes for anyone. I know from my email that we have a lot of different perspectives reading this blog – :) hey. You’re all welcome to add your voice. (Even if it sometimes means hollering in my ear.) You can find your representative by checking here. The Senate Roster is here and the House Roster is here, and these lists contain their contact info.
Votes to approve the conference committee report and send the bill to governor: Beamer, Bethell, Bowers, Brown, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Colyer, Craft, Crum, Dahl, Donohoe, Faber, Feuerborn, Fund, Gatewood, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Grant, Hayzlett, Hill, Hodge, Holmes C, Holmes M, Horst, Huebert, Humerickhouse, Johnson, Kelley, Kelsey, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Knox, Light, Mast, Masterson, McKinney, McLeland, Merrick, Morrison J, Moxley, Myers, Neufeld, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Owens, Palmer, Patton, Pauls, Peterson, Phelps, Powell, Powers, Proehl, Rhoades, Roth, Ruff, Schroeder, Schwartz, Shultz, Siegfreid, Sloan, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Watkins, Whitham, Wilk, Williams, Wolf B, Yoder
Votes against the bill: Ballard, Burroughs, Carlin, Colloton, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Faust-Goudeau, Flaharty, Flora, Frownfelter, Garcia, Goyle, Hawk, Henderson, Henry, Holland, Huntington, Kuether, Landwehr, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Lukert, Mah, McCray-Miller, McLachlan, Menghini, Metsker, Morrison J., Neighbor, Peck, Pottorff, Quigley, Rardin, Ruiz, Spalding, Storm, Svaty, Swenson, Tietze, Treaster, Trimmer, Ward, Winn, Wolk K, Worley
Not present: Aurand, Sawyer, Wetta
To compare the earlier House vote on the bill, check here.
It always warms my heart to click on the blog stats and see how many people follow these links. Yay for a constructively engaged citizenry!
Also, some very helpful people have been forwarding me their email correspondence with their legislators on the Holcomb topic. Please feel free to do this. I’ll keep it all and maybe centralize the legislators’ responses into one main file at some point, if there is interest.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
