Location: House Chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation at Holcomb
Bill No.: The House’s second version of the Holcomb bill, SB 148, is first up on General Orders today. There are rumors about other potential drama also, see below.
What CEP coverage is missing: The Senate is considering its version of the second Holcomb bill, 2919, today on General Orders as well. However, the Senate vote on Holcomb is veto-proof (unless the super-conservatives hyperventilate at the supposedly greener provisions in 2919) and the House’s vote is not. We will hang out in the House.
Summary/ Action: SB 148 passed the committee of the whole by 79-39, 7 didn’t vote; the measure now awaits a final action vote. That could happen tonight or tomorrow.
Again, why are we here… Remember, the first Holcomb bill, SB 327, was vetoed by the Governor. Since the House’s ability to override is uncertain, Sunflower supporters pushed a second Holcomb bill, SB 148, into the queue. The queue is pretty busy, though, since this is the last 48 hours of the regular session, so – folks are tense.
Is there much difference between SB 327 and SB 148? Nope. You can read CEP’s opinion in more detail here, but basically:
(1) the legislation puts the disputed air permit directly into law (SOX and NOX emissions, but mysteriously not mercury is mentioned) and allows regulation of CO2. Ironic, but still doesn’t get around the constitutional point that this is the legislature doing the KDHE Secretary’s job,
(2) the wind tariff is interruptible, meaning if you buy wind power utilities have the option to turn off your power whenever the wind isn’t blowing :) yeah,
(3) a mandate for the KCC to have investor-owned utilities and cooperatives voluntarily draw up energy efficiency plans for their customers. Westar and KCPL are getting into energy efficiency in a big way right now anyway, they didn’t wait around for legislation on the issue, and
(4) a greenhouse gas emissions inventory program for utilities, which is far less expansive than the GHG inventory established in the Governor’s executive order. The Order goes much further than SB 148. SB 148 is not necessary to making positive energy policy in Kansas.
The rumor mill, as to why we are even messing with this stuff: The House vote on SB 148 will be a headcount for the veto override vote on SB 327. If 148 goes down this a.m. (meaning, the vote to pass it is less than 84 votes, which is a veto-proof majority in the House), what next?
Well. That’s where the rumors are going nuts. For example, I don’t find the following a reasonable, persuasive scenario, but the story goes like this: There are high value bills coming up in the next few days, in particular big money incentive measures for the aviation industry in Wichita. The Wichita delegation has members who did not vote for Holcomb. Ergo, to switch their votes, these measures will be held hostage.
Nuts! We are getting out of control here. While they have found themselves suddenly playing the part of Darth Vader, Sunflower Electric is not a bad corporation – in fact, if you ignore the current 1400 MW coal plant issue (granted, that’s a big ignore) they are actually one of the greenest utilities in Kansas. For existing coal plants, theirs are among the cleanest, and they are also invested in renewable energy.
If we toss out all the drama, and just take it for granted that this mess is caused by a whole bunch of people doing what they think is right, with very different definitions of what “right” is – as messes usually are – then you can also take it that Sunflower is actually run by reasonable people, who probably are way too smart to take on the aviation industry.
Talk about the tail of a tiger that you don’t want to pull. And if the lobbyists of the aviation company in question got word of this rumor, I think they would squash any such attempt. I also can’t see them taking the public relations hit of having their good name – and their environmental record – dragged into this mess. At this point, there is extensive national publicity focused on what Kansas does with coal.
Of course, this morning could prove me a totally naive idiot. Oh well. It’s kind of like divorce proceedings when children are involved. Everyone needs to act right, because they will still have to cooperate in the end. Kansans are all going to have to cooperate on these energy issues at some point, including western Kansas’s need for baseload power in some form or another. If we get too ugly, that moment will only take longer to come, and the collateral damage will probably bear a very high price. This does not have to happen.
Enough of the rumors. I’m very tired of them. I’m also cranky this morning because someone pointed out that if I’m tired of this stuff now, imagine if the veto override does occur, and then I have to spend the next umpteen years of my life tracking the mess through various courts. I frankly about lost it.
WE BEGIN. Hit your refresh button every once in a while to check in. As always – don’t be surprised if nothing actually happens…
9:00 a.m.
Well, someone just gave me the high sign for “rodeo!!” Oh dear. But there’s a lot of miscellanea first.
The House gallery is crowded with the usual suspects. A quietly rainy day is drizzling on outside the high arched windows. Grey outside, mostly warm and bright within. However, with the historical lighting fixtures restored to the Chamber, there are also odd spots and swaths of shadows. I worry about the eyesight of legislators trying to squint at the small print down on the floor.
9:50 a.m.
That was a lot of miscellanea (meaning the stuff they did that I was not so interested in). Rep. Candy Ruff is appointed to chair the committee of the whole for the debate on SB 148.
Rep. Holmes – explains SB 148. Mentions GHG provisions, wind tariff, energy efficiency, etc., plus SB 327. And he has an amendment. He explains it. It goes thru section 1,2,3 makes changes. Removes CO2 regulation, changes wind tariff, adds transmission provision for muni to partner with SPP-member utility to approach SPP. MH: this brings SB 148 more in line with SB 2919 that the Senate will discuss later today.
Rep. Petersen, speaking to the amendment – he thinks the munis will be aided in search for new business with the transmission amendment.
Rep. Svaty – respectfully, that is not the case. This exists in law already. What is interesting – the muni has to take on all the costs of the study, If they request power from a co-op, etc., they pay. Which is how it is right now. Why is this language even in the bill. If a muni requests power from Sunflower right now, this is how it is already. No point putting it in statute.
Rep. Kuether – Svaty is absolutely correct. The carrier of the bill (Holmes) and I are both on KETA the KS transmission authority. This is how it works. Transmission is slow complicated process, to build. No lines going east into KC, that is years and years off. It all has to go thru SPP anyway, our regional transmission authority. To put this in statute is just a feel-good measure to try and get some votes from Wyandotte County. (MH – after the carbon tax proposal on Monday tried to bully them…? This is a weird make-up amendment.)
Holmes closes. He talks generally about transmission in Kansas. Says that if Holcomb is built it will bring new transmission. Makes it sound like the Spearville lines are contingent on Holcomb being built, which is not MH’s understanding. He moves they adopt the amendment. Vote. Division called. Noes – 38, Ayes – 77, amendment passes, back on bill.
Another amendment, this from Sloan. KCC and KDHE shall – hey! the carbon tax is back!! supposedly without teeth. Utilities are ID’d with 110% excess of per MWh emission and – forced? persuaded? sent a forceful letter? – to reduce their emissions. MH: regardless, how is this much different than the Governor’s executive order…? The whole point here is a GHG inventory. Which actually seems to be part of SB 148 anyway, isn’t it…?
Holmes divides the amendment. There is great gesturing down on the floor as members of the energy committee hash this out. Up in the gallery, a group of energy lobbyists take off. Others stay, and look after them curiously. Now the group is back.
10:15 a.m.
Part A – how to iD facilities affected. Part B – the emissions.
Sloan explains part A. This is silly (meaning the division). KDHE will take available annual data required from power plants and see what 110% of state average is. This is an accounting thing.
Colloton for Sloan. If this amendment goes on, what enforcement authority would KDHE Secretary have? Sloan – if it is an IOU, KCC can take non-compliance into account in next rate case. For others, munis and co-ops, they would report to legislature. Colloton – Sec. bremby would have no authority? Sloan, no that was rejected two days ago (ref. to carbon tax)
Divided vote – ayes 78, nos 39. Part A passes.
Sloan explains part B. He thanks body for supporting the meaningless part :) Part B – of there is a utility that exceeds 110% of state average, then they would have three years to mitigate. If not, then at next rate case KCC takes that into account. Undefined how they will do so. This is an attempt to move our utiliites to improve their plants and add more renewables.
Peterson – how many non-regulated plants are in state of KS? Sloan – munis or co-ops are not regulated by KCC. Peterson – so they are not covered by your amendment. And instead of KCC doing it, whoever does regulating will discipline the plants that qualify. And it could be as severe as shutting them down. Sloan – legislature does not have the authority. Peterson – then if they can’t shut them down for noncompliance, why have the amendment? MH: just a distinction, this amendment is apparently missing the $37 per ton of carbon, the tax. Peterson – this punishment is really vague or nonexistent. Is this toothless? Sloan – maybe, and if so, why are you objecting. Peterson – when you put meaningless stuff in statute, you swell up our laws. Don’t do this.
Rep. Olsen – don’t support this amednment. It will kick off a process to reduce or mitigate CO2. Don’t do this. Consumers will be the ones who will lose, we need better process.
Rep. Holmes for Sloan – If Westar is above 110% and they need to reduce CO2 in Lawrence, how do they do it? Sloan – they can try to improve plant’s efficiency or do carbon capture. Holmes – how many plants in US today have carbon capture for coal plants. Sloan- I’m not sure there are any today. HOlmes – how much will these improvements cost? Sloan – some improvements, modifications, can run up to $80 million. MH: Holmes and Sloan are essentially just duking it out over technical points not germane to the bill. (Keep in mind, these are both Republicans who support Holcomb.)
Sloan closes. Says it is important that before hard carbon caps are establoshed nationally, KS needs to take some action. On Monday night, the Aurand amendment (carbon tax) was very creative attempt. The body liked it Monday but not Tueday. Now it is back, but without teeth. For regulated utility, if they don’t comply, KCC can take steps. For non-regulated authority, the legislature would be notified.
Division vote. Ayes – 26 No – 82 . Motion fails.
McKinney speaks to the bill. This bill has additional green provisions, more than vetoed 327. This is a comprehensive approach to energy in KS. We are in transition away from fossil fuels, but we need coal for now. This bill does a lot of good things to protect environment and will bring economic development to KS.
Kuether speaks. We have been beaten to death with this issue snce the first day of the session. I don’t think people have really changed their minds. We are voting on SB 327. That still allows for two coal plants, it still removes authority from KDHE. This is not good policy. This is for one company in state of Kansas. We should be taking step back, voting no on this bill, and putting a total comprehensive plan on the table. If we do a policy good for entire state, then it will be ecnomic develoipment all over KS. I’m not voting against western KS. We need to bring everyone to table. It’s not all about CO2 from power plants, folks. We need to bring everyone to table. We need to figure out how to do good comprehensieve mitigation. Because it’s coming from Congress. Cancellation of coal plants is happening all over US, because we know cap and trade is coming and cost of coal is rising. And we have a court case out there. When tis plant is built, it will cost even more. This mitigation in the bill is voluntary, this is fluff. Just fluff. You’re still voting for 327. Vote against 148.
10:48 a.m.
Rep. Mast – has questions for Sloan. How do electricity rates differ in western and eastern KS. They talk about this a bit. The gallery widely considers this to be stalling.
Rep. Neighbor – has questions for Holmes. On the transmission lines amendment. Is SPP paying for transmission lines in western KS? Holmes inaudible. Neighbor – Spearville lines? Holmes – talks about interconnection. MH: I don’t follow some of this, but SPP has approved what is known as postage stamp recovery, which means the costs are spread widely across the SPP territory. Ratepayers all pay. They talk generally about transmission development.
Rep. Olsen – I want to remind the body – energy efficiency standards for state office buildings, net metering for solar, RPS, tax incentives for rental units, energy efficiency audits with widespread impact. This is a great bill people and a great day for KS I hope everybody supports it.
Rep. Myers – Let’s face it the discussion on energy this session is still being directed at being politically correct. I hate political correctness. Western KS needs energy. They will have to buy power from outside sources if we don’t.
Rep. Carlson – I will be short. To me, a no vote on SB 148 is no to the largest capital investment in history of Kansas. Billions of dollars. A no vote is a no vote for the Hyperion refinery, $10 billion. A no vote on $14 billion total. Support Sb 148.
Rep. Long – I am not against coal-fired plants. I am worried about state of KS. Who is going to pay for this comstruction? You the ratepayers. Nobody else. This is a heavy increase on your constituents. Their rates will raise 30-40%. And we are in a time of economic depression. You will raise their rates in difficult times. And we give lots of tax credits for renewables, too. If you want your people on fixed incomes to pay higher bills, then you suppprt this legislation.
Rep. Svaty – this is ultimately about rates. Rural and urban rates are actually the problem, not an east/ west issue. If this is such a great bill… this is about risk to ratepayers. Coal is getting more and more expensive. New coal is another 2 cents per kilowatt hour because of construction costs. new coal is expensive already – without federal regulation on carbon. This is too risky for ratepayers. We have to protect ratepayers from increased costs. This bill removes KCC oversight, which will remove protections from ratepayers. they will be left adrift.
11:08 a.m.
Rep. Aurand – This concern for KS ratepayers is touching, – OK. MH will summarize. He is not appreciative of non-western KS representatives talking about western KS rates, and risks of coal power right now. Also thinks that KDHE Secretary should not be allowed to make up rules just out of thin air. Also thinks dealing and trading is getting out of control. “Coal is part of our future, we understand it. People in western KS don’t want more smog in air. This is Sunflower.” MH? Ah. He says Sunflower is clean, but getting bad rap, and now we have concerns about environmental issues but environmentalists didn’t like the carbon tax, that turned “green people more the shade of a sunflower”. Western KS is not “bumpkins,” we understand risks, and the risks of not doing the plants is higher than of doing them. And don’t anyone else try and speak for western KS. We have to build these plants or we have big trouble.
Rep. Hayzlett – this plant will exceed standards. We are not worried about these emissions. Also, don’t worry about the tax credits. I surveyed my people they supported it by 90%. And what’s wrong with exporting energy, we export lots of stuff. Western KS is smart enough to know what it;s doing. You on the east side need to vote for us for a change, we vote for you lots. I voted for your projects, and gaming, and all that. Those projects boosted your tax base. Also I promoted a transportation plan. that put money into Wichita for Kellogg. Lots of money. “All I;m saying is we don’t know what we are doing and we don’t know how to take care of our environment.”
Rep. Wilk – We all are here to make a difference, for debates like today. “We are on the cusp of history here.” “We will all have to live with this vote for the rest of our lives.” We are leading the nation, really the world, and we can get it right, and take Kansas places we never dreamed of going. But we have to act. You know I don’t know much about utilities, I can barely spell it. But we have all learned more about energy this session that we ever thought possible. We have to trust the people on this cmmittee. This is critical today. (1) separation of powers. When a statutorily created agency takes action outside of its authority. We make the rules. Do we want to yield? If we set this precdenet we set it forever. We had an entity in KS that followed all the rules, and we are now tryng to change the rules in the middle of the equation (2) economic consequences. We have worked hard to move Kansas economy. But the regulatory uncertainty of our ecnomic enevironment is a problem. Businesses need to be able to predict. We know can move into renewable enrgy. But how can anyone trust in our rules? This policy provides a bridge to our future. (3) environment. We are all concerned about environment. This is not the last debate we have on this, we are at critical point. What we do or don’t do with this issue there will be consequences for decades to come. I support this bill.
Rep. Mitch Holmes – (v. Carl) – I’m about as green a Republican as there is. In 1970s when I saw the gas lines I really promoted biodiesel and other alternatives. In my district we almost got a wind farm there. I am behind wind 100%. Our community was all excited but the company bacled out becuase of no transmission lines. If Holcomb is built there will be more transmission for wind farms. In my district we also have a biodiesel plant on hold because of price of commodities. No one can even take advantage of the incentives. The Holcomb plant will have algae reactors that can make biodiesel affordable and practical. This plant is not about coal, it is about an integrated facility. Its very forward thinking, Sunflower is on the cutting edge. I hate television ads that make Sunflower out to be bad guy. They are clean. We should be cheering Sunflower and asking all utilities to be like them. If you are for alternative energy I don’t know how you can be against SUnflower. And how much are you willing to give up because of rising electricity? Will you shut off your large screen television? I do, I use a power strip. I am conservative in my own consumption, but our demand is growing, and a lot of it in companies, not individuals. My district will be hurt if Sunflower cannot build new plant. My rural co-op is a nonprofit just like Sunflower, they buy from Sunflower, and within next couple of years they will be stretched to capacity, They have new ethanol plant, a cotton gin – we need extra capacity. If you are for biodielse, ehtnaol, alternative fuels, then you need to take secnd look at Sunflower, and we are moving forward. We do need this in western KS. Sunflower is the good guys. They made than point earlier with the tax credits. (MH carbon tax) Support tis bill.
11;37 a.m.
Rep. Colloton – questions for C. Holmes – on this new amendment, on construction permit you would now be putting on requirements of KS Clean Air Act? Who has the authority to regulate? Holmes – KDHE. Colloton – but this bill takes their authority away. Please show me… Holmes shows her something in statute. Colloton refers to first bill (2066) and mitigation procedures that did not make it thru. Holmes says they just drafted it to try and get the bill thru, but the Governor didn’t like it so we dropped it. Colloton – but now we have a new mitigation effort. Some discussion. Colloton – if there are emission limits, would they go into KS Clean Air Act? Holmes – yes, but they only apply to Sunflower.
Colloton – I have an amendment. Explains. In the very first bill there was requirement for CO2 mitigation. Earlier we had a problem with that, how it was calculated, because essentially it only called for 3% of actual mitigation by Sunflower. Carbon mitigation is the responsible thing to do. Today we know a lot more. there should be some attempt at carbon mitigation. My amendment has SB 148 seek an additional 30% CO2 mitigation within two years of plant being operational.
Rep. Knox – The biggest problem I have had with this bill is carbon mitigation I know the media is ttelling us we have a big problem with co2 and it is causing global warmign and enfo of world. In hearing we heard that a lawyer from KU who spoke to this issue and I aksed him directly and he said there was no disagreement in legal community on effects of CO2 and that we should regualte it. But another former EPA lawyer said exactly opposite thing. So we have two oppsotie opinions, And there was professor of geology from KU who was on IPCC panel nad he tought regulating CO2 was important and he said that in his opinion, Then there was another geologist, lead geologist at KU, who contributed to IPCC and said ipposite. This is not settled science. Kansas should not regulate CO2. We are told by the media that federal government is onedge of regulating CO2. That may or may not be correct. Even if it is, KS should not step ahead of nation and regulate CO2, and become the first. That is what we would do here.There is some language int he bill that calls for best technology to be used in new plants to rgulate emissions. I’d as soon that wasn’t in there, but it is. If the federal governemnt doe smake these reagulations, then these plants willl be required to. This is a fad, there is no clear scientific basis…. but if the federal government moves ahead, then KS will not be at risk. We can’t put ourselvesin position where any business with CO2 emissions will stay away from our state. Vote against this amendment.
Rep. Olson – this is much stiffer than Sloan amendment (huge laughter). Vote against this amendment.
Rep. Holmes – I don’t remember original bill, but there was a set of criteria that is not in this amendment. So I oppose this amendment.
Colloton – Just so we are clear on this amendment – this is section 1 from original bill with three words changed. We use the actual emissions to apply the 30% criteria too. This is exact same language. Chairman misspoke. This is to mitigate and offset. (She explains how those work.) This is a request for offsets and mitigations. Very modest request. We have listened to the needs of western KS. In eastern KS we too are concerned about rates and developent. But we also believe that an overall offset policy is the way to go. This is a modest proposal. To build a traditional coal plant is not satisfactory. We have to have incentives for offsets. This would be a requirement. I was struck by point that there is no regulation for co-ops under state law. I think they need to obey KS law as well. This should be part of construction permit, even. This is strong enforcement. I offer in this amendment – this is to the disadvantage of KS to put in energy package for KS where there are no offsets or mitigation. This would be irresponsible. Knox talked about global warming – in KC Star, they told us about millionsof dollars being spent in rural Kansas and other places to put out misinformation about global warming. Obviously it is effective. We saw it standing right here. Whether you believe in global warming or not, we want a good proposal. We want to vote for Holcomb plants but we can’t because this is a bad proposal. this is not good energy policy right now. I move my amednment.
Vote. Division. No – 80 Aye – 31. Amendment fails.
Holmes closes on the bill. In 40s and 50s, most water in rural areas came from wind. Not the case today. Wind only blows 30-35% of time. We can’t depend on wind. We need back-up, and that back-up is natural gas.That is in short supply. Wind and natural gas is a scary combination, prices will go up.
Vote. Division. 79 for 39 against, 7 didn’t vote. SB 148 passes but unknown if by veto-proof margin. No one is much the wiser.
We are recessed until 3:30 p.m.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
