The end of the beginning? The beginning of the end?
May 30, 2008
Readers have been asking for a short wrap-up of the legislative session from the climate and energy perspective, and of the fate of the various initiatives that CEP tracked.
(This actually does not represent ALL of the legislation on these issues, just the ones that our small staff managed to keep an eye on.)
Three coal bills
They all passed. They were all vetoed. An override was attempted on the second coal bill, but not the first or third (or the trailer that went with the third).
Supporters of the plants are saying the initiatives will return in 2009. Sunflower Electric is now pursuing the denied air permit through the KDHE appeals process as well as in Finney County district court.
Tax credits for wind turbine manufacturer to locate in Kansas
This was brought up at sine die – the original measure was bundled into the third coal bill and got axed with the veto. It remained only one procedural step short of passage, though (it was almost law before the bundling happened.)
49 reps voted to axe it. 46 voted to pass. It would have only taken 63 to pass. Very high attendance at sine die. (for more info, click here.)
Resolution for legislature to sue the governor over her stance on the coal plants
This was proposed, sat on the House calendar for a week or so, never went anywhere.
Nuclear legislation
Regulated utilities can now get cost recovery for the prudent costs of developing nuclear power.
Energy efficiency (KCPL bill)
This language – cost recovery for energy efficiency programs – was in the nuclear bill, but got ditched in a last minute, late night conference committee meeting. Drama was involved.
CEP is still trying to figure out why nuclear energy (which costs an untold but VERY expensive amount of cents per kilowatt hour) is assured cost recovery through ratepayers when energy efficiency programs (which costs 3 cents per kilowatt hour) are not.
Baseload bill
This bill was proposed by a special select committee, and would have mandated a certain level of electric generation from coal and nuclear and natural gas. It became a more general resolution, rather than a bill, and the House did not get to it on the calendar before sine die.
Net metering legislation
There was extremely limited net metering for solar (no wind) that was contained in all three coal bills. However, Reps. Treaster and Holland proposed net metering for all renewables, including wind.
The bill did not make it out of committee, but it was a very close vote, much closer than years before. Rep. Annie Kuether pointed out that at some point a net metering bill really, really needed to get to the entire House floor for debate.
Weatherization
I am so embarassed and CURB is going to hate me – but I do not remember exactly how this bill ended. It was supposed to give a great deal of support to poor and low-income families to weatherize their homes. It started out great, got its funding source brutally gutted, got some but not near enough partially restored… and then… I think… it passed?
Regardless, even if it did pass the funding vaccuum means the legislation probably needs to be upgraded at some point soon.
Timeline of the coal bills
We published this earlier, but it was so popular that we will give it an encore presentation. Unless otherwise indicated, the dates of passage represent the day of final action taken by the Kansas House.
February 4 – hearings begin in House and Senate
February 8 – hearings on the House side implode, and the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment is created for a possible end run (see baseload bill, below)
March 5 – first coal bill is passed
March 21 – Governor vetoes first coal bill
March 24 – very quick and dirty hearings on the second coal bill happen at lightspeed
April 1 – funky carbon tax proposal comes out of nowhere, crashes and burns in about 24 hours. Around same time, amendment to another bill threatens to take casino gambling away from Wyandotte County delegation.
April 4 – second coal bill is passed
April 17 - second coal bill is vetoed
May 1 – House attempts and fails to override the second coal bill
May 3 – the trailer bill starts to float around, as well as a House Concurrent Resolution to sue to the Governor and her administration over the plants (never ultimately goes anywhere)
May 7 - third coal bill is passed
May 16 – third coal bill is vetoed
May 29, sine die – there was no veto override attempt. Coal plant supporters foiled an attempt to extend tax credits for wind manufacturing company who wants to locate in Kansas.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Legislative Updates: Wind gets dissed at sine die
May 30, 2008
Governor Sebelius was less than pleased that Republican leadership blocked an attempt at sine die to rescue some of the economic development initiatives that they had bundled in with the third coal bill, which she vetoed as she did the first two (TCJournal).
One of those initiatives was the extension of tax credits for a wind turbine manufacturer considering coming to Kansas. The project could bring 950 permanent jobs to the state, as well as support ongoing wind development.
The vote was 49-47 against. 63 votes are needed for passage. 96 legislators were present at sine die, an unusually high number. (There seems to be a delay in the posting of the House Journal today, so CEP can’t yet post the official recorded vote.) Quotable:
But following Thursday’s vote, Neufeld said that bringing up new measures in the sine die session is out of line with normal procedure. “The majority of folks came here saying we weren’t going to do business, and they didn’t want to do business,” he said.
Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka, criticized that logic, saying legislators “don’t normally take hostage an economic development bill, either.”
“This was a unique situation where lots of games got played during the session,” Kelly said. “And (today) was an opportunity to move forward on an important economic development.”
There also seems to be a glitch in the Governor’s website where her comments are posted, so CEP cannot link to them directly – but luckily WIBW has posted some of them as well. Most notably, Sebelius pointed out that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce (a vocal supporter of the coal bills) did not back these other economic development initiatives. Quotable:
“It is also unfortunate that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who was part of the coalition to promote the coal legislation, was not insistent that these measures be considered on their own merit before the legislature adjourned. Despite knowing that two previous vetoes had been sustained, the Chamber agreed to a strategy to include key economic development legislation in a package with the coal bill, which they knew was likely to be vetoed. Even though there was an opportunity to pass the stand- alone legislation today, neither the Chamber, Republican leaders or legislators worked for a successful outcome.
“It is unfortunate that Kansas business owners, their employees and the state’s economy will be the victims of this legislative decision made on the final day of the 2008 legislative session.”
As of yet, there is no response posted on the Chamber’s website. WIBW also posted Speaker Neufeld’s response:
“Despite what some have said, Kansas lawmakers worked hard this session and passed dozens of good laws. For anyone to say this session was all about coal and nothing else refuses to look at the entire work of the Kansas Legislature….
“An overwhelming majority of Representatives and Senators serving all 105 Kansas counties voted in support of comprehensive energy legislation this session, but the Governor refused to listen and vetoed our efforts to return regulatory certainty to Kansas and guarantee reliable and affordable electricity for all Kansans… And while we were unable to come to an agreement on immigration reform, we had serious debate about how our state should address this very important issue.”
“I expect both of these issues to be back in front of the Legislature next year.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Research and Resources: Updated wind map for Kansas!!!! (at 70 meters, and the findings are preliminary)
May 30, 2008
How cool is this? Kansas might be even windier than we thought. Or at least, now we can see the wind patterns at much, much higher resolution.
Via the Kansas Energy Office, here are the preliminary findings for Kansas for 70 meters. The previous wind map was developed from readings taken at 50 meters. 70 meters is around 230 feet. The sweep of an industrial wind turbine blade is usually between 70-100 m, depending on the size of the turbines (which usually range from 1.5 to 3 megawatts).
According to Jim Ploger of the Kansas Energy Office, last year NREL offered to fund this study for Kansas and Oklahoma. Other states already had this data. Previously, Kansas only had a wind map based on 50 meter readings.
The firm True Wind processed the data from a mixture of site readings and extrapolations. NREL is verifying the results. The final map should be released near the end of the summer, and it will include 50 m, 70 m, and 100 m readings. NREL allowed the early release of the preliminary version so that the Energy Office could take the most up to date data down to the giant AWEA wind conference in Houston next week.
The .jpg conversion below is not fantastic…. sorry… here is a .pdf version for you as well. However, just with color codes, the following isn’t hard to interpret: greens are areas of lower wind resources (12-15 mph), pink is 15.7-16.8 mph, purple is 16.8-17.9, yellow is 17.0-19.0, and orange is 19.0-20.1.
(If you look closely at the pdf version, you can also see the transmission lines).
Pretty, huh? Now – what value does this map actually have? I called up one of my favorite wind developers to ask questions (but forgot to ask him if I could quote his name directly. Since I didn’t get permission I can’t.)
His main answer – this map gives wind development in Kansas a much more accurate starting point. A map like this can definitely increase competition for wind resources in Kansas.
Also, this high resolution of data helps wind on other levels, too - from the everyday folks who want to put up turbines in the backyard, to small towns looking to offset their fuel costs through installing community wind.
What does the “mean average” tell us? It tells us the windiest possible sites. The windiest sites are the best, because the more the wind blows the cheaper your power is to produce.
However, wind is extremely complex. There’s a lot of data that these maps can’t tell us. Wind developers, for example, study the wind at sites for a long time.
Some of the things they also need to know about are wind shear and turbulence. Wind shear is the degree of shift, or increase in wind speeds between certain heights, like 70m to 100m. Turbulence is a pattern of extreme variability. Choppy, high winds can wreak havoc on the equipment.
Interestingly, the high value wind resources are definitely concentrated in the western half of the state, with a nice scattering through the central portion. The Flint Hills do have nice resources, but other areas in the state have even better.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Energy and the Citizen: Energy Efficiency Policies
May 30, 2008
The following article will appear in the July/August issue of Greenability Magazine, a new, bi-monthly publication designed to help Kansas and Missouri residents discover “green” lifestyle alternatives for everyday living.
Energy efficiency is key to fighting global warming. The more energy we save, the fewer new power plants we need to build, and the less impact we have on our environment.
In the Midwest, 75% of our electricity comes from burning coal. The combustion process releases carbon dioxide (CO2). When carbon dioxide accumulates in our atmosphere it retains heat, leading to global warming and climate change.
Saving energy makes economic sense, too. Power plant construction, operations, and fuel costs are rising. Experts predict that soon the cost of all electricity will rise. New coal generation costs around 7 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). When federal carbon regulation – a cap and trade system, or a carbon tax – is implemented under the next presidential administration, these costs will rise to at least 9-10 cents per kWh.
The costs of energy efficiency, though, only run about 3 cents per kWh. Utilities and regulators are starting to think of energy efficiency as a fuel source in its own right.
In a transition to a lower-carbon economy, energy efficiency is an important bridge. So why haven’t utilities pursued energy efficiency more aggressively before now?
In part because existing state policies – and the lack thereof – prevent them from doing so. Missouri and Kansas do not yet consistently or adequately allow for the following policies:
Decoupling. What if your electric utility could make a profit by helping you save energy – and money, too?
That’s the principle behind decoupling. Historically, utility regulators have controlled rates so that power companies can only make profits by selling more and more power. This gives no incentive for energy efficiency.
Decoupling is when utility regulators break the link between power consumption and profit. Instead, they establish a rate structure that links power conservation and profit. Decoupling policies would ensure that utilities could depend on recovering their costs for energy efficiency programs, like offering customers home energy audits, programmable thermostats, low-interest loans for EnergyStar appliances, etc.
Energy efficiency, however, does not just take place on the consumer end. Utilities can also take steps to make power plants, transmission lines, and distribution lines more efficient. However, utilities need to know that they can depend on recovering the costs of doing so.
Enforceable state building codes. Since all energy will soon cost more, minimum energy efficiency standards for new construction would help protect consumers from excessive energy bills down the road.
Public benefit funds. Public benefit funds generate income by placing a small surcharge (pennies per month) on every customer’s bill. That money can then go to fund a variety of energy efficiency programs: low-interest loans for homeowners to finance energy efficient appliances or HVAC systems, weatherization programs for low-income families, low-interest loans for schools and churches making energy efficiency upgrades, rebates for purchases of solar panels, etc.
Some state policy solutions are already underway. This spring in Kansas, KCP&L proposed legislation that would allow for utilities to recover the costs of energy efficiency programs. The Kansas Corporation Commission is also holding a docket on the issue in June and July.
Citizens – and ratepayers – are demanding more options for energy efficiency. The question is whether state policies make it possible for the utilities to deliver.
— Maril Hazlett and Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org
Take Action! Let your legislators and utility regulators know that these issues are important to you. Personal phone calls and handwritten letters are especially effective.
To learn how to communicate with policymakers, go to www.climateandenergy.org/passiton
To contact your legislators – go to www.congress.org
To contact the commissioners and chairman of the Kansas Corporation Commission, go to www.kcc.state.ks.us
To contact the Missouri Public Service Commission, go to www.psc.mo.gov
Curious about existing energy efficiency policies in your state? Check out the DSIRE database – www.dsire.org – for a comprehensive listing.
Location: Kansas legislature, the House
Time: House and Senate convene at 10:00 a.m.
Bills/ Legislative Action:
- Sine die is traditionally a ceremonial occasion, but official business can still be transacted on this day.
- As the media has widely reported, House Speaker Melvin Neufeld has announced that there will be no attempt to override the Governor’s third veto of legislation allowing Sunflower Electric to construct a proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation, and restricting the role of the KDHE Secretary to protect Kansans’ health and environment.
Summary: There was no motion to override the third coal bill or its trailer. There was a motion to suspend the rules to consider a motion to concur on the extension of tax credits for the wind turbine manufacturer who is considering Kansas, and it was shot down, 49-47. CEP will check the recorded vote tomorrow.
Notes: This entry will be updated during the day, so please hit your refresh button occasionally to see if there is any new news. Also, if the entry gets long enough I will hide it behind a cut, and a “read more of the entry” link will appear for you to click.
****************************
Deja vu all over again. Here we are once more, waiting for the gavel crack- prayer- pledge- business- recess- adjournment cycle to start. It could go really quick, really slow, or somewhere in between. Like usual.
Also, remember the Murphy’s law that dogs observers of the Kansas legislature – if you decide to go sit in the House, it will be the Senate that does something interesting. And vice versa.
Outside the doors of the House, the rumor mill is still going – more so in terms of the upcoming elections, though, rather than questions about what might happen today. In that respect, the energy (ha) of the discussion has indeed shifted.
What are the rumors about sine die? Here’s one I can repeat – it sounded like some legislators were possibly considering some last day business involving not coal plants, but wind turbines.
As many of you know, there seems to be a chance that a major wind turbine manufacturer is considering Kansas as a possible location. There are tax credits involved – these credits are already authorized and remain in effect through 2009. The 2009 legislature could act to extend the credits further (their extension was actually part of the third vetoed coal bill, which was packaged as an economic development initiative). (Procedurally, though, how would that work?)
At any rate. There was some discussion that maybe on sine die, the legislators who show up could go ahead and do the extension then.
Check back in around 10:00!
****************************
FYI, while we are waiting – I think that tomorrow, May 30, is also the day that the KCC will release its order regarding the energy efficiency docket (.pdf). The issues under consideration are how to carry out cost-benefit analyses and program evaluations for energy efficiency initiatives, should regulated utilities seek rate recovery for these programs. (This proceeds a second docket later this summer on decoupling.)
If you go to the KCC website, go to the dockets section, and search for 08-GIMX-442-GIV, you will be able to pull up all the pleadings, testimony, etc.
The docket is interesting because if you note the list of participants, it includes many of the usual voices in Kansas energy discussions that you probably came to know during the legislative session. Just speaking in a different forum, and on a very progressive set of energy issues.
********************************
9:47 a.m. – Down on the floor of the House it looks calm, collegial, and not crowded (30 or less so far). Dress code is everything from a natty pale grey summer suit with white shoes, to t-shirt and shorts. Some reps have their kids here. Up here in the gallery, Sierra Club lobbyist Tom Thompson is telling me fishing stories. We have members of the public here too, just hanging out and watching.
Well, more are trickling in. Chatter level going up. Plenty of socializing across party lines.
10:00 gavel crack. we come to order. Speaker orders us all to pay attention more or less. pray and pledge.
Tom asks me how many are here. I say 60 or so. He says “as long as there’s not 84.”
They share their memories of Rep. Ted Powers, who passed away due to a stroke very recently. They also remember that he was a crack shot with a rubber band. His widow, Betty May, speaks.
Tom says there are over 80 here. But not the right votes.
10:10 Far more capitol staff and public in the gallery than lobbyists. But a few lobbyists.
(reprinted straight from USDA press release)
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM RELEASES REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON AGRICULTURE, LAND AND WATER RESOURCES AND BIODIVERSITY
WASHINGTON, May 27, 2008 — The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) today released “Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3): The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States.” The CCSP integrates the federal research efforts of 13 agencies on climate and global change.
Today’s report is one of the most extensive examinations of climate impacts on U.S. ecosystems. USDA is the lead agency for this report and coordinated its production as part of its commitment to CCSP.
“The report issued today provides practical information that will help land owners and resource managers make better decisions to address the risks of climate change,” said Agriculture Chief Economist Joe Glauber.
The report was written by 38 authors from the universities, national laboratories, non-governmental organizations, and federal service. The report underwent expert peer review by 14 scientists through a Federal Advisory Committee formed by the USDA. The National Center for Atmospheric Research also coordinated in the production of the report. It is posted on the CCSP Web site at:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/default.php
The report finds that climate change is already affecting U.S. water resources, agriculture, land resources, and biodiversity, and will continue to do so. Specific findings include:
* Grain and oilseed crops will mature more rapidly, but increasing temperatures will increase the risk of crop failures, particularly if precipitation decreases or becomes more variable.
* Higher temperatures will negatively affect livestock. Warmer winters will reduce mortality but this will be more than offset by greater mortality in hotter summers. Hotter temperatures will also result in reduced productivity of livestock and dairy animals.
* Forests in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska are already being affected by climate change with increases in the size and frequency of forest fires, insect outbreaks and tree mortality. These changes are expected to continue.
* Much of the United States has experienced higher precipitation and streamflow, with decreased drought severity and duration, over the 20th century. The West and Southwest, however, are notable exceptions, and increased drought conditions have occurred in these regions.
* Weeds grow more rapidly under elevated atmospheric CO2. Under projections reported in the assessment, weeds migrate northward and are less sensitive to herbicide applications.
* There is a trend toward reduced mountain snowpack and earlier spring snowmelt runoff in the Western United States.
* Horticultural crops (such as tomato, onion, and fruit) are more sensitive to climate change than grains and oilseed crops.
* Young forests on fertile soils will achieve higher productivity from elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nitrogen deposition and warmer temperatures will increase productivity in other types of forests where water is available.
* Invasion by exotic grass species into arid lands will result from climate change, causing an increased fire frequency. Rivers and riparian systems in arid lands will be negatively impacted.
* A continuation of the trend toward increased water use efficiency could help mitigate the impacts of climate change on water resources.
* The growing season has increased by 10 to 14 days over the last 19 years across the temperate latitudes. Species’ distributions have also shifted.
* The rapid rates of warming in the Arctic observed in recent decades, and projected for at least the next century, are dramatically reducing the snow and ice covers that provide denning and foraging habitat for polar bears.
USDA agencies are responding to the risks of climate change. For example, the Forest Service is incorporating climate change risks into National Forest Management Plans and is providing guidance to forest managers on how to respond and adapt to climate change.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency are encouraging actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration through conservation programs.
USDA’s Risk Management Agency has prepared tools to manage drought risks and is conducting an assessment of the risks of climate change on the crop insurance program.
For more information, please visit:
Have you heard the dogma about gas prices? Yep. Gas prices are high. We all know this. Have you also heard the backlash, though? (I’m always interested in how change provokes “oh no it won’t!” reactions.)
If you hang around energy circles much, you always get to hear a version of this rhetoric- in this case, producers argue that no matter how high gas prices get, consumers won’t change their behaviors. When it hits their pocketbook, then consumers will be cooler with producers drilling for oil wherever and whatever it takes.
In fact, consumers really really WANT producers to do this. When it comes to money, no one will care about the environment. Just wait and see…
Well, Americans drove less last year – and that was before fuel went over $4 per gallon. According to the Department of Transportation, Americans are driving at “historic lows.” Quotable:
The FHWA’s “Traffic Volume Trends” report, produced monthly since 1942, shows that estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on all U.S. public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3 percent as compared with March 2007 travel. This is the first time estimated March travel on public roads fell since 1979. At 11 billion miles less in March 2008 than in the previous March, this is the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history.
The decline was only for one year. It’s not conclusive. It may not represent a trend. It’s like an alcoholic making it for a week without a drink.
(Which is great, actually. Don’t you think?)
Sine die is tomorrow. Thursday May 29 is the official end of the 2008 legislative session in Kansas. As CEP has noted before, it’s a bit more like a time out. So little was resolved, on so many issues.
Before the 2009 session, of course, there are elections. Every single seat in the House and Senate is up this November. Many parties, from all over the political map, are interested in re-shuffling the legislative deck.
Even though sine die is supposed to be token and boring, will there be live blogging? Yes, I think so! Provided there’s no more rain and I can actually make it onto a hardtop road. If CEP gets stuck in mud, you’re all out of luck. (well, depending)
The beat probably marches on. Contrary to what Sunflower representatives announced during the 2008 session, June 1 is in fact not a drop dead date for the proposal. Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller said that in fact it never was a firm deadline (Harris News/ Hutch News). The proposal is still live. Quotable:
Regardless of the outcome in court, Kansans are going to demand more electricity than they have now, Miller said.
“It’s our statutory obligation to find resources at a low cost,” he said, adding that “we don’t believe we have a carbon footprint, our customers do. When they demand power, we have to provide it to them.”
Westar raises rates to cover environmental upgrades, ice storm costs, and energy efficiency. Westar just filed a docket with the KCC to raise their rates (AP).
The ice storm was an act of God, and an unavoidable cost. Environmental upgrades and energy efficiency, though, are acts of man. Those work a little differently.
Frankly, they’re also economical in the long run. By upgrading environmental controls on its plants now, Westar will be able to avoid costs associated with carbon regulation later. Also, energy efficiency costs only 3 cents per kilowatt hour, while new generation under carbon regulation will cost more like 9-10 cents per kilowatt hour. (Westar either has to reduce load or build new generation, they don’t have a lot of other options to meet rising customer demand.)
So these are business decisions. And knowing your market is also a business decision. I think Westar is also implicitly crediting their consumers (and shareholders) with two things: (1) that consumers do care how power is produced, and (2) consumers will accept environmental costs that raise prices a bit, if they feel there will be long-term benefits.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: carbon regulation hits the Senate, grow your own, wind energy in KS, carbon dioxide and oil refineries
May 28, 2008
Warner-Lieberman is coming up for debate in the Senate. If you know what W-L is, you read that and probably went either “yay!” “gulp!” “not this year, my pretty” or “hmm.”
And if you don’t know what it is please allow me to explain – Warner-Lieberman is a piece of climate legislation (that link goes to Reuters/ NYTimes) that promotes a cap-and-trade system of carbon regulation (the last link explains how cap and trade basically works).
Actually, at the Kansas Energy Council’s last Greenhouse Gas Policy Committee meeting, I enjoyed this presentation from Kansas Energy Office staff – an overview of what is in Warner-Lieberman.
Grow more of our own. Growing more foods locally is a good way for a region to cut down on its carbon footprint. It might not be a great option for large parts of Arizona, say. But in certain parts of Kansas, we can definitely make this happen.
In fact, we once did. Wamego was once known as the Sweet Potato Capital of the world. My area of the state, Jefferson County, was famous for its apples and hard cider (before Prohibition).
K-State researcher Rhonda Janke says this success could return (KHI News Service). This isn’t just a nostalgic farm story of better days, though. Kansans could also make money. Quotable:
According to her research, people in the 10-county region in 2006 spent more than $260 million on fruit and vegetables but only 8 percent of that was for locally grown produce. A reasonable goal, she said, would be to double that output, expanding the current 2,114 acres in the region dedicated to fruits and vegetables to 3,794. That would still be less than the 4,222 acres of produce farming done in the valley in 1950 and far below the 33,104 acres in 1910, that Janke believes was probably the peak.
Wind Energy Technology program expands. Cloud County Community College (CCCC) (that acronym could be like 4-H, but it’s not) just got $155,000 from the Department of Commerce for its wind technician curriculum.
CCCC has only one of five such programs nationwide. Kansas alone will need 625 new technicians over the next few years as its wind farms currently under construction come online.
More Kansans putting up wind turbines at homes and farms. This story is from Emporia. Hard to pay them off in a timely fashion, though, without net metering.
Any oil refining geeks out there? There have to be… Up north in the Sioux City Journal (you know, the folks that got the Hyperion oil refinery, regardless of what your thoughts are on the timing of that decision), a reporter asks whether the proposed project really is all that green.
The issue is much the same as we just confronted in Kansas over Sunflower’s proposed coal plants – yes, the refinery will have much upgraded technology compared to other older refineries. However, the scale of the refinery is huge and it will still emit 17 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, and there is no way yet to sequester or capture those emissions. (Either way, fascinating article.)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
“A balanced energy policy” - how many times did all of us read or see that phrase during the recent 2008 legislative session?
The energy policy discussion continues throughout the state. The legislature may be (almost) adjourned, but that seems more and more like a time out than a game over.
This summer and fall, many groups with an interest in energy policy will meet. Several of them will consider making policy recommendations to the legislature for the 2009 session.
Executive Branch
- Governor’s Wind Working Group (WWG)
- Midwest Governors Association (MGA) process - and the MGA working groups
- Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy (KEEP) advisory group and working groups
- Kansas Energy Council (KEC) and its various committees
- Kansas Corporation Commmission (administrative agency) – decoupling docket
Legislative Branch
- Joint Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy (will meet during interim session, members are not finalized until after the November elections)
Judicial Branch (which I am throwing in here because the courts do contribute, albeit often glacially, to policy)
- Sunflower appeal of its denied air permit is in district court as well as in appeals to KDHE
- Wind contract cases are gently simmering in KS district courts as well
(Full disclosure: CEP Executive Director Nancy Jackson is a participant on WWG, the MGA process, and KEEP.)
Feel free to explore those websites linked above. Most of them at least post the presentations that are made to their members. Others also post notes from meetings.
The discussions and questions that come from group participants, though, are often the most interesting and least tracked portion of the processes. KEEP allows the public to call in and listen during the meetings, though.
Note what this list of policy development doesn’t cover – all the other energy-related legislative committees that might choose to meet during the interim. Although since this is an election year, there may not be a whole lot of those. Also, as long as there is not a quorum of a voting body present, legislators interested in developing policy can meet among themselves.
From the executive branch, administrative agencies – like KDHE, the KCC, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, etc. – can offer their perspectives to the legislature as well.
Private interests matter, too. While many of these groups (KEEP, WWG, etc.) have broad representation from different sectors of business and industry, those interests will probably bring their own policy initiatives to the legislature. Or they may join in coalitions to do so.
Last but definitely not least – citizens matter as well. And as the CEP email attests, many, many of you are paying very close attention!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandnergy.org
98% humidity this weekend. I think that pretty much sums it up. We did not turn on our AC. I wish I could say it was because my family is so environmentally conscious and deeply concerned about our carbon footprint. We are – but we are also cheap. And frankly that was the real reason.
Anyway, when the AC does go on this summer, remember these tips:
- Don’t set the AC too low. For every degree you raise the thermostat this summer, you can cut energy consumption 3-5%.
- If using fans, remember that fans cool your body, not the air or the room. If your body is not going to be in that room, turn off the fan.
- Once you turn the AC on, that does not mean you then must leave it on all summer long. That is a myth.
- If you use a dehumidifier (and those come with EnergyStar certification) in certain rooms, make sure those windows are closed. Otherwise you are trying to dehumidify the great outdoors and in Kansas that will never, never happen.
Almost twenty tornados touched down in Kansas this weekend. For more details, see Salina Journal.
The Kansas coal controversy has died down? Really? On some level, I think it’s headed into a whole new realm. Maybe we can’t really call it the “Kansas coal controversy” anymore, though. It’s becoming more and more about energy. I’d like to acknowledge the non-partisan bit of the discussion first.
Folks in both parties are now talking about developing a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas. Because the legislature’s Republican leadership supports the coal plants, some folks seem to think that all Republicans do – in fact, some of them do not. Just like some Democrats supported the plants. The issue does not follow a simple party breakdown.
A recent editorial in the LJWorld makes exactly this point. “This year’s fight over the coal-fired plants in western Kansas was primarily a political battle. Now it’s time for everyone to put the politics aside and take a practical, scientific approach to the state’s energy future.”
That’s the policy approach. Then there’s the politics. In that realm, the coal controversy is very alive and well. This past weekend, Kansas Democrats and Republicans said very different things.
According to Harris News/ Hutch News, Christian Morgan, executive director of the state Republican Party, said that Republicans may make the plants an economic development issue in the upcoming elections. Quotable: “‘It isn’t a defeat or retreat, it is a change in strategy,’ Morgan said in an e-mail of Neufeld’s decision.” In the Leavenworth Times, party chair Kris Kobach is quoted as saying that “the Republican party will be ‘aggressively targeting’ a veto-proof majority in order to get the Holcomb coal plant legislation approved.”
Mike Gaughan, executive director of the state Democratic Party, had a different take on the issue. According to the Harris News report, he “said Democrats simply wanted a responsible, balanced energy policy this session but faced GOP roadblocks.” Quotable:
He said Kansans are most concerned about such things as high gas prices, affordable health insurance and the high cost of prescription drugs.
“While the Kansas GOP spends the next six months fighting about Holcomb, our Democratic candidates will continue to talk about solutions to the challenges Kansans face every single day,” Gaughan said.
It’s not easy being an environmental regulator these days. EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, who is widely accused of dragging his feet in putting together rules and regs for carbon dioxide regulation, gets hauled over the coals by the congressional committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (story from LATimes).
You remember Waxman. During the KS coal controversy, he asked why the RUS was still funding coal plant development with taxpayer dollars when Wall St considered them too risky for private investment. RUS has suspended the program indefinitely.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Wind wind-up for your weekend
May 23, 2008
Sorry about the pun in the headline. Been a long week!
Via Dan Nagengast of the KRC – a photo album of the turbine installation at Fairfield, KS, a Wind for Schools turbine sponsored by NREL. According to the website, the turbine is a Skystream 3.7 1.9kW turbine. The turbine diameter with blades is 3.7m. The photos document the process step by step. Pretty cool!
Also from Dan – an inspirational video about a young African man who started building his own windmills from bicycle parts, truck batteries, tractor fans, etc., in oder to generate electricity for his family compound.
Thank you, Dan. But I did find some other stuff in the video below – I love people who I think of as “tweakers.” They just mess with stuff and build it and get it done one way or another, usually when everyone else is telling them it’s impossible. (In part this is how I ended up married to a guy obsessed with brewing his own biodiesel.)
The kid in the following video is one of those tweakers. Depending on the scale of what they are tweaking, these are also people who should probably go through life permanently outfitted with helmets and eye protection. When it comes to his poor exploded wind turbine (watch the video) his neighbors maybe could have used some protection, too. There are reasons that wind turbines are supposed to be shut off in high winds :)
Have a great weekend -
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Production tax credits pass the House, energy efficiency an underused resource (but probably not in IA)
May 22, 2008
It’s a little bit like Christmas. (In that department store Santa kind of way – because this bill may not make it past the Senate.)
However. As reported in Grist, the House passed a nice big chunk of production tax credits (PTC) for renewable energies such as wind, solar, biomass, and others. Quotable:
The bill includes a six-year extension of the investment tax credit for solar energy; a three-year extensions of the production tax credit for biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas, and solid waste; and a one-year extension of the production tax credit for wind energy. There are also incentives for the production of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and cellulosic biofuels, incentives for companies that produce energy-efficient products, and incentives to improve efficiency in commercial and residential buildings…
… “One of the critical problems we’re facing today is energy prices, and the problem is we don’t have enough choices for consumers,” said (Representative) Blumenauer. “We’ve squandered American leadership in renewable energy — the United States was a global leader 30 years ago and we’ve lost that leadership internationally to other countries that are moving forward more aggressively.”
Blumenauer predicted that without these tax extensions, the United States could see “almost 20 billion in lost investment” in renewables, as well as up to 150,000 lost job opportunities in the green energy sector. He said that the potential to address energy concerns and create economic growth might help it win support in the Senate.
Energy efficiency updates. As the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA) has just announced, “maintaining a long tradition of strong energy policy, the State of Iowa has recently passed a number of bills to promote energy efficiency.”
The initiatives include energy efficiency for schools, improvements to the state building code, and “requirements for non-regulated utilities regarding developing energy efficiency goals and reporting savings from energy efficiency programs, as well as establishing a program for tracking, recording, and trading efficiency credits.”
On the national front, the ACEEE has announced the results of a new study – energy efficiency is highly effective in reducing demand, yet it remains almost “invisible,” and thus is highly under-utilized as a resource. Major findings from the report:
- “Given the right choices and investments in the many cost-effective but underutilized energy efficiency technologies, the United States can cost-effectively reduce energy consumption by an additional 25-30% or more over the course of the next 20-25 years.”
- “Annual investments in energy efficiency technologies currently support 1.6 million U.S. jobs. The $300 billion invested in energy efficiency in 2004 was three times the amount invested in traditional energy infrastructure.”
- “Investments in energy efficiency technologies are estimated to have generated approximately 1.7 quads of energy savings in 2004 alone – roughly the equivalent of the energy required to operate 40 mid-sized coal-fired or nuclear power plants.”
- “Since 1970, energy efficiency has met about three-fourths of the demand for new energy-related services while conventional energy supply has covered only one-fourth of this demand.”
- “Total investments in more energy efficiency technologies could increase the annual energy efficiency market by nearly $400 billion by 2030, resulting in an annual efficiency market of more than $700 billion – and total additional investments over the period 2008-2030 of nearly $7 trillion.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Yesterday House Speaker Melvin Neufeld announced that supporters of the 1,400 MW proposed expansion of the Sunflower Electric coal plants would not try for an override of the third vetoed coal bill on May 29, the last official day of the 2008 legislative session.
General reaction – mildly anticlimactic. To some extent, this seems to be because the energy (ha!) from the coal controversy has already refocused on the upcoming elections.
Everyone is looking ahead to who will be participating in the next round of the legislative conversation on energy policy. Filing deadlines for the Kansas primaries are June 10. There is no question at all that throughout the state, a comprehensive energy policy will be a key issue come November.
This morning I had promised to follow up with a selection of quotables from the news coverage. The following comes from the Hutch News, KCStar, and the Dodge Globe.
“Scheduling conflicts of a number of House and Senate members and circumstances beyond our control make it impossible to attempt an override of the Economic Stimulus bill” (the third coal bill). House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, voted for all three coal bills
“Sunflower is thankful for the efforts of the business, agriculture and labor organizations that supported the energy legislation that enables the development of sound energy policy and returns regulatory certainty to Kansas… The Legislature sent a clear message that current law does not allow the Secretary to use his emergency powers in the air permitting process. Since we firmly believe that the KDHE secretary’s decision was flawed, Sunflower will continue to pursue legal and administrative remedies.” – Earl Watkins, Sunflower Electric
“I fully expect Sunflower to come back next session.” Senator David Wysong, who “consistently voted against the project” and “said he received more ‘thank-yous’ from his northeast Johnson County constituents on the coal-fired plant issue than on any issue he’s voted on.”
“It will be a campaign issue in the eastern part of the state, primarily in the Johnson, Wyandotte and Leavenworth areas. Candidates in those areas are going to have to explain why they supported or opposed the proposal.” Senator John Vratil, voted for the first and second coal bills, voted against the third
“I am pleased that we can close this contentious chapter of our debate on energy and begin to work collaboratively on a comprehensive plan that provides the power needed to continue to grow our economy, while protecting our environment and maximizing our alternative energy potential.” Governor Sebelius, supporter of compromise proposal closer to 700 MW with mitigation and offsets
“I think what would be good news for the people of Kansas would be if Sunflower and the executive branch could sit down and start talking about real alternatives for meeting the baseload energy needs for western Kansas.” Representative Tom Holland, voted against all three coal bills
“I think the courts will probably rule in Sunflower’s favor, but the delay it will cause will cost consumers because the prices are going up on construction.” Senator Jay Emler, voted for all three coal bills
All well and good. Senators, representatives, the Governor, a CEO – great quotes. However, I was also interested to know what citizens thought.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Legislative Update: Speaker Neufeld announces there will be no veto override attempt at sine die on May 29
May 21, 2008
Kansas papers announced today that House Speaker Melvin Neufeld has decided not to call for a veto override of the third coal bill on May 29 at sine die, the ceremonial end of the 2008 legislative session.
(CEP will probably attend anyway, what the heck.)
Only skeleton reports in the papers so far. We will see if there are any quotables that appear in the coverage tomorrow morning.
I have been in meetings eternally and have only had a chance to scan my email, but the responses seems to be pretty evenly split three ways: “Whew” “I’m not sure I believe that” and “when do the court cases kick into gear?” Sometimes all in the same email.
Governor Sebelius’s response was very positive and encouraging:
“I am pleased that we can close this contentious chapter of our debate on energy policy, and begin to work collaboratively on a comprehensive plan that provides for the power needed to continue to grow our economy, while protecting our environment and maximizing our alternative energy potential.
“Yesterday, the first meeting of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group occurred, launching the dialogue to develop a strategy for the future. I will continue to reach out to energy producers, environmental groups, scientists, business leaders, health experts and Kansas citizens as we work with the Legislature to develop energy policy for Kansas. Also, I am hopeful that the legislature will move to quickly address the economic proposals that were unfortunately bundled with the coal plant proposal when they return in January, 2009.”
Also, I have received enough email requests for the following that I decided to go ahead and post it – some of the more important dates of the coals bills traveling through the 2008 session (this should also help you all navigate the live blogging archives a little easier).
I have left out bill numbers for now. Does anyone really want them? If so, I can deliver, just let me know. Unless otherwise indicated, the dates of passage represent the day of final action taken by the Kansas House.
February 4 – hearings begin in House and Senate
February 8 – hearings on the House side implode, and the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment is created for a possible end run (see baseload bill, below)
March 5 – first coal bill is passed
March 21 – Governor vetoes first coal bill
March 24 – very quick and dirty hearings on the second coal bill happen at lightspeed
April 1 – funky carbon tax proposal comes out of nowhere, crashes and burns in about 24 hours. Around same time, amendment to another bill threatens to take casino gambling away from Wyandotte County delegation.
April 4 – second coal bill is passed
April 17 - second coal bill is vetoed
May 1 – House attempts and fails to override the second coal bill
May 3 – the trailer bill starts to float around, as well as a House Concurrent Resolution to sue to the Governor and her administration over the plants (never ultimately goes anywhere)
May 7 - third coal bill is passed
May 16 – third coal bill is vetoed
May 29, sine die – it has just been announced that there will be no override attempt.
This list leaves out quite a bit of the subplots. The baseload bill, which attempted to set up the equivalent of a renewable portfolio standard for coal and nuclear while eliminating natural gas and ignoring wind power, was probably the most significant.
It is also significant that the energy efficiency bill originally sponsored by KCPL went down as part of the collateral damage - even to the point of getting struck out of the bill that allows utilities to recover the costs of developing nuclear through their rates.
I am still trying to figure out that one. Energy efficiency is easier and far, far cheaper than nuclear, but under law utilities can’t recover energy efficiency costs…? Yet under law, ratepayers could end up possibly getting stuck for the development costs of a nuclear plant that might never be built…?
Another thing I left out – the crash and burn of the net metering legislation sponsored by Representatives Treaster and Holland. The coal bills included net metering for solar, so net metering for solar AND wind did not stand a chance.
Pretty busy few months.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Westar plans to build new transmission lines. Most Kansans know that to develop wind energy – and especially to sell these resources out of state – we need first to build more high-speed transmission lines (364 kV to 765 kV).
Existing grid management technology limits the amount of wind that our state grid can safely handle to about 20%. Kansas can’t hope to absorb all the wind we can potentially produce; other states need to buy it to meet their Renewable Portfolio standards; so we need transmission highways to get this high-value commodity to market.
Many have also heard of the proposed “V” line. This is the name for the SPP-approved transmission plan, where two lines would originate out of Spearville, Kansas (in the southwestern corner of the state, just above the OK and TX panhandles), one heading north toward NE and one east toward Wichita, KS.
This line (plus a few other smaller ones) meant that over $1 billion would be invested in KS transmission over the next five or so years. A lot of current wind development in Kansas is being based around these lines.
Last time CEP mentioned all this, ITC Great Plains was bidding and going through the approval process to build the V plan, but Westar had filed a motion against the plan.
Westar has now announced that it has formed a joint venture with Electric Transmission America (TCJournal). The venture is called Prairie Wind Transmission. It proposes to construct the super-mega-highway of transmission lines – 765 kV lines.
The Westar proposal doesn’t seem to cover the whole of the original V plan. Instead, these lines would extend from Wichita to Dodge City and from Medicine Lodge to the Oklahoma border.
Potential markets for wind energy exports are generally seen as to the east, toward either Chicago or Atlanta. Not only do the electrical systems of the western and eastern grid not connect, but the West has plenty of its own wind resources.
There are still a lot of regulatory hoops to jump through before the lines receive final approval. The news coverage doesn’t mention how the competing proposals of ITC Great Plains and Westar/ ETA might be resolved.
How do these lines get paid for? The SPP board recently approved what is know as a socialized cost, or postage stamp, recovery system for expenses. This means that the costs of these superhighway lines are paid for by the entire SPP region, not just by Kansans in the area of the new lines.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Last week CEP attended a continuing legal education seminar that helped Kansas lawyers to catch up on wind energy law. The morning session was aptly titled the “Whirlwind Tour” – in four days, the presenters hit Garden City, Hays, Wichita, and Salina.
The event was sponsored by the Kansas Bar Association, the Kansas Farm Bureau Legal Foundation for Agriculture, and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), among others. More than 200 lawyers total attended.
The presenters were well-chosen – Bob Glass and Thomas Stratton of the KCC, Krista Gordon, native Kansan and also wind developer for Iberdola, Melvin Sauer of Dreiling, Bieker et al, and Prof. Roger McEowen, the Leonard Dolezal Professor in Ag Law from ISU. Mike Irvin of Farm Bureau acted as the master of ceremonies.
A bunch of lawyers all sitting around and looking at powerpoints. Wind energy law. For those of you who are about to stop reading right now, please don’t! This is neat stuff.
Neat legal stuff, though, which means about here I must offer a disclaimer – never mistake ANYTHING you read in a CEP blog entry as legal advice. Not that I’m remotely afraid of that happening. But it still has to be said. For online links on wind law, check the resources section of our main website’s wind page. Scroll clear to the bottom.
Why wind law now? Because Kansas lawyers are desperate for the information. They need it to protect their clients.
Most folks around here know that a wind rush is going on – the wind-rich areas of Kansas are currently swarmed with leasehounds. Leasehound is the colloquial term for wind speculator. These speculators try to tie up all the air rights in a good wind area, and then re-sell them to established wind developers.
Leasehounds try to make money off being the middlemen. They hurry up and try to stand between the owner of the air rights, and a wind developer who has the track record, financing, etc., to actually pull off the project. Melvin Sauer pointed out that allowing this pattern of leaseholding to develop creates an irresponsible, patchwork method of resource development.
Leasehounds also aren’t famous for good legal contracts. The 50-60 page documents often come with stringent, scary (and probably unenforceable, but what normal person is going to know that?) confidentiality agreements. They tie up rights for extremely long terms. They often also risk infringing on mineral rights already assigned to other leaseholders. Etc.
How many of these lawyers have seen documents from leasehounds? When asked, 50% of the Salina crowd raised their hands. Apparently in Garden City, the number was closer to 90%.
It’s not supposed to work this way – but lawyers are turning into the de facto front line of wind policy in Kansas. This is happening because the Kansas legislature has not created clear wind policies (such as assigning clear direction to the KCC on how to deal with wind development). One presenter called it the “laissez-faire” approach to wind development.
When there’s a powerful need, yet no established policy guidelines, the job inevitably falls to lawyers and the justice system. Lawyers all across Kansas are finding themselves dealing with wind issues, far ahead of the legislature.
When lawyers see these leasehound contracts, what do they do? “Pray your clients haven’t signed it,” one lawyer cracked. True enough – but the problem is, lots of people already have. It won’t be too surprising if those contracts start to end up in court.
What policy model might the legislature follow for developing renewables? Existing oil and gas law. Kansas has very well developed oil and gas laws. The KCC also has a long history of oil and gas regulation. The existing structure could be adapted to wind. In fact, wind and oil and gas leases NEED to be compatible – no point developing one industry at the expense of another.
KCC Chief Litigation Counsel Thomas Stratton listed three major policy needs that the legislature might consider extending to the KCC: (1) standardized lease agreements and compensation to landowners, (2) harmonizing wind leases with oil and gas leases, and (3) decommissioning.
The latter means – how, when, and who pays for a wind farm installation to be broken down and removed. Huge costs, huge potential problems. Definitely a good area for state oversight.
I attended a wind forum sponsored by the KRC out in Phillipsburg a while back. My favorite quote of that day came from an older gentleman, a farmer, who was sitting to the back of me.
If you’ve been to any of these wind events, certain patterns emerge – for instance, someone will always tell the audience (an audience of full of potential wind farmers, mind you) that wind is an expensive source of power and coal is cheap and so why are we developing wind.
This man to the back of me snorted.
“Ha!” he said. “Damn right wind ain’t cheap! Better for me that way! I need a cash crop. I thought corn was going to be it, finally I get a good price for a bushel, first time in my life – and now they tell me I’m starving people, selling it for ethanol. Damnit. Wind ain’t cheap? That’s good.”
The reason I’m telling this story now, in terms of the wind seminar: That older gentleman was thinking of wind as a PRODUCER. Not as a CONSUMER. If you’re a producer, a fair price for your product is a good thing – and so are supportive resource development policies.
In the meantime, find a good lawyer!
I’ve skipped all the many details of negotiating wind contracts (sorry). I’ll continue to do so, because I am not a lawyer. However, Mike Irvin did mention that Farmers Bureau was planning on possibly developing wind law resources and checklists on their website.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Sure, the Kansas legislature – and the ever-present coal controversy – is on hold until May 29. For the most part, participants in the recent session’s energy debates are temporarily off-screen.
The action continues, though, in other arenas. And in other directions. Tomorrow in Wichita is the first meeting of the Kansas Environmental and Energy Policy (KEEP), the new advisory group advising the Sebelius administration on climate and energy policy (click here for the executive order).
According to the KEEP’s website, the group recognizes the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the globe to warm, which in turn contributes to climate change. These changes will impact the economy, the environment, and the overall quality of life on earth.
Thus, KEEP’s purpose is to “respond to the challenge of global climate change, while becoming more energy efficienct and energy independent and spurring economic growth.”
This weekend, Jack Pelton – KEEP chairman and president and chief executive officer of Cessna Aircraft – also had an interesting piece in the Wichita Eagle.
Pelton described KEEP’s purpose as “to find the balance between the needs of businesses and the need to protect the quality of our air,” and their policy goal as developing a plan that meets the energy needs of Kansas, at the same time as identifying “policies and technologies that reduce the state’s carbon footprint.” As he also stated:
I also know the pressure inherent in turning a profit. But neither Cessna nor our parent company, Textron, is prepared to sacrifice the environment for the bottom line. We seek the balance we know exists; and if you ask my counterparts at the other Wichita aerospace companies, they will tell you the same thing.
When the governor asked me to lead this group, she made clear her commitment to the goals I’ve outlined here. Together, our state can ensure power resources are in place for our economic prosperity without dooming future generations of Kansans to the ravages of accelerated climate change.
I am excited to have been asked to help and am very happy to live in a state where the governor is mindful of enhancing the state’s climate for business growth while reducing the state’s negative impact on Earth’s climate.
What exactly will all this specifically MEAN? We’ll find out more tomorrow. In terms of procedure, KEEP is following what is known as a stakeholder process – where an outside facilitator (in this case, the Center for Climate Strategies) helps participants to state their priorities and then weigh them as a group.
Even if you can’t travel to Wichita for KEEP’s kick-off meeting, the process is VERY accessible to the public (YAY). While you might not want to listen for the entire duration – 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. – you can call in using the following phone number – 800.704.9804, and conference code 424 541#.
How cool is THAT. Note to those of you not used to conference calls:
(1) they’re easy, don’t be scared, just call in and listen
(2) mute buttons on your phones are helpful, but not always necessary – when a kid or spouse or coworker wanders into the room and asks very loudly where the toilet paper is, it’s nice to have that muted. However, some conference services also automatically have you muted, and you have to press a button and go through a moderator to talk
(3) most conference services track the caller ID information of participants – the name of whatever phone number you are calling from
KEEP is composed of representatives from base of industry, utilities, state and local governments, environmental interest groups, and academia. Appointees include (click here for the additional ex officio appointees):
- Steven Baccus, Kansas Farm Bureau President
- Amy Blankenbiller, Kansas Chamber of Commerce President and CEO
- Jim Boone, NorthStar Comfort Systems Inc. President
- Dr. David Braaten, Kansas University Geography Department Professor
- Casey Cassius, Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell Architects Architect
- Yvonne Cather, Kansas Sierra Club Council Delegate
- Patty Clark, Kansas Leadership Center Director of Operations
- Dr. Johannes Feddema, Kansas University Geography Department Professor
- Ashok Gupta, Natural Resources Defense Council Director of Air and Energy Program
- Colin Hansen, Kansas Municipal Utilities Executive Director
- Nancy Jackson, Land Institute Climate and Energy Project (CEP) Project Director
- Mike Kelley, YRC Worldwide Vice-President
- Mark Knight, Owner of Knight Feedlots, Inc.
- Annie Kuether, State Representative of Kansas
- Stuart Lowry, Kansas Electric Cooperatives Inc. Executive Vice-President
- William Moore, Westar Energy President and CEO
- Emil Ramirez, United Steel Workers District 11 Assistant Director
- Dr. Charles Rice, Kansas State University Agronomy Department Professor
- Bruce Snead, Kansas State University Engineering Extension Program Specialist
- Dr. John Wong, Wichita State University Urban and Public Affairs Interim Director
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Three strikes, you’re out? Or – a set up for close encounters with the third kind? (Meaning another veto override attempt. Which would only be the second attempt, actually, they let the first coal bill die and only tried to override the second. But they attempted the override on the second before they let the first expire.)
It all got complicated.
Hopefully, all those details will someday be just footnotes in some obsessively researched legislative history. Today, what matters is the big picture – on Friday afternoon, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the third coal bill (ENS). As she was widely quoted in Kansas papers:
“Rather than working toward a compromise solution, legislative leaders recklessly chose to jeopardize important initiatives for businesses and communities across our state by combining them with energy legislation I have previously vetoed twice.”
Will there be an override attempt on sine die, May 29? Even though they lost votes on this third bill, Sunflower supporters in the Senate could probably pull off an override attempt. There’s never been a lot of suspense there. The question remains the House. 84 votes are needed for override. This last bill, they received 76.
The third bill even tried a new tactic – packaging the measure with economic development initiatives. It was not successful. Sebelius’s veto message blasted the attempt as unconstitutional. Under the Kansas constitution, bills are limited to one subject.
Sebelius and other opponents of the 1,400 megawatt (MW) proposal claim that the legislation mixes environmental regulation and economic development. Supporters say the measure is purely economic development. The veto message pretty clearly told the other economic interests (who got shot down along with the coal plants) to just hang in there, help was coming. Next session.
Guess what else might be coming next session!! More coal legislation! It’s still unclear to me why the legislature needs to be involved in this process when there are ongoing court cases, and when the details of air permits and coal plant proposals are traditionally negotiated between administrative agencies and utilities and in response to federal interpretations (or in this case, the lack thereof) of the Clean Air Act – but according to House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, in 2009 Sunflower supporters will try again (TCJournal).
“I’m hoping we continue the conversation and try to gain approval of this next year,” he said. He said getting other utilities in the state to purchase a portion of the power from the Holcomb facility could generate some extra support. Some critics have focused on the fact that only 200 of the plant’s 1,400 megawatts are earmarked for Kansas, while the remaining energy will flow to Colorado and Texas.
Moving right along.
Subplot: Hyperion. Did KDHE Secretary Bremby’s decision to deny the air permit to Sunflower Electric set up a climate of regulatory uncertainty in Kansas that then lost the state the economic development opportunity of an oil refinery, to be built by Hyperion? (Their proposal was to emit 17 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The proposed Sunflower plants would emit 11 million tons per year.)
Check out James Carlson’s article in the TCJournal and see what you think. The headline, “Possibility or Politics?” pretty much sums up as much as we will ever definitively know.
Then when you’re done, check out KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby’s response to House Speaker Melvin Neufeld in the Wichita Eagle. Did the decision create regulatory uncertainty? Bremby: Oh heck no.
“To be clear: There is no ‘regulatory uncertainty’ in Kansas. KDHE has continued to issue timely air-quality permits. Since the denial of the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. permit for a proposed coal-fired plant near Holcomb, KDHE has issued more than 300 air-quality construction and operating permits. Since January 2003, the agency has issued more than 3,000 air-quality permits. Under this administration, the only air-quality permit denied has been the Sunflower permit.”
Bremby also told his side of the Hyperion story.
“Kansas remains open for business. I am confident that Hyperion officials will recognize the tremendous natural assets and highly trained work force Kansas has to offer. Regardless of the outcome of the proposed Hyperion Energy Center, and despite comments to the contrary, the Sunflower denial will not be the determining factor.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Walk the Talk: How much is enough?
May 16, 2008
Since we posted on the Roan Plateau yesterday, I got curious and hopped on YouTube. Reminder: Roan Plateau is the fight against expanded oil and gas drilling in public lands in Colorado, a conflict where hunters and sportsmen and environmentalists have taken the same side.
I thought this video was neat for a couple of reasons – trust me, you hear a LOT of folks say that when prices rise, people won’t care about saving anything in the environment, or creation, or whatever you want to call it – instead, they’ll drill or mine anywhere, just to get the resources out, to keep their lights on or their cars running, etc.
So when people (like the ones in this video) are facing scarcity, and instead of grabbing it all they start to ask themselves tough questions about what really matters to their quality of life (versus their standard of living) – how cool is that?
Enjoy the video. Happy Friday!! If you have to go to lots of graduations this weekend, hang in there.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Editorial on energy efficiency. This week in the Wichita Eagle, Randy Scholfield asked an excellent question – what is Kansas doing to maximize its energy efficiency resources?
In terms of concrete state policy, that answer is – as yet, not much. Other energy issues overshadowed the energy efficiency legislation, which crashed and burned in the last hours of the 2008 session. The KCC has yet to offer any findings on the energy efficiency (in effect, decoupling) docket currently before it.
As Randy observes:
Kansas has been locked in a bitter controversy about whether a proposed coal-plant expansion in western Kansas is needed. Largely overlooked in the debate is the untapped promise of energy efficiency and conservation to reduce our state’s energy needs.
All sides should agree that energy conservation is a goal worth pursuing.
Kansas has hardly begun realizing the potential — the state ranks near the bottom of the nation in energy efficiency programs. It’s one of just 10 states that in 2006 reported zero net savings from efficiency. Zip.
Coal prices rising. You know how gasoline prices rise during the summer months, when more people are driving? Something similar happens with coal – because of increased demand (mainly for air conditioning), electric generators have to start stockpiling coal in the spring to make sure they have enough for summer.
However, due to increasing exports of U.S. coal, domestic supplies are decreasing. Thus they are also rising in price (Reuters – story one and two.)
Greenhouse gases in atmosphere higher than any other time in past 800,000 years. In a study of Antarctic sea ice, researchers discovered that “‘today’s concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are 28 and 124 percent higher respectively’” (Reuters). Quotable:
Before the Industrial Revolution, levels of greenhouse gases were guided mainly by long-term shifts in the earth’s orbit around the sun that have plunged the planet into ice ages and back again eight times in the past 800,000 years.
The U.N. Climate Panel last year blamed human activities, led by burning of fossil fuels that release heat-trapping gases, for modern global warming that may disrupt water and food supplies with ever more droughts, floods and heatwaves.
“The driving forces now are very much different from the driving forces in the past when there was only natural variation,” Stocker told Reuters of the study in the journal Nature by scientists in Switzerland, France and Germany.
Sierra Club has filed suit over eight coal plants in six different states. The legal claim is that the plants violate the Clean Air Act (Reuters). States involved are Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas and Wyoming. Sierra is considering suing additional plants in Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
As of right now, Kansas is not on that list.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
