Climate and energy

For a scanned copy of the draft legislation that got passed out of the Senate last evening - the third Holcomb bill - please click here (I hope. If the link is broken please let me know.) For the summary of the bill that was floating around earlier yesterday, please click here.

It was amended, but those amendments aren’t on there. A copy may be posted to the official Kansas state government website later today, but I would be surprised if they could turn it around that quickly. Also, legislative action could easily take place on the bill before that happens.

I think - I think - one of those amendments made the weatherization portion of the bill optional for utilities to participate in. That needs to be confirmed.

As far as the Senate reactions to the bill last night - I’ll just clip in from the live blogging notes:

The trailer bill is getting pushed back for getting pushed through - the bill has not gone through the committee process. Problem. There are a lot of questions on the bill - even from supporters of the plants. There are drafting errors, there are needs for amendments… there are significant changes to regulatory policy, which was probably unintentional… we will start to impact utilities in eastern Kansas and need to be very, very careful… but we need to have full discussion of that. And we don’t want to influence Westar or KCPL without full hearings (!!!!)… ie page six section 9 - KCC limits rate recovery on unrecoverables, whoops, the present regulatory practice is 100% of uncollectables, now that is restricted…

In particular, both Senators Marci Francisco and Minority Leader Anthony Hensley objected very strongly to the final provision of the bill -

Minority Leader Hensley and Francisco very much object to the provisions writing in $250K for Sunflower’s bioenergy research per year - which specifically write in “Sunflower Electric.” Not any other utility. Hensley and Francisco think the utilities should all have a chance to compete for rewards from reducing their carbon. Senator Pine is arguing for the provision. Remember, this same provision gains its funding from applying a 2 cents per meter charge statewide, to all ratepayers - but $250,000 of the proceeds are specifically earmarked for Sunflower. Amendment fails. Provision stays in bill.

After amendments were offered, the bill was passed.

As for CEP’s on the fly analysis of the bill provisions yesterday:

The main thing I noticed when glancing over the proposal - what is being proposed skirts perilously close to illegal.

I say that because I have immense respect for the authority of FERC and SPP, and this bill appears to infringe on that authority.

Basically, the new legislation allows for Sunflower to sell an additional 200 MW (of the 1400 MW, only 200 MW of which was coming to KS) to another Kansas utility. This is targeted to BPU, in Wyandotte County. The Wyandotte County delegation, of course, has refused to vote yes on the coal plants, and if they swing, the Governor’s veto can be overridden.

Basically, the provisions would put a power purchase agreement into law. Normally these are very involved deals negotiated between utilities, not legislated as a matter of statute. The deal is also very much like one that BPU (which is a public utility, and has a very involved board of directors that oversees their business very closely) refused a while back.

None of that is the big issue. The big issue - there are no existing transmission lines that can connect power plants in western Kansas to power plants in eastern Kansas. Such lines will cost billions, which will make that power very expensive, and they will take a very long time to build - but those are side issues.

The point is - who gets to say where transmission lines can go? FERC and SPP. Kansas entities do not have authority over transmission. They can apply for permission to build lines, but there are lots of hoops to jump through. One of the criteria is that those lines be affordable, compared to other proposed lines (and right now with wind development, KS has many proposed lines).

This new legislation allows to promise that they will deliver this product through an extremely expensive system that does not even exist yet, and that surely they can have no assurances that can be built.

Surely not.

OTHER ISSUES WITH THE NEW SUNFLOWER LEGISLATION:

- As always, it contains nothing to offset the enormity of the carbon dioxide emissions - whether it is eleven million tons, or 9.5. million tons, that’s a lot of carbon.

- It still removes the authority of the KDHE Secretary to protect health and environment of Kansans, although it sunsets the provision in 2011 hey, is that when Sebelius leaves office? Must be a coincidence.
EDIT: simply must record a funny joke I heard on this point - one reporter cracked: “You mean when the Brownback administration begins?”
- Again, Sunflower proposes to up its percentage of renewable resources - but the amount is based on their CURRENT generation portfolio, NOT what their portfolio would be if they built an additional 1400 MW of coal power. Nor is there any enforcement mechanism if they do not comply.
- The provision on requiring the KS Regents institutions to respond to legislative requests for technology evaluations is - a little weird. I’m not unfamiliar with academia, and I am struggling to imagine how department chairs will farm out these requests, or find the funds to respond
- The weatherization provision is neat, but that can be a stand alone bill. Energy efficiency has growing support in this state.
- Systems benefit charge on all meters in the state - not that I see anything wrong with this, but - um - surely the KCC would like to be involved in a decision of that magnitude? Or the Citizens Utilities Ratepayers Board? This is kind of a big deal to shoe horn in at the last minute. And I think a lot of people would have differing opinions on the proposed distribution of these funds. Just a thought. Plus which - how much money is that, really?

See.. This is all why we need a comprehensive energy policy discussion in Kansas. Doing it this way is a little bit like getting married in Vegas! Sure, it could work… maybe… but really, is that wise?

More later today.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org