Happy Thanksgiving! From the Climate and Energy Project (CEP)
November 26, 2008
By Maril Hazlett
This past year, I think I’ve been a good little policy advocate, so I know exactly what I want for this holiday season.
In my stocking, I want a nice big lump of renewable energy.
Want want want. Gimme gimme gimme. The holiday season doesn’t and shouldn’t start there (and yet so often it does.) Actually, when it comes to getting the clean energy economy jump-started here in the Heartland, I’m grateful for many things (I’ll share some of those below).
But we may as well start with the gimme, just to get it out of the way. If any policymaker is already considering their holiday list and checking it twice, I urge them to please select from the following:
• Renewable Energy Standards (RES) - Mandates that utilities must generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable energy.
• Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards (EEPS) - Mandates that utilities must lower a certain percentage of electric demand through energy saving measures.
• Fair interconnection standards and net metering policies – For greater energy independence, all motivated citizens need fair access to the electrical grid. For the electricity that they generate, they also need the ability to sell it to their utility at a fair price.
• Green pricing programs – Ratepayers who are willing to voluntarily pay a higher price for a block of green energy – generated from verified renewable sources – should be able to do so through their utility.
(We will take it for granted that those will all be written as significant, meaningful, and enforceable policy provisions. It doesn’t count if the policy is token, written in order to placate the public while forestalling actual clean energy goals.)
There’s certainly more to the list, too, but that’s probably more than enough to start with. And if I receive any item on it, I promise to write thank you notes.
That was the “gimme.” Holidays are also about being grateful. Believe it or not, even after this past year of energy debates in Kansas, I am grateful for many things.
The best analogy I can come up with is a big holiday family dinner.
Who’s there? Family. Friends. Some random, some planned, some strays, some happy twists of fate. Then there are those you can’t believe you’re related to – but, you are. Nothing is going to change that.
And frankly, if it is going to kill you to be nice to them, then maybe you should stay at home. They’re part of your world, too, so you might as well deal with it. Preferably sooner rather than later, so everyone can relax and enjoy the meal.
What’s on the menu? Well, it’s a potluck. Everyone brings something. Does it all go together? Does it all taste good? No. Do you have to try it anyway? Yep.
Why? Because. It’s polite. Take a spoonful. Smile. Try it. One bite. You might be surprised.
So imagine – when it comes to energy policy, we’re all at this table. Advocates. Utilities. Regulators. Legislatures. The courts. Ratepayers. Citizens. (And of course the people I have forgotten – sorry!) And I’m grateful for all of them. Parts of the past year were pretty tough, but at the end of it I feel like the people sitting here are getting a great start on energy conversations. We’re all at the table.
I know we look around at the world, the economy, the political situation, all of that and more, and it seems like a real mess right now. Yep. It is. But if these parties weren’t all talking, I really do think the world would be much worse off.
We have to pick up the pieces of the early 21st century eventually. Might as well start with energy. Are we all going to agree on our favorite recipe? Doubtful. But here at the state levels, I think we have a chance of coming up with a meal that everyone can share. (In Congress… well… I’m sure we all send them happy thoughts.)
Happy thoughts. That’s part of the holiday season, too. It’s also about giving, and love. Tolerance. Common ground, and hopefully common sense.
Above all, let’s remember why energy policy matters in the first place. These conversations and decisions are not just about our standard of living - our convenience, our comfort. They are about our quality of life.
Quality of life – that is what’s on the table, the basic ingredients of creation. Clean air, water, and soil. Habitat and biodiversity. Natural resources. Our health.
So, do go back up to the top and check out my gift list. And please do stop by for dinner.
You’re all invited.
(Reprinted in full from Greenability magazine)
News Updates: Waxman as Chair of Energy and Commerce, and John Deere gets into wind
November 25, 2008
Maintenance details. Two of you spoke to a coworker of mine yesterday and said you found some broken links. Question: WHERE? Tell me and I will fix them, if I can (meaning if they are broken on the CEP end). Email info@climateandenergy.org, please. Thank you!
Waxman dethroning Dingell on House Energy and Commerce Committee: One interpretation of what that might mean (Grist). You really need to click over and read this article in the original - because the links won’t reliably make the jump over here. But a quotable:
At age 69 and after having served 33 years in the House himself, Waxman is certainly not a new face in Congress. But he’s seen as a leader of a younger and more liberal batch of Democratic representatives, and climate change is one area where he’s been out in front. As the second-ranking Democrat on Energy and Commerce, he has advocated for much tougher climate change policies than Dingell. His “Safe Climate Act” of 2006 called for emissions cuts of 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century. He also cosponsored a bill to ban new coal-fired power plants earlier this year, and joined with Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) to author a tough statement of principles for climate legislation that calls for strong near-term emissions targets, the auctioning of emissions permits, and major investment in clean-energy technology. So far, they’ve gathered 152 signatures from representatives supporting those principles - the majority of the Democratic caucus.
The representatives signing onto that statement included 11 members of the moderate “Blue Dog” coalition and 27 members of the Congressional Black Caucus — two groups whose members largely supported Dingell maintaining his post on E&C. But even these members, under the leadership of Waxman, might be spurred to more vigorous action on climate change.
John Deere gets involved in wind industry (DOE/EERE). A new interview has been posted on the Wndpowering America website - you can listen, pretty cool. A summary:
Recognizing how investments in wind energy benefit rural America and the world — John Deere got involved. Vice President of John Deere Wind Energy Dave Drescher explains the decision to enter the wind business.
“John Deere very deliberately researched the market as part of an ongoing effort for new business opportunities, which provide quality growth opportunities that are connected to the core Deere business. And this business also contributes to Deere’s sustainability goals, but it helps our core customers gain value from their land and enables economic development in rural communities.”
As a result, Drescher says wind has become one of the most rewarding parts of John Deere’s business. Just consider Dumas, Texas, where Drescher recently returned from a commemoration for small distributed wind projects.
“This is ranchland, this is an area with center pivot irrigation and it’s not the most productive land. So adding another source of revenue for farms and resultant tax base for the community has increased the productivity of those investments that the ranchers and farmers down there have made. But the community will really benefit. For instance, over the course of the next several years it will drive millions of dollars to the school system and the county to help with infrastructure, hospitals, roads and other benefits.”
Benefits like job creation.
“When we build a wind farm, the construction jobs, for instance in the project I mentioned in Texas, these were small projects, about 50 megawatts, but a hundred jobs resulted from that during that period of time. And then there will be, in the community, jobs for technicians to service those wind turbines. Really benefit these communities; people stay in the communities, they can work in the wind industry, maintaining machines and making a good living in the process.”
In fact, those technical jobs are so promising, Drescher notes wind turbine technician training programs are springing up throughout the U.S.
Then there are the bigger picture environmental and energy security benefits. Drescher says water is a great example of the environmental benefits.
“Many people don’t fully appreciate the amount of water that’s used in fossil energy production, primarily in the cooling systems. And of course, ag is a major user of fresh water and it is very important that our customers have access to water for all of their needs in terms of ranching or farming or whatever form of irrigation they use. Our wind farms alone save over 840-million gallons of water. If you scale that industry-wide it’s billions of gallons of water being saved through the production of wind energy.”
According to Drescher, John Deere Wind Energy has about 700 megawatts of wind farms that will be in production by the end of 2009. That’s enough to power more than 40-thousand homes.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Reprinted in full. Subtitle could have been - when decoupling starts to look good…
By REBECCA SMITH
An unexpected drop in U.S. electricity consumption has utility companies worried that the trend isn’t a byproduct of the economic downturn, and could reflect a permanent shift in consumption that will require sweeping change in their industry.
Numbers are trickling in from several large utilities that show shrinking power use by households and businesses in pockets across the country. Utilities have long counted on sales growth of 1% to 2% annually in the U.S., and they created complex operating and expansion plans to meet the needs of a growing population.
“We’re in a period where growth is going to be challenged,” says Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy Corp. in Charlotte, N.C.
The data are early and incomplete, but if the trend persists, it could ripple through companies’ earnings and compel major changes in the way utilities run their businesses. Utilities are expected to invest $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion by 2030 to modernize their electric systems and meet future needs, according to an industry-funded study by the Brattle Group. However, if electricity demand is flat or even declining, utilities must either make significant adjustments to their investment plans or run the risk of building too much capacity. That could end up burdening customers and shareholders with needless expenses.
To be sure, electricity use fluctuates with the economy and population trends. But what has executives stumped is that recent shifts appear larger than others seen previously, and they can’t easily be explained by weather fluctuations. They have also penetrated the most stable group of consumers — households.
Dick Kelly, chief executive of Xcel Energy Inc., Minneapolis, says his company, which has utilities in Colorado and Minnesota, saw home-energy use drop 3% in the period from August through September, “the first time in 40 years I’ve seen a decline in sales” to homes. He doesn’t think foreclosures are responsible for the trend.
Duke Energy Corp.’s third-quarter electricity sales were down 5.9% in the Midwest from the year earlier, including a 9% drop among residential customers. At its utilities operating in the Carolinas, sales were down 4.3% for the three-month period ending Sept. 30 from a year earlier.
American Electric Power Co., which owns utilities operating in 11 states, saw total electricity consumption drop 3.3% in the same period from the prior year. Among residential customers, the drop was 7.2%. However, milder weather played a role.
Utility executives question whether the recent declines are primarily a function of the broader economic downturn. If that’s the case, says Xcel’s Mr. Kelly, then utilities should continue to build power plants, “because when we come out of the recession, demand could pick up sharply” as consumers begin to splurge again on items like big-screen televisions and other gadgets.
Some feel that the drop heralds a broader change for the industry. Mr. Rogers of Duke Energy says that even in places “where prices were flat to declining,” his company still saw lower consumption. “Something fundamental is going on,” he says.
Michael Morris, the chief executive of AEP, one of the country’s largest utilities, says he thinks the industry should to be wary about breaking ground on expensive new projects. “The message is: be cautious about what you build because you may not have the demand” to justify the expense, he says.
Utilities are taking steps to get a better understanding of the cause. Some are asking customers who reduced usage to explain what is influencing them. Xcel and other utilities, for example, have been running environmentally focused campaigns to urge consumers to use less energy recently, a message that might be taking hold.
Power companies are also questioning the reliability of the weather-adjustment models they use to harmonize fluctuating sales from quarter to quarter. “It’s more art than science,” says Bill Johnson, Chief Executive of Progress Energy Inc., Raleigh, N.C.
If the sector is entering a period of lower demand — which could accelerate further if the automotive sector collapses — many utilities will have to change the way they cover their costs.
Utilities are taking a hard look at the way they set rates and generate profits. Many companies are embracing a new rate design based on “decoupling,” in which they set prices aimed at covering the basic costs of delivery, with sales above that level being gravy. Regulators have resisted the change in some places, because it typically means that consumers using little energy pay somewhat higher rates.
Wind Jobs: Iowa town reinvents itself thru turbine manufacturing
November 25, 2008
Reprinted from CBS News:
(CBS) Newton, Iowa, has been through some tough times. But Mayor Chaz Allen has a skip in his step these days, CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds reports.
“I think we hit the lottery,” Allen said.
The source of his excitement is the brand new factory on the outskirts of town. And they have people lining up to work there.
“Yeah. We currently have several thousand applications for the few hundred remaining jobs we have open,” said the plant’s general manager, Crugar Tuttle.
It’s an amazing turnaround for Newton - closely identified for a century with Maytag and its array of appliance. At its peak, Maytag employed one out of every five residents. But a year ago, the Maytag plant closed, and 1,800 jobs were lost. Failure was in the air.
“We worked so hard to keep that company alive, you know. And it seemed like you worked harder and harder as time continued yet you could just see it was closing down,” said 18-year Maytag verteran Rick Miller.
Today, Miller works for TPI, the new company in town, making blades for new high-tech windmills.
“When I left Maytag, I didn’t think that I would probably every get back into the manufacturing area again,” he said.
The current economic downturn may have dented enthusiasm for alternative energy resources, but not in Newton.
Not only is a new plant operating, but the once-dormant Maytag factory itself has come back to life, too. A second company has brought more jobs to town, making the foundations for those windmills from TPI.
“It makes you feel like your just doing the right thing for your country, the right thing for this community, the right thing for, you know, yourself and the business,” said Wayne Monie of TPI.
And Mayor Allen said, “The idea of having these jobs here in Newton builds everybody’s confidence that we’re going to get out of this.”
And it’s unlikely any of these jobs will be outsourced one day, because shipping one of the huge, 130-food-long blades from a foreign manufacturer all the way to the United States would simply be too expensive.
So they’ll be built here, in America, by Americans.
In Newton these days, change is in the wind.
Salina Journal: “Planning for Power”
November 24, 2008
Reprinted in full from the Salina Journal:
By DUANE SCHRAG
The telling item in Rep. Carl Holmes’ PowerPoint presentation wasn’t prominent.
It was just a simple statement on the sixth slide of the chairman of the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority’s presentation at the Kansas Wind and Renewable Energy Conference two months ago.
Among the forces that created KETA was the desire to increase the state’s “ability to import and export fossil-fueled generation.”
That was telling, because beneath the rhetoric about wind turbines and coal-fired power plants, carbon dioxide and global warming — beneath that frequently impassioned debate is the oft-overlooked role power lines play in determining what ultimately happens.
That might seem too obvious to mention. Everyone knows that a generating plant, whether fueled by nuclear fission or coal or the wind, is useless without lines to deliver that electricity to customers.
Nor is it surprising that because no two generating plants are identical, the cost of power can vary considerably. The cheapest power is in highest demand.
But what is less widely understood is that because the grid is imperfect, utilities frequently cannot supply customers with the cheapest power available. When existing plants are underutilized, new ones are built sooner.
Ever since the state of Kansas blocked the construction of two, new 700 megawatt coal-fired power plants in Holcomb a year ago, proponents have insisted that Kansas “needs” more power. Or, more particularly, that Kansas needs more baseload power.
But rarely addressed is the question of why that is: How much power does Kansas have, how much is potentially available both in the state and in the region, and is all the available power being used now.
And what does the grid have to do with all that?
Rebuilding an aging line
Sometime in 2009, construction crews will start rebuilding the aging 115,000 volt line — it was built in 1931 — that runs from McPherson to Salina, and adding one rated at 345,000 volts. The upgrade will increase almost tenfold the lines’ ability to deliver power almost.
“That line is no longer reliable,” said Doug Sturbenz, chief operating officer at Westar Energy. “The life on those is normally 40 years. The whole purpose of this is to improve the reliability and lower our cost.”
But how does an upgrade like that lower costs to consumers?
The cost of generating electricity varies somewhat according to the age and condition of the plant, but varies dramatically according to the fuel. In its 2007 annual report, Westar reported the fuel cost of generating one kilowatt-hour of electricity: 0.45 cents worth of nuclear fuel, 1.39 cents worth of coal, and 6.77 cents worth of natural gas.
(Wind, as always, remains free.)
Although Westar is allowed to pass fuel costs on to consumers, it still tries to use its cheapest power first. Not surprisingly, the nuclear goes first. In 2007, Wolf Creek ran flat out, virtually nonstop: it generated 96 percent of its theoretical maximum, the equivalent of a one-hour break every day.
Westar’s coal plants were busy, but they weren’t operated nearly as intensively — they generated about 76 percent of their rated capacity. (By contrast, Sunflower’s coal-fired plant at Holcomb generated more than 93 percent of its capacity.)
The rest had to come from either Westar’s own natural gas-fired generation, or from outside sources.
Westar says that because transmission lines between the cheapest source and customers are filled, it routinely has to use more expensive generation instead.
“On that end of our system, during the summer those lines get loaded up nearly every day,” Sturbenz said.
How much can be saved?
But just how much that costs customers — or, to put it differently, how much savings Westar will see if the bottleneck is eliminated — isn’t entirely clear.
The Southwest Power Pool manages the grid in Kansas, Oklahoma and portions of five surrounding states. It has authority to order upgrades to the grid if it deems they are necessary to maintain reliability, and it signs off on improvements intended to improve efficiency (typically referred to as economic improvements).
The power pool’s rule-of-thumb for economic upgrades is that the savings over the first 10 years must equal or exceed the improvement costs. In an engineering report released in February 2006 that examined congestion in the power pool’s footprint, the it calculated that upgrading the Wichita-to-Hutchinson-to-Salina line would cost $68 million, and produce savings of $5.4 million a year. Over 10 years, when future value discounts are applied, the savings are barely half the project cost.
One year later, the power pool came out with another study, this showing that over 10 years, the project’s savings would be slightly higher, 63 percent of the cost.
A few day later Westar filed its application for a siting permit for the transmission line upgrade, and included testimony from its own consultant who estimated the savings to Westar customers over 10 years would be $87 million; other testimony in the case put the cost of the project at $98 million.
When asked why the project was approved if the benefits during the first 10 years don’t exceed the costs, Westar officials suggested that isn’t an appropriate measure of the project’s worth.
“The life of a transmission line is much longer than 10 years,” said Kelly Harrison, vice president of transmission, in an e-mail. “Typically a line will last 50 to 70 years, so the 10-year analysis is conservative.”
It was long overdue
Even though Southwest Power Pool’s studies showed the project didn’t meet the 10-year cost/benefit test, the project was frequently described as being long overdue.
KETA, in its 2007 annual report, described the project as being “sorely needed.”
Yet the direct benefits to Westar customers — the savings realized because grid improvements would allow Westar to supply the cheapest power available — would be incrementally small. According to Westar’s own consultant, the direct savings accrued over 10 years would be $27 million. To put that into perspective: last year Westar sold about $1,200 million worth of electricity to its retail customers, and another $380 million to wholesale customers.
Most of the savings — $60 million over 10 years — would be realized because the new lines make it easier to import and export power.
All of which raises the question: if the project provides one of the state’s most “sorely needed” transmission upgrades but lowers the cost of electricity to Westar customers by just a fraction of a percent, how exactly is congestion measured?
What yardstick is used to define the degree of congestion, and what is the current number for Westar customers? For Kansas? For the power pool’s region?
Utility officials and regulators are tight-lipped about the figures. The Kansas Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, could not provide any numbers. Nor would Westar. Nor would Southwest Power Pool, which acts as the master power traffic cop and has by far the most comprehensive view of how much power is delivered, which sections are saturated, which are not.
Whom will it serve?
What seems clear is that most of the new transmission being proposed is not to serve Kansas customers, now or in the immediate future.
Take the project that has variously been called the X-Plan, or the V-Plan. There are two competing proposals to build a 765,000 volt line that would run from Wichita to Spearville. ITC Great Plains, which is planning to build a new high-voltage line from Spearville to Axtell, Neb., is one of the players; Westar, which wants to partner with Electric Transmission America, also wants to build part or all of the line.
How much power can a 765,000 volt line carry?
“It’s almost impossible to overload the line,” said Westar’s Harrison.
Westar couldn’t do it alone. If all of the company’s generation — 6,200 megawatts — were fired up at the same time, run full-bore, and the power dumped over a 765,000 volt line, it would be about three-fourths full.
One of these lines, if operated at capacity for a year, could carry 73 million megawatt-hours of electricity, more power than the entire states of Kansas and Nebraska used in 2007.
If one of these extra-high voltage lines seems like overkill for western Kansas, which has been losing population, consider the level of interest in wind farms: so far in 2008 alone, in Kansas alone, developers have asked the power pool to evaluate a total of 7,700 MW of wind-powered generation.
Within the power pool’s footprint, the total in 2008 is 28,000 MW. That brings the total for 2007 and 2008 under study in the power pool to 41,000 MW, which is nearly the total amount of power consumed on the hottest summer days.
It would take several extra-high voltage lines to carry even a small fraction of that.
All of this potential power comes on top of an existing surplus. According to the power pool’s annual report on its market, demand on its grid last year peaked on Aug. 14, at 42,600 megawatts. Existing capacity totals 56,700 megawatts.
Exporting the wind
That’s a lot of surplus, the report notes.
“The initial examination of the amount of generation reveals a resource margin that would appear to allow for a significant increase in load without requiring construction of new generation to maintain reliability,” says the report, which was released in April 2008. “However, the economics of electricity generation, not just growth in demand, drives interest in constructing new generation … Among the (31,142 MW) active generation interconnection requests, 76.5 percent of the capacity is for wind projects, while coal accounts for 8.7 percent and natural gas accounts for the remaining 14.8 percent.”
If, as Rep. Holmes, R-Liberal, said in his presentation, the ability to import and export “fossil-fueled” generation was one of the forces that led to the creation of KETA, it would appear that the export of wind-fueled generation has become the dominant force.
Notes from the KU Energy Council meeting a few weeks ago
November 24, 2008
Thanks to CEP volunteer Gary Anderson, we have notes from the KU Energy Council meeting! CEP could not attend due to scheduling problems, but Gary there and took notes.
Speakers at the event included the following authorities (and their presentations can be found at http://kuenergycouncil.ku.edu/). The topics were mostly focused on biomass and biofuels.
The event started off with a welcome from KU Chancellor Hemenway. Hemenway traveled last summer with Thomas Friedman to Greenland and he shared his hope to make KU a “green” university.
Speakers:
Valri Lightner, DOE Biomass Program:
The program mission is to develop and transform our renewable and abundant biomass resources into cost-competitive, high-performance biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. Their short-term goal is to foster breakthrough technologies needed to make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive by 2012. She talked about the Renewable Fuel Standard, production trends, moving to non-food feedstocks, feedstock plans and targets as well as 2008 Bioenergy crop trials including partnerships with Fort Hays State and KSU. Biochemical and thermochemical conversion methods to biofuels and byproducts.
Bill Hagy, USDA Deputy Administrator for Rural Development:
He discussed the USDA Energy Council, energy provisions of the Farm Bill and other USDA programs supporting renewable energy.
Bill Noun, Executive Director of External Affairs for NREL:
He discussed Renewable Energy Innovations, vision, key challenges, next generation technology, a balanced portfolio and managing the lab-to-market interface. He elaborated on the NREL technology development programs, their program portfolio, staffing and funding, their new Energy Systems Integration Facility and State policy framework. He gave specific information on wind, solar, buildings, biopower and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. His presentation included KS maps for 50m wind, solar radiation and biomass resources.
Tom Binder, President, ADM Research shared information on their crop research related to biofuels. (No presentation slides were available.)
Bob Honea, Director of KU Transportation Research Institute:
He discussed the variety of transportation energy-related research projects, their biofuels feedstock to tailpipe initiative, the potential for high oil yields from various feedstocks including algae. He further described their algae research and its associated processes from production to energy performance.
Bala Subramaniam, KU Director of the Center for Environmentally Beneficial Catalysis: (Presentation will soon be available on website.)
Catalysis is the process for using catalysts that speed up chemical reactions and minimize energy input and wasteful byproducts. He described the CEBC vision, research partnerships, researchers, facilities, the current status in biofuels and the role of catalysis in biomass processing.
Bret Healy, Director of Bioenergy, Kansas Bioscience Authority:
He discussed the US Renewable Fuel Standard, an opportunity for Kansas, rural development strategy, KBA work to date, their Bioenergy working group, key concepts, paths to convert biomass to fuels, biomass yield potentials for dedicated energy crops and oil refinery concept vs. bio-refinery concept.
Laurence Weatherley, Chair, KU Energy Council and KU Professor of Chemical Engineering:
He described the KU Energy Council, its scope and philosophy, core areas of activity, their research in biofuels, petroleum engineering and bio/nano technologies.
Doug Rivers, Director of Research & Development, ICM Inc:
He discussed their vision, ICM history and view of the future. He also described their integrated biorefineries, cellulosic potential, challenges, energy crops and what does it mean for Kansas.
Adrian Polansky, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture:
He discussed the future for Kansas biofuels industry and its impact on the Kansas economy. His presentation includes many slides of ethanol information.
Thank you to Gary!
I cry foul! How does the WGA get to refer to its member states as the “energy breadbasket” of the country? Speaking as a fairly chauvinistic Kansan - (a) WE are the breadbasket, NOT them, and (b) energy is probably all most of those states CAN grow, given their water issues.
Hmph. Reprinted from the WGA press release (FYI KS is actually an observer of the WGA process, while we are participants in the Midwest Governors).
Western Governors call for swift adoption, implementation of national energy plan
WASHINGTON — In a letter to President-elect Barack Obama, Western governors today urged swift action in adopting and implementing a national energy plan and proposed a number of measures that would transform the country’s energy infrastructure and economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Governors Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Chairman of the Western Governors’ Association, and Brian Schweitzer, Vice Chairman, discussed the WGA’s bipartisan recommendations with John Podesta, co-chair of Obama transition team.
“The transformation we are talking about is broad based and will require new policies, incentives, market mechanisms and private-public partnerships to be in place by the end of next year,” Huntsman said. “We plan to work with the new Administration and Congress in addressing the multitude of energy challenges ahead.”
The governors’ letter outlines policies and incentives that would help states and the country move more aggressively to develop clean and renewable energy resources that include wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage.
“Western states are the country’s energy breadbasket, but energy efficiency has also got to play a much bigger role,” Schweitzer said. “That includes everything from manufacturing more fuel-efficient vehicles to changing regulatory structures so they reward utilities for achieving reduced energy usage among their customers.”
In their letter, the governors said a national energy policy must promote energy efficiency; reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a scale necessary to contribute to climate stabilization; maximize the economic development opportunities offered by clean energy; ensure energy costs are affordable and support a sustainable, growing economy; increase the proportion of energy supplies that come from domestic resources and friendly trading partners; and minimize adverse environmental impacts.
The governors’ recommendations include:
In Congress: Rep. Waxman ousts Rep. Dingell as Chair of House Energy Committee (CSMonitor). Could be very significant development for the future of federal carbon regulation. Readers may recall that last spring during the Kansas coal controversy Waxman also effectively halted future financing of coal-fired electric plants by the Rural Utilities Service.
Sunflower Electric spends over $1 million on legal challenges to KDHE decision to deny air permits for proposed coal plants (Harris News). (Legal challenges doesn’t include legislative lobbying expenses, I don’t think, right?)
From the Sunflower spokeswoman (Clare Gustin):
Gustin said rural electric cooperative customers in central and western Kansas would also receive $750 million in benefits from the project. That’s because of development and rental fees, as well as economies of scale that result from having a larger Holcomb complex, she said.
“The $1.13 million is a cost of gaining the $750 million benefit for ratepayers in central and western Kansas,” Gustin said.
The Sierra Club spokeswoman (Stephanie Cole) notes “that the utility itself acknowledges that the bill for building the plants continues to rise.”
In its lawsuit, Sunflower claims that the projected costs of constructing the plants have gone up by more than 60 percent in the last two years. Sunflower expects construction costs to continue to rapidly escalate, the filing states.
“If Sunflower does not obtain the permit necessary to authorize construction of the Power Plants in the very near future, the cost of construction may well increase to the point that the Project cannot be financed at all,” the company’s lawsuit states.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Happy Friday gift - the 12 year old perspective on global warming
November 21, 2008
And he built the website all by himself, too! Check it out.
The 12 year old in question is Ian Douglas Miller (yep! son of Ruth Douglas Miller who runs the Wind Application Center at K-State).
I’m really jealous of Ian. He gets to say all the blunt things that I’m not allowed to, because I’m old. Sample - his description of sea level rise, and the myth that warming is actually GOOD for the planet.
Global Warming won’t hurt anything, in fact, it would make your coastal summer vacation resort warmer. Well, that’s true, except your vacation resort is going to be UNDERWATER… At first glance, the map looks normal. Then you start looking closer… “Hey!! Where’s Florida!?!”
His “Solutions” page is awesome. Ie, why you should get a heat pump: “Geothermal heat pump. Your air conditioner is an electricity hog. This isn’t.” And the last item on his list of things to do: ” Use your creativity!! Think of more!”
CEP can’t ever top this… so we just humbly offer our Kansas climate study. Judging from the downloads, everyone who reads this blog has read the climate study at least twice 
but here it is again. Just in case you want to read it again.
Yay, Ian!!!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Long story. Click on link at end of blog entry to read it all. Reprinted in full from the KCStar:
Missouri, Kansas rank among ‘dirty dozen’ states with coal-powered plants
By KAREN DILLON
Missouri and Kansas are two of the “dirty dozen” states that have coal-fired power plants generating the highest mercury pollution in the nation, according to a study released Thursday.
The report, from the Washington-based nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project, says dangerous mercury pollution levels are also rising at many of the 50 worst coal plants in 12 states.
Missouri and Kansas are 9th and 10th respectively on the “dirty dozen” list. The plants that give the states that unwanted recognition are the Westar plant north of Topeka, the Kansas City Power & Light La Cygne plant south of Kansas City, and Ameren plants in Jefferson and Franklin counties near St. Louis.
Utility officials say they are working to reduce the pollutant and one plant has had dramatic results. But one utility official questioned whether mercury from power plants is even a health problem.
The report’s authors say it is a serious health problem and not enough is being done to reduce mercury emissions. Of the six worst plants, four are in Texas and the worst plant is in Alabama.
“The report found that the top 50 most polluting power plants emitted nearly 20 tons of the dangerous neurotoxin mercury into the nation’s air in 2007,” said Ilan Levin, the project’s senior attorney. “Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide.”
Currently mercury is not regulated.
The Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 issued a mercury rule, but environmentalists said it was weak and this spring a federal appeals court agreed. The court found that the rule violated the Clean Air Act, and overturned it.
That ruling has been appealed and the industry, environmentalists and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius are watching.
Nicole Corcoran, Sebelius’ spokeswoman, said the governor believes mercury emissions should be regulated because of the health risks.
When power plants release the highly toxic metal into the atmosphere, it eventually settles into rivers and lakes and is absorbed by fish, which are then eaten by people.
“We’re watching the federal court case to see whether the clean air mercury rule will be upheld,” Corcoran said in a statement. “The outcome of the appeal will determine the ability of states, including Kansas, to regulate mercury emissions.”
Pregnant women and children exposed to mercury are at greater risk for a variety of developmental and learning disorders, studies have shown.
KCC clean energy grants expert - KS is behind on applications for these federal funds, so let’s kick it into gear
November 21, 2008
In that headline, I paraphrased. Perhaps generously. But I do think it’s the gist. Reprinted in full from the Clay Center Dispatch:
Energy conservation grants going begging
By Ned Valentine, Editor
An energy projects engineer representing the Kansas Corporation Commission says Kansas businesses and farmers in rural areas are missing an opportunity to take advantage of federal loans and grants to upgrade to more efficient energy systems.
While energy is “cheap” now, it will inevitably rise again, and conservation technology is the best way to cut energy costs, Gary Hogsett told the weekly Chamber Forum attendees Wednesday morning.
“We don’t pay enough for energy in this country,” he said.
Hogsett said oil production has peaked in America and all over the world but demand continues to climb.
“We’re in a world of hurt,” he said.
Hogsett said the world has pumped far more oil than has been discovered each year for the past 30 years so the price of oil and gasoline and energy will inevitably climb in coming years.
Oil discovery peaked in 1949 in the U.S., 1962 in the rest of the world and oil production in the U.S. peaked in 1970, Hogsett said.
Hogsett said more energy is wasted in the U.S. than used efficiently and that conservation measures will be necessary no matter what future sources of energy are discovered or applied.
He said coal is the cheapest energy source but extremely inefficient with the best power plant only 35 percent efficient. He showed statistics showing that by the time coal power makes it into a room as light, only two percent of the energy taken out of the ground has been productively used by the consumer.
Hogsett said the USDA has energy grant money available for businesses and farmers in rural Kansas to implement more efficient energy systems, but that very few have taken advantage of the funds. Hogsett’s task is to make the program better known and provide expert advice to those interested in applying for the program.
“Iowa claimed $30 million last year,” he said. “Kansas claimed about $30,000.”
“They are having a hard time giving the money away,” Hogsett said. “There are grants going begging.”
Grants can pay up to 25 percent of the project cost of conversion to more efficient energy systems or insulation plus loan for another 50 percent of a project.
Virtually any business or farm is a potential recipient of the money and Hogsett received several requests from the Forum attendees to visit local businesses Wednesday afternoon to make suggestions.
Hogsett said the choice of light fixtures can vary widely in efficiency. A cheap fixture may be 50 percent efficient, a more expensive fixture can be up to 95 percent efficient with the installation of specially shaped reflectors, he said.
He said a better ballast can also be used to reduce energy waste up to 75 percent. He said windows are now being made with a R value of 30, better insulation values than walls.
And he said new “hybrid lighting” technology allows commercial buildings to collect sunlight in dishes on the roof, pass the light through fiber optics and into a room with no windows. The systems also use electric fluorescent bulbs with sensors that dim and brighten as the sunlight brightens and fades as clouds pass maintaining, a steady light source.
He said boilers, mostly 60 percent efficient, are available today that are 90 percent efficient.
Guest Blogging: High school debaters speak out on alternative energy
November 21, 2008
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.
In high schools across the nation, this year’s national debate topic is alternative energy. CEP has invited some of the best and brightest Kansas high school debate students to weigh in on the topic. Our Energy Debate ‘08 Guest Blog series will feature six debate teams across the state, from Dodge City to Overland Park.
Today’s contributor is Evan Hernandez, a junior at Wichita East High School. Here’s his answer to the question we posed: What does Kansas’ energy future hold?
The problem with the current United States policies towards alternative energy is that they assume that either there is one type of energy that is the end all, panacea for our energy problems, or they believe that providing incentives for a myriad of different energies will eventually lead us to a solution.
We are too focused on one form of energy, and by becoming too attached to a good thing we leave ourselves open for disappointment. On the other hand, often we find we are not focused enough on deciding on a small number of possible options, but rather throwing ourselves at anything new. This puts us in the mindset that if we don’t “pick the winner” ourselves, we just need to increase incentives for many different forms of alternative energy, sit back, and let the market do the rest.
In Kansas, people often get into the habit of putting their alternative energy eggs into the wind basket, understanding on only a very surface level what it would mean to be completely reliant on wind for power. Few people know that the intermittency of wind energy wouldn’t actually provide too large of a decrease in the use of fossil fuels such as coal to provide power.
Just a few years ago, policymakers in Washington decided that corn ethanol was the panacea for transportation fuels, mandating that a certain percentage of our fuel would be from corn ethanol in only a matter of years. While this was good news for Kansas corn growers, it proved devastating to the impoverished around the world. Using a staple crop like corn for fuel as it turns out is causing food prices to spike worldwide. The increased price of corn drives up the prices of other commodities as well. It only takes minor price fluctuations to put food out of reach of thousands.
Instead of throwing ourselves at one or two, or one hundred types of alternative energy, Kansans and policymakers should narrow our choices down to a only a few options without restricting ourselves to anything in particular. Hopefully that really will give us the security to just sit down, relax, and let the market do the rest.
CEP Debate ‘08 series coordinated by CEP Director of Outreach, Eileen Horn
Where religion and environment meet - cool! … but how exactly is this going to work?
November 20, 2008
Such a neat, thoughtful article (editorial, actually) that I thought we’d reprint it in full. It’s very long so I hid part of it behind a cut - just hit the link at the bottom of the entry to read the rest.
The original entry also has lots of links to resources that aren’t going to make the transition to this reprint, so go back and check them out if you are interested.
Reprinted in full from USAToday:
Green, meet God
The secular environmental movement sees an opportunity in the world of religion. Is this a marriage made in heaven?
By Henry G. Brinton
The greening of religion, although long overdue, is really a quite natural phenomenon. The texts of many faiths, indeed most, at some point reference the stewardship of this earth. More surprising is that today, secular environmental groups are seizing the opportunity to reach out to faith communities.
A Sierra Club report highlights faith-based environmental initiatives in all 50 states “spiritually motivated grassroots efforts to protect the planet.” One line leaps off the page: “Lasting social change rarely takes place without the active engagement of communities of faith.” Indeed. Think of the U.S. civil rights movement, Solidarity in Poland and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Social change does not stick without the glue of religion.
But as these two movements one based on the love of God, the other on the love of the earth intersect, we should celebrate the initiative while remaining aware of the challenges and inevitable spats that await this quite remarkable marriage.
All on board
For centuries, the biblical command to “have dominion” over the earth was seen as a divine endorsement of environmental exploitation. But a radical shift has occurred, and most people of faith now support efforts to be good stewards of natural resources.
The Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey, released earlier this year, revealed widespread support for stricter environmental laws and regulations among Jews (77%), Buddhists (75%), Muslims (69%) and Hindus (67%), as well as members of mainline Protestant churches (64%), Catholic churches (60%) and evangelical ones (54%).
“Creation care” is the growing movement that has become a rallying cry among religious people who are concerned about the earth. In just the past few years, this nation has witnessed an explosion of environmental activity at the grass-roots level.
“We now have 5,000 congregations that are responding to climate change by cutting carbon emissions,” says Gretchen Killion of Interfaith Power and Light, a San Francisco-based group active in 28 states. It helps churches and religious organizations lower their energy consumption. “Many of our members have installed solar panels, and three or four even have geothermal,” Killion says.
The world needs this broad-based, interfaith movement one that offers practical environmental benefits and draws together people of diverse theologies. Catholics are working with Native Americans to preserve land and water; Muslims are making links between urban communities and sustainable farms; and Protestant churches are joining interfaith coalitions and “greening” their congregations by modifying buildings, installing compact fluorescent lamps, using conservation landscaping and purchasing organic, fair-trade coffee.
Though religions are sometimes scorned for dividing people and illuminating differences, the unifying goal of preserving the planet could do just the opposite: bring people of faiths together. Creation care can be “a great bridge-builder between evangelicals and mainline Christians,” says Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals. Although evangelicals have traditionally distrusted environmentalists, who tend to be political liberals, stewardship of the earth is not a left-wing concept. After all, observes Cizik, “Aren’t conservatives supposed to be conservers?”
News Updates: Federal transmission legislation, grid concerns, community energy systems
November 20, 2008
New federal transmission legislation to be proposed (Sen. Dorgan’s Office). I think I originally clipped this from Climateer but never got around to posting it, whoops sorry!. U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (ND) is proposing the transmission part of the Pickens plan, to create a national electric transmission grid and a major expansion of wind and solar energy.
“I will introduce part of the Pickens plan in the U.S. Senate calling for the building of a nationwide electric transmission superhighway. It will allow our country to maximize the potential to produce vast wind energy in the heartland from Texas to North Dakota. And it will allow us to develop solar energy from the southwest to California. We can put that electric energy on the transmission superhighway and move it to where it is needed in our country. By maximizing our production and use of renewable energy here at home, we will reduce our need for imported oil.”
Transmission grid and success of climate policy forever intertwined (NAWindpower). Not necessarily news to us here in Kansas, currently ground zero for cutting edge wind and transmission line discussions, but - NERC just came out with a report on this linkage. Quotable:
“We are concerned that when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system,” says Rick Sergel, president and CEO of NERC. “As we consider our energy future, it becomes increasingly clear that our success in reducing carbon emissions and realizing energy independence will hinge on our ability to provide reliable, clean, electricity where and when it is needed.”
The report says that the existing bulk transmission network is inadequate to reliably deliver power from new renewable resources to demand centers. Innovative planning and operational mechanisms will be needed as states and provinces attempt to deliver clean energy over already heavily loaded transmission lines to meet renewable portfolio standard requirements.
In addition, managing growing demand will be critical to meeting both climate and reliability goals, making demand-side resources a critical component of the resource mix. Dispatchable demand response will be particularly important as it adds needed system flexibility and supports the integration of new variable generation such as wind power.
A neat looking report than I have been meaning to summarize for WEEKS but just haven’t had the time (and probably won’t, so I’m just going to toss it out to the collective mind)- from policy think tank Newrules.org (bigtime community self-reliance organization), a report on community energy systems, like distributed generation and community wind. Quotable:
Harnessing renewable energy can dramatically improve the economic prospects of many rural areas. But new rules are needed to maximize the economic and social benefits from these new industries, policies that go beyond more, to demanding better. Current federal incentives largely enable a highly centralized and absentee owned renewable energy industry concentrated in relatively few states.
The federal government, states, and rural communities should redesign these policies to encourage a highly decentralized and dispersed renewable energy industry that is significantly locally owned. Doing so would multiply the number of rural areas that benefit from burgeoning renewable energy industries, and would create a sustainable asset whose wealth and revenue will largely remain in revived local communities and regions.
This report examines the current impact of renewable energy on rural communities and identifies existing and potential policies that could dramatically expand the economic benefit this new sector can bring to these communities.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Nancy Jackson: Notes from the Governor’s Conference - and the global picture on climate change action
November 19, 2008
Over the last year in Kansas, I have heard one sentiment again and again: Climate change is a global problem – it requires a global response.
Well, reporting from the Governors’ Global Climate Summit, I have great news: the globe is responding!
Checking in to the conference, I was handed a translation headset. Next to me, someone asked, “Do I really need this?” To which the cheerful response came: “Do you speak Mandarin, Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, and Bahasa Indonesia?” We did not – we took the headsets.
Here to discuss goals (they all have them!), programs (ditto), successes and lessons from their efforts are governors from the fastest-developing nations in the world, including Mexico, Brazil, India, Indonesia – all of whom are dramatically less prosperous than the United States and are acting decisively to manage their climate risk.
Also here are Ministers of Environment from Canadian provinces, numerous representatives of the European Union and, crucially, the Director General, Department of Climate Change, National Development Reform Commission from the People’s Republic of China.
Food for thought:
China: 600 million Chinese are expected to move from the countryside to cities by 2030. Two times the entire U.S. population will need new places to live and work in a mere twenty years. So, China is devising and finding ways to enforce energy efficient building standards, to build efficient mass transportation and further lower vehicle carbon intensity (already significantly lower than the U.S.), to dramatically increase the efficiency of their traditional power generation and add massive new renewable capacity. They have begun a massive national ghg inventory so that they can measure their reductions.
Mexico: Mexico’s voluntary registry of greenhouse gases covers fourteen industries and 80% of emissions. Soon greenhouse gases will be added to the mandatory Toxic Release Registry. Mexico has a National Special Plan for Climate Change, and the President has made climate action a priority. Mexico’s representative here said “We can achieve lower carbon intensity very soon, very cost effectively.”
President-elect Obama: in a video made for this conference, said “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.” He called for a national cap-and-trade system that will “establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.” His closing: “I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”
Kansans, have no fear of acting alone. Put to rest your worries about industry migrating to countries who are not managing their carbon risk – there will soon be virtually nowhere to go.
Here, amid unfamiliar languages and determined leaders, I have witnessed the dawn of a new day. We’ll see it soon in Kansas. This day inspires new thinking, real innovation, and cheerful determination – and it ushers in a new, sustained prosperity.
Henry Ford – a good, practical, visionary Midwesterner – is fabled to have said, “If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said they wanted a faster horse.”
Let’s embrace a new vision and, together, let’s get to work!
Pres. Elect Obama speaks on climate change via video at governors’ conference yesterday
November 19, 2008
We can safely say that the following represents quite a shift in the federal position on climate change. Pres. Elect Obama spoke yesterday via video to a governors conference convened by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Analysis of the speech, reprinted in full from the NYTimes:
Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals
By JOHN M. BRODER
President-elect Barack Obama, in strongly-worded remarks to a gathering of governors and foreign officials on Tuesday, said he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet.
Speaking by video to a climate conference in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama repeated his campaign vow to reduce climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies.
“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”
Some industry leaders and members of Congress have suggested that Mr. Obama’s climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy — having the same effects as a tax on coal, oil and natural gas — and should await the end of the current downturn. A bill similar to Mr. Obama’s plan failed to clear the Senate earlier this year, largely because of concerns about its impact on the economy.
Mr. Obama rejected that view, saying that his plan would reduce oil imports, create jobs in energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, and reverse the warming of the atmosphere.
“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process,” Mr. Obama said.
State officials and environmental advocates were cheered that Mr. Obama choose to address climate change as only the second major policy area he has discussed as president-elect. In a press conference and television interview last week he said that his first priority as president will be to revitalize the economy.
The bipartisan summit meeting was convened by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, who has been a leader in state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, even when it meant confronting the Bush administration over its more hesitant approach. Attendees included the governors of Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin and Kansas, who have also been in the forefront of actions at the state level to act in the absence of a national climate change plan. Officials from 22 other states, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, India and Indonesia, as well as United Nations aides and environmentalists, also are taking part in the two-day meeting.
Mr. Schwarzenegger announced the meeting in September in part to signal to Washington and the two presidential candidates that the states were serious about moving forward with climate legislation with or without Washington’s blessing.
California enacted a sweeping climate bill in 2007 that would have, among other things, imposed strict mileage and emissions standards on all cars and trucks sold in the state. More than a dozen other states adopted the standards, but they were struck down by the Bush administration last December on the ground that the states did not have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
“When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in opening the conference, “so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could.”
Mr. Obama said that although he would not attend a U.N.-sponsored meeting on climate change next month, he has asked members of Congress who are going to report back to him on what the United States can do to reassert leadership on global climate policy.
He also told the state officials: “When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”
Governor Jim Doyle, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles that he had been frustrated by what he said was the Bush administration’s timid approach to climate issues. And he said that despite the current economic crisis, it was important to begin long-term efforts to address global warming.
“I think we all wish the economy was a lot better, but I feel very strongly that we can’t back away from progress we’ve made on really important things like climate change,” Mr. Doyle said. “I’m looking forward to having a federal government and a president who will provide real leadership and bring the United States into the world on this issue.”
More on the (third?) Sunflower suit
November 19, 2008
I say third suit because I think -I think - there is also at least one ongoing suit in state court, as well as one in the state administrative appeals system (which could end up in state court). But I have truly lost track so don’t take it from me.
The following was filed in federal district court in KCK on Monday (again - I think). Sunflower’s legal claim is that the denial of the air permit violated their civil rights. Reprinted in full from the LJWorld:
Sunflower Electric sues state leaders
Company claims Sebelius and others just wanted to advance their careers
Topeka — Claiming its civil rights have been violated, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. wants a federal court to overturn decisions by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and clear the way for construction of two coal-powered electric plants in southwest Kansas.
In a lawsuit filed in Kansas City, Kan., Hays-based Sunflower Electric accused Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson and Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby of trying to advance their political aspirations by rejecting Sunflower’s permits for the coal-burning plants near its existing facility in Holcomb.
The officials want to “further their individual political fortunes by catering to the environmental lobby that opposes the Holcomb Expansion Project and to increase their chances of being elected or appointed to some state or national office, all at the expense of Sunflower’s constitutional rights and the rule of law in Kansas,” Sunflower’s lawsuit claims.
Sunflower is seeking a court order that would prohibit the Sebelius administration from blocking the $3.6 billion project. No hearing date has been set before U.S. District Court Judge Eric Melgren.
The company claims Sebelius’ rejection of the plants based on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming was “nothing more than a pretext” and violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection.
“Indeed, since defendants denied Sunflower a permit, they have granted hundreds of permits to other CO2 emitters and continue to allow pre-existing similarly situated CO2 emitters to operate freely,” the lawsuit states.
Sebelius said she hadn’t seen the lawsuit, and declined to comment on it. She was headed to Beverly Hills, Calif., to co-chair a meeting of worldwide officials on global warming. The meeting was set up by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Sebelius has opposed the plants, citing the project’s annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, and the fact that the project would mostly serve out-of-state customers.
Sunflower has already been fighting to gain the permits through an administrative appeals process, the state court system and the Legislature.
During the last legislative session, lawmakers approved bills requiring construction of the plants, but Sebelius vetoed the measures and supporters of the plants came up just short of gaining the necessary two-thirds majorities to overturn the governor.
In the lawsuit, Sunflower warned that if it doesn’t obtain the permits to construct the plants soon “the cost of construction may well increase to the point that the project cannot be financed at all.”
If there were no project, Sunflower argued, its customers would suffer.
“In denying the air permit, the administration has discriminated against 400,000 Kansans and over 1.5 million citizens from other states who will be forced to pay the price of this decision for decades to come through higher electric rates,” Earl Watkins, Sunflower’s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. “We believe we have an obligation to act on behalf of the people we serve and to correct this wrong.”
Bruce Niles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, defended Sebelius’ actions.
“It is clear that with this lawsuit, the coal industry hopes to take away states’ rights to take action on global warming,” Niles said. “The writing is on the wall. Clean energy is where the future of America is, and that clean energy can be the engine of our economic and climate recovery. States should be free to pursue that clean energy future, and not be bullied for doing so.”
In a sworn statement, Watkins said the company has already spent $1.4 million in fees to lawyers and consultants to prepare for the permits and $1.1 million in legal fees and expenses to appeal the denial of the permits.
Sunflower said it filed the lawsuit in Kansas City, Kan., because that was more convenient for its law firm, which is based in Kansas City, Mo.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Sunflower files in district court against Gov. Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Parkinson, and KDHE Secretary Ronald Bremby
November 18, 2008
I don’t wake up very fast. Normally. Some emails, though, do have that power.
So. There aren’t any news reports out on this suit yet, although I imagine that will soon change. But we do have a copy of the complaint, if you would like to download it here. (25 pages, .pdf)
Someone asked me the total of cases this makes re the Kansas coal controversy, and I have to confess that I have lost track. And then you start counting plaintiffs and intervenors and administrative appeals and state court and now federal district court….
I know, I know. The total number is still less than ten fingers, so it shouldn’t be this hard. But someone else is going to have to tell me.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Bonaza decision: Impact on Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal plants?
November 17, 2008
Reprinted in full from Harris News:
Ruling’s effect on Sunflower plans unclear
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — Some opponents of a plan to build two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas said Friday that a new federal ruling could create a further hurdle for the stalled project.
Critics of the utility’s $3.6 billion expansion plans hailed a decision from an Environmental Protection Agency appeals board that blocked — for now — a federal permit for the Bonanza coal plant in Utah.
In making its ruling on Thursday, the appeals panel said the EPA’s Denver office must explain why it declined to limit carbon dioxide emissions in issuing a permit for the plant, which is on an Indian reservation.
State and national environmentalists said the move seems to signal that CO2 emissions of all new coal plant projects now will be considered when federal or state officials decide whether they should receive permits.
Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for Kansas Sierra Club, said the decision would put Sunflower’s plans for new coal plants on shakier footing.
“It’s our belief that this is just one more reason why Sunflower and its partners should not be moving forward with a multi-billion dollar project with increasing financial and regulatory uncertainty,” Cole said.
However, a spokeswoman for Sunflower Electric Power Corp. couldn’t say Friday whether the ruling would have have any effect on the utility’s Holcomb expansion project.
“We constantly evaluate the political and economic conditions that may affect our project,” Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel said. “Our environmental personnel have not had the opportunity to review the decision regarding the Utah coal plant as to whether or not it will impact us.”
Hertel said the Hays-based, nonprofit utility, made up of six rural electric cooperatives it provides power to, would continue to pursue the project as long as it remained in the best interest of Kansas rate payers.
A spokesman for Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado, the largest partner in the expansion project, could not be reached for comment. Tri-State plans to purchase power from one of the $3.6 billion project’s two generators and is paying development fees to Sunflower.
Permits on hold
Sunflower’s construction plans have been on hold since last year, when Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby blocked air-quality permits for the project over concerns about the plants’ CO2 emissions.
Bremby said he couldn’t ignore mounting evidence that the plants would emit 11 million tons of CO2 each year that would contribute to global warming.
But Sunflower and its supporters argue that they followed all existing laws in pursuing the permits and that Bremby overstepped his bounds in blocking them. They point out that there are no existing state or federal limits on the greenhouse gas.
The utility and its partners are pursuing a legal challenge to overturn Bremby’s decision, which could wind up before the Kansas Supreme Court early next year.
Legislative supporters could also make another run at clearing the way for the plants when they reconvene in January, after being thwarted by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes this past spring.
A spokesman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment declined to comment on the EPA appeals board ruling. KDHE spokesman Mike Heideman said the agency couldn’t comment because of Sunflower’s pending legal challenge of the agency’s permitting decision.
But Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s national coal campaign, said he believes that Thursday’s EPA decision decreases the odds that Sunflower’s project will ever receive permits.
Not a blow?
State officials must follow the EPA’s rules in awarding permits, Nilles said. Under the new ruling, he said he doesn’t believe Sunflower could win permit approval until state officials have given the project’s potential CO2 emissions additional consideration.
He said he also believes that the board’s move paves the way for President-elect Barack Obama to immediately limit CO2 emissions through Clean Air Act — without any additional action from Congress.
“It has an immediate and nationwide impact and really lays the groundwork for even more action on global warming on day one of the Obama Administration,” Nilles said.
But an industry group that backs expanded use of coal power counters that environmentalists may be reading way too much into one decision.
Joe Lucas, a spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the ruling only shows how difficult it is to site new electric generators these days. He said that’s because of continued uncertainty about how greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated.
He said that coal plants elsewhere are still receiving permits, including one in Arkansas earlier this month.
“I know there will be people who will try to spin this as a blow against coal that it is not,” Lucas said.
Nancy Jackson, executive director of The Land Institute’s Climate and Energy Project, said the supporters of new coal-fired generation may view the Utah decision as largely irrelevant.
She said, from their point of view, the EPA has again taken a pass on limiting CO2. But opponents see a victory in the decision, one that “presses pause” on all new coal plants, she said.
“We all know carbon dioxide will soon be regulated,” Jackson said. “The Bonanza decision is a significant and decisive step in that direction.”
Working out the wiggle room - Texas starts grid-proofing for high penetrations of wind power
November 17, 2008
From the New York Times -
The major problem with wind as a power source is that it doesn’t blow all the time. To remedy that, Texas is spending $30 million a year to bolster its back-up power, in a change to the electricity grid that began on Nov. 1.
Depending on the weather conditions and time of day, wind can provide a significant proportion of Texas power – as much as 16 percent at one point in the past week, according to Dan Jones, an independent market monitor for the Texas grid. Wind farms are sprouting so quickly in the western part of the state that Texas’s grid managers decided that they needed extra back-up power to cover shortfalls when the wind stops blowing.
Adding to the sense of urgency, Texas nearly experienced wind-related blackouts in February.
Back-up power sources are always in place to handle minute-to-minute fluctuations in power supply and demand. Some power plants — usually gas plants — stand ready to deliver power at a moment’s notice as needs arise. These plants are responding not just to variations in wind, but to any unexpected uptick or downtick in demand or supply — say, when thousands of people suddenly turn on their air-conditioning at 2 p.m.
Beyond mitigating these minute-to-minute fluctuations, power systems generally maintain a number of back-up plants that are a bit slower to kick in — it takes about 30 minutes or so — but which really form the primary line of defense against blackouts.
In Texas, these back-up plants — typically natural gas plants — are often needed three to five days a month, according to Mr. Jones. It’s at this level of defense where Texas grid managers recently decided that they needed added capacity to account for wind’s variability and its significant place in the state’s power portfolio.
The requirements now call for some of these plants to be available at night, when demand is usually at its lowest. Why? Because nighttime is when the west Texas winds blow the strongest, and thus the risk is greater if the wind dies down. The new rules also require more of this reserve to be available during the daytime.
(Other, rarely used lines of defense against a statewide blackout include switching off the power to certain large users, in accordance with prior agreements, or — in an emergency — shutting off power to certain neighborhoods.)
Adding extra back-up power is only one of several ways that Texas is handling the influx of wind power into its grid. Grid managers are improving their methods for forecasting the wind day to day, said Mr. Jones. They are also trying to figure out ways to ease the strain caused by the rapid, significant changes in the wind, which unlike other supply sources, can very suddenly ramp up or die down.
More transmission lines are also sorely needed. In Texas (as well as in other states), turbines are sometimes forced to shut down on windy days, because there are not enough lines to carry the power they produce to the cities that need it.
Although Texas is far ahead in wind power, with 30 percent of the nation’s installed capacity, grid operators elsewhere in the country will be watching the changes there and improving their own abilities to integrate wind. The New York grid operator, for example, is also introducing better wind-forecasting techniques.
The original story also contains a monthly cost breakdown.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
