Climate and energy

Summary: Questions were continued HB 2182, a bill which puts the Sunflower air permit back into play and restricts the current powers of the KDHE Secretary to protect the health and environment of Kansas.

You probably are expecting more here about coal, but there is also a lot about cow emissions in the following. (Don’t worry, it’s safe to read.) Full disclosure, MH’s father is a member of the Kansas Livestock Association. She likes cows. Which is why that part didn’t get edited out.

(also, there might be a double of this post out there on the internet, we had some technical issues today)

• If you would like to find your legislator and contact them about any specific piece of legislation, click here.
• For specific bill tracking, check out KNRC.
• For political updates on energy issues, check out gpace.org and/or kansas.sierraclub.org
  
• For questions on the legislative process, call the Kansas Legislative Hotline – 1-800-432-3924, or check out the legislature’s website.

**************

Continuing questions on HB 2182.

Rep. Johnson for Ally, KLA Q: Say more about what comes out of cows, these animals, that some people think is so bad. A: I don’t know where to go with that… it starts with digestion, enteric fermentation, that creates gas. Burps. People think it creates emissions. We have studied this to see exactly what the emissions are – ammonia and hydrogen sulfide – low concentrations. (MH: the greenhouse gas methane is also a major concern) Have also been working with EPA to figure out where we fit on air emissions. (goes on to describe reporting process) Ag in long run will be source of offsets more than a source of pollutants, and we are trying to quantify our emissions. And we are working on methane, its related to diet and natural processes of cow. Contrary to what people like to say, the media, the overall lifecycle of beef production does not have a lot of emissions. Q: Can those gases be used for energy purposes? A: Yes, we are looking at methane capture techniques. Manure also keep nitrous oxide and can return that to soil. Has value to green community.

Rep. Sloan for Mark Calcara, Sunflower Electric Q: KDHE’s written testimony offered several amendments, have you reviewed? A: Briefly. Q: Look at them and tell me your thoughts – particularly on page 6 lines 17-20 – re attainment areas. A: That was not intended to restrict them in any way. Q: Mr. Chairman I think the proponents of the bill should review these changes – and I think KDHE was trying to be cooperative and I want to commend them. And then get back to us with suggested language changes.

Rep. Holmes – and put it in writing for committee members.

Rep. Sloan for Tom Thompson, Sierra Club Q: You referred to proponents of legislation as special interests. Is Sierra Club a special interest? A: Anyone who comes up here is. I think Mr. Watkins thinks Sunflower is special.

Rep. Talia for Calcara Q: With case before KS Supreme Court, if Sunflower prevails, what happens? A: We get the permit reissued. Q: The bill does the same thing. If the bill is acting like the Supreme Court, you are getting the legislature to act like judicial branch. A: I agree in one sense – if we resolve at Supreme Court it fixes (MH misses). Q: Then we should change the date of this legislation from January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2009, and look forward to fix future problems. That acts within intent of legislature and does not affect courts. A: I would object. We feel good about this year’s debate because we are asking if state should regulate unregulated pollutants. State policy needs to be fair (MH does not follow next bit) This air permit is a live issue, so it’s a fairness issue, why does state regulate carbon dioxide if feds don’t. I would object to taking date out. And bill just guarantees a fair hearing before KDHE.

Rep. Sloan for Calcara Q: If EPA or other federal agency makes determination on mercury emissions between 2006 and 2009 date, then Sunflower has to meet those criteria, but this is not referenced in bill, and that causes some consternation among legislators not on this committee, that you would be grandfathered in on mercury despite current regulations. A: That was not the intent – anything that happened between 2006-2009 would be considered – if we need to clarify language Q: I suggest that language be offered, then. Also I raised issue yesterday about strikings in language re Secretary’s current authority re emergency powers – that language needs to be shared, too.

Rep. Holmes for Calcara Q: With proposed Sunflower air permit, does that require BACT in 2006 or 2009? A: BACT is a moving target, but KDHE does have to make decision at some point of time. We are working to keep our analysis of BACT ready if we get reconsideration. Q: So stake not driven into ground yet. Re mercury, if requirements increased since 2006, you have to meet higher requirements.

Rep. Sloan – There is a news report today that EPA is suing Westar over new source review at Jeffries – the question is that how committee rest assured that this plant or any other plant will use current environmental controls?

Calcara – In permitting process, our permit has terms and conditions, and it comes up for five year review but it doesn’t involve BACT. BACT just matters till you get the permit.

(MH – issue is whether BACT for 2006 or BACT for 2009 would apply here, if air permit is resurrected) (although she didn’t think BACT worked exactly like this…? don’t know.)

Sloan – for comfort level of legislators, you might want to commit to BACT. Calcara – I think that is in law today Sloan – then reference it here C – if feds are doing it – S – we want triggers to assure future public and legislative comfort.

Rep. Svaty for Ally – Q: So federal clean air act is the ceiling. But any time you use federal act as parameters, you give up state authority and control. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Q: No and here’s why. The distinction is in definitions. KS talks about air contaminants, which is broader in KS law …. (explains) So we pay attention to KDHE secretary and his powers. We need clarification of Secretary’s emergency powers and to restrict what is considered pollution. He has broad discretion and we want you to clarify when that discretion is based on science, and how do we weigh polluters rights against public good? A court is the place to do that. Q: So KLAs support of the bill is based on the emergency provisions, not the – A: Based on both. Threshold of federal standard, and emergency powers. (MH skips) Basically, air emissions standards are really hard on livestock industry, especially with emerging questions about their emissions/ pollutants Q: So you would rather trust Pelosi’s Congress that the KS legislature? A: I don’t trust any of them! I believe in laws and scientific advisory powers at national level. (MH wonders where K-State fits in) The Clean Air Act process works better at federal than state level, has much more access to scientific expertise. Q: So federal government understands KS livestock industry better than the state does? A: We talk to EPA all the time.

Rep. Svaty for Calcara Q: You didn’t like injunctions against business because of the overhead. Isn’t that what you are asking KDHE to do now, to take on the burdensome task of goign to court to stop something? A: At least in court there is less discretion and we could move in immediately to address – (wait, MH must totally be missing it here.) I may have overstated it yesterday. If Secretary issued order I could ask for restraining order against him, but courts give great deference to admin agencies, so … MH misses.

Rep. Siewart for Calcara Q: I want to thank you for providing service and thank you for fighting against Sierra Club and Tom Thompson and thanks for working hard to provide us a service at affordable prices and no one will miss it till it’s gone. (MH – check LJW story for exact quote)

Hearings closed on 2182

Hearing opens on 2224

Mary Galligan briefs. Enacts compressed air energy storage (CAES) act – KCC, and KDHE involved. Wells and monitoring, site selection criteria, etc.

Rep. Sloan for Mary Q: Are these rules similar to KCC regulation of underground Gas?

Holmes – let me respond, since I wrote this bill. We established underground CO2 rules two years ago. This is modeled on that procedure, and with consultation with EPA. IA project currently underway will be regulated directly by EPA. EPA does not feel salt beds in KS are OK for compressed air storage so our deep stuff is regulated by KCC. (MH – they talk about all the icky stuff that sequestered air or other things can bring back to the surface if wells and monitoring not done correctly).

Proponents

Ray Dean PhD
Supports bill – support clean air and water and state level regulation of that is helpful. CAES adds value to transmission lines by increasing capacity factor, and helps wind power solve intermittency problem and become dispatchable. But KCC doesn’t have to reinvent wheel, they know a lot from gas and oil industry and not create whole separate deal. It needs to be consistent with existing regulation.

Holmes – next Friday, there will be hearing on CO2 sequestration – at KCC

Tom Thompson, Sierra Club
Supports bill, CAES is vital in developing wind energy in KS. Wind can become part of baseload someday and help us not to build coal plants. We support KDHE having ability to write rules and regs and KCC to help. Wind industry needs to develop safely in KS – but without impeding wind industry.

Joe Spease, Windsohy
Partnering with wind storage company, energy storage and power, division of NJ company. Several KS sites, also TX, western KS has ideal sites. CAES II design, next generation, uses biomass instead of natural gas for heating component, so we can reduce emissions even further. CAES not addressed by many states, and we applaud you in taking the lead. Kansas can become a leader.

Tom Day, KCC
No testimony – I am testifying that I am not testifying. Bill just came out yesterday in written format, no time to review. And CAES is a new concept to us – but CO2 regs should definitely help. Dr. Dean’s testimony supports keeping all our regs consistent. This is very new in US – when we googled it yesterday, only two places came up. We are trying to find out more.

(MH didn’t realize salt domes and salt beds were different – clearly, she is not a geologist)

Questions?

Holmes for Day Q: Can you meet this deadline for the rules and regs? Is it unrealistic? What is realistic? A; The process is tedious, takes six months. If it goes like CO2 regs, then it would be shorter process. Jan 1 2010 – that’s close. July 1 2010 farthest we need to go.

Sloan for Holmes – we don’t ever penalize KCC for being late, should we?

Rep. Sloan for anyone – Q: How will this system work? Just during transmission constraints? Or when meeting other power agreements? Joe Spease – both. Technology to firm the wind to get into spot market during peak demand for spin reserve, and for storage spaces of 80 hours – Q: That’s wasn’t my question. What are economic drivers? A: (MH misses)

Hearing closed on 2224, 2225 begins.

Cindy Lash briefs. – If new coal plant gets built in KS it has to provide co-ops and munis up to 200 MW. Mandates power purchase agreement in law. MH – this provision was also part of SB 148 last year.

Proponents

Colin Hansen, KS munis
Having only see this bill yesterday morning, I’ll be brief. All of our munis need power. On average, they serve 882 members each. Only 8 serve cities of 5,000 or more. They have very different transmission capacity. Over last five years our power supply contracts have expired or been terminated, and we are now on market power, in a dysfunctional market. Our members have seen rates double. Because of this KMU supports new baseload. On transmission side, we deliver most power at 34.5 kV or lower. Can’t have a healthy market without adequate transmission. Last year, identical language to this surfaced – and KMU realized it didn’t have good feel for what our needs were, so we commissioned study. KMU needs – preliminary results – 373 MW of additional generation by 2019, 600 plus by 2030. Most of that growth in Westar and BPU territory. We will also pursue renewavles and EE/ DSM.

Wayne Penrod, Sunflower
We recognize Colin’s problem with getting reliable power, we don’t object to this bill, but we want to change some wording limiting to if we get the additional power.

Questions?

Rep. Sloan for Colin – Q: So this bill is limited to new pulverized coal plants. Do you not want part of Westar’s gas plant? A: We want any kind of generation. We want a seat at the table. Q: SO I can amend this restriction? A: Yes. Q: Problem with Sunflower’s amendment? A: No. Q: How can we get all people at the table, including re transmission? A: We would like that. On transmission, we don’t care who builds it, it just needs to get built. Q: Look at HB 2025 as a place to start.

Holmes – 2014 allows KETA to do that, and build lines and get cost recovery.

Rep. Moxley for Colin – Q: With current transmission issues, it won’t serve all your customers. Where do improvements need to be? A: Hard to generalize. But many of our embers have tried to negotiate new long term power agreements, they can’t get firm transmission. Seems to be a thing of the past. Q: Where are holes today in transmission? A: Lots of difficulty with smaller systems in sparsely populated areas? Q: Is your demand increasing? A: Some are, some aren’t. Hard to generalize. Q: How are you going to fill that huge need? Doesn’t it scare you? A: Tremendously.

Rep. Knox for Colin – are you pursuing anything with net metering and community wind? As these options become more economic that will help. A: not yet, but we are thinking about it. Pratt College and Pratt have true net metering. BPU has net metering. (MH – these are muni systems, munis can set up their own net metering if they want)

Holmes – and Jetmore put up a turbine.

Rep. Sloan for Colin Q: The new full requirements contracts limit your members in seeking alternative supplies, like net metering. A: That is correct. Q: If a muni wants to encourage renewables, can they actually do so, or would it violate the new long-term contracts for power supply? A: Our members certainly think that long term contracts prohibit them from community wind, I don’t know about net metering.

(MH misses exchange with Holmes and Sloan re improving transmission, and where SPP approval process comes in)

Rep. Moxley for Colin Q: Who does community wind help? A: We are educating our members. The power purchase agreements with suppliers – well, it would help. Q: If wind could help with 20% of a load, is intermittency a bigger issue for smaller communities? A: If you are at end of a line, yes, that could be a problem. And many of our members don’t have ability to load manage. Q: How cost effective is community wind? Is it highest priced electricity they can buy? A: It depends on their wind resource, and what they are paying. For many of our systems it is approaching affordability because of their expensivve supply contracts. Many munis have peaking plants sitting idle, although they are expensive to use. Q: Many of previous bills exempt munis from RPSs. What do you think? Why should we exempt you? A: Fair question. But divide issues of RPS and net metering. Our folks are doing net metering now, and have lots of rural customers interested in doing more. RPS – more problematic, especially for our rates. For small system to comply with RPS, only feasible option is to do so through power supplier – and then we are writing them a blank check, because we have only one place to buy power.

Rep. Olsen for Colin Q: If cities have wind or net metering you still need some reliable back up power – build it or buy it, for when sun isn’t shining, wind isn’t blowing. A: We do still need baseload energy, yes. We can’t solve our problem with wind energy alone.

Rep. Moxley – for Holmes Q: This says that munis have option for whoever builds, to participate A: Only coal-fired plant.

Rep. Holmes for Colin Q: New transmission line from Wichita to Hutch, and Hutch to Salina – is that helping your members? A: It has to be. Q: Trunk lines help. A: Critically important to getting wider source of deliverable power. Q: In Kingman (MH misses)

Subcommittees meet this afternoon (efficiency and KCC/ KETA), renewables tomorrow, hearings on 2271 and 2126 Monday.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org