Notes from Reverend Richard Cizik’s presentation at Church of the Resurrection (Leawood, KS)
May 28, 2009
On Tuesday, Kansas Interfaith Power and Light and CEP had the pleasure of bringing evangelical Christian pastor Reverend Richard Cizik to the Church of the Resurrection in Leawood, KS.
Cizik spoke on climate change and creation care, and the necessity to act as mindful stewards of God’s creation. The former vice-president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), he is currently with the United Nations Foundation.
As part of the NAE, Cizik helped adopt the pivotal 2004 statement, “For the Health of the Nation.” He also worked with the Evangelical Environmental Network on the “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.”
Cizik is founding an organization called the New Evangelicals, which takes a pluralistic approach to religion and politics. (For broad background on new evangelicals as a social movement and Cizik’s role in helping shape it, check out this New Yorker article.)
Notes from the talk are below … and I will admit up front that my handy dandy digital recorder failed me (rather, I failed it – that pesky little detail of batteries). So I will have to beg Rev. Cizik’s indulgence on the following. However, the rough outline should be correct.
*************************
Reverend Cizik opened with a prayer and a DVD sample of the movie, “The Great Warming.” He also briefly described his own turning point in caring about climate change.
“There’s really no question about the science,” he said. “There hasn’t been any serious debate for years that global warming is happening, and that humans are helping cause it. However, I have people in my family who will argue the opposite side as well.”
Cizik described creation care as rooted in the stewardship messages of the Bible. For him, sustainable living is about not taking and wasting. Rather, it is about borrowing and returning.
“Of all humans, Christians should be able to speak with authority about what sustainability is,” he said. “But somehow, we’re not getting there. If you say you love God but you don’t care about his creation, that’s like saying you like Shakespeare and burning his plays.”
T. Boone Pickens came to town on Wednesday, drawing his characteristic overflow crowd at KU’s Dole Institute of Politics. He was welcomed by Senator Dole, who was himself introduced by Senator Brownback.
Brownback, sounding very much like a gubernatorial candidate, set the tone: “I want to see Kansas be a state of renewables. Kansas can be the center of this new development. We can do this in America, it is important that we do it in Kansas. We can be the Saudi Arabia of wind.”
Senator Dole – who received a standing ovation from the Kansas crowd – opined that the Pickens Plan “is a great opportunity for Kansas” and insisted that “this should not be a political issue.” (He drew a laugh from the crowd when he said that politics is fine for 38 years or so, but then you’ve got to get over it.)
When Mr. Pickens himself took the stage he focused, from start to finish, on energy independence. “We’ve got to get off foreign oil,” he said repeatedly. “If you don’t like my plan, your plan is foreign oil.”
Pickens emphasized the need to use natural gas as a transition fuel. He bets batteries and fuel cells are the future of transportation, but to get there, he said, and particularly to power heavy trucks, “natural gas provides a bridge to the future.”
Wind, he said, should provide a significant portion of the nation’s electricity. To get that wind to market, he emphasized, America must build a new transmission system. “We’re gonna have to subsidize it, there’s no question we do,” he said.
“A green economy means we’re on our own resources,” Pickens said. “And that will be the best economy we’ve ever had. If it’s American, I’m for it.”
Calling Al Gore his “new friend,” Pickens spoke over the crowd’s chuckles to say “Climate is page one for Al. National security is page one for me, climate is page two.”
Pickens urged the crowd to take action, and particularly to contact their representatives in Congress, who are considering a great deal of energy legislation, including several transmission bills as well as at least three versions of a Renewable Energy Standard. “I’m 80 years old,” Pickens said. “So I’m in a rush.”
Kansas appears to like a man with a plan – particularly a jocular billionaire who puts his money where his mouth is. After loud applause, the crowd lined up to buy Pickens’ book and get his autograph. It remains to be seen whether they will respond to his call.
— Nancy Jackson, www.climateandenergy.org
Check out the Take Charge Challenge – where six Kansas communities compete to see who can slash their energy use the most!
Summary: Eerily deja vu all over again from last year. For a bill billed as comprehensive energy policy, the coal plants were by far the main topic of discussion. The Senate did a voice vote recommending passage of HB 2014, then surprisingly called for a final action vote as well. The coal bill passed 31-9, and we will now await the appointment of a conference committee.
******************
I’d love to be writing about the economic stimulus energy dollars right now, plus the plans for a federal RPS (there are three versions that ideally, I would like to keep my eye on). I’d love to catch up on the – oh dear, FOUR – transmission studies that I haven’t read yet.
All of the above could mean incredible things for the Kansas economy – and for jobs.
However, today the Senate is scheduled to consider Sen Sub for House Sub for HB 2014, their version of the coal bill. This legislation is currently consuming a great deal of air time in the Kansas state legislature (supplemental note). They have several bills on general orders today, and they begin at 2:30 p.m. You can listen in live if you want.
While you are waiting check out what good state energy policy looks like - for CEP’s full best practices document on state energy policy, click here. For the one page summary, click here.
- 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.
**********************
Quotable, as I was waiting around for the Senate to get going. Someone was discussing net metering with me, as folks are wont to do.
“You can call a duck a cow,” he said. “Doesn’t make it true. Makes you look a little confused on your barnyard animals, to tell the truth. And this is Kansas.”
Gavel crack. Roll called. Cool air up here in the Senate Gallery, thank goodness, it’s very warm outside and that can sometimes wreak havoc with temps inside the Capitol. Prayer prayed, pledge pledged. Honorary recognitions. I had forgotten how opulent the Senate chambers are. Quite beautiful.
Resolution passed honoring Jana Mackey, a victims’ right advocate, domestic violence educator, and former lobbyist who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. Senators Lee, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, and Kelly cooperate in the acknowledgments.
Senate resolved into the committee of the whole, Sen. Taddiken presides. If they go in order, there are seven bills on General Orders and HB 2014 is the last.
SB 108, a bill which includes economic development initiatives including wind and solar (as Sen. ??? can’t see him) explains at length) is first. Sen. Holland also supports the bill – these financial incentives are crucial to bring wind turbine manufacturers to KS. Other senators rise in support as well, encouraging aviation and renewables manufacturing both. Questions raised about cost of bill, and jobs it will bring in. Answer: Not much cost, and it will bring lots of jobs plus create a whole new supply chain. Sen. Huelskamp notes that these products would be exported from state of KS, and mentions that we need to export energy, too. Sen. Flynn says that some products would definitely stay here in state because we are putting lots of wind turbines up here, too. Vote unanimously recommended for passage (final vote will take place later).
(MH will skip all bills not related to climate and energy)
Notes from House Utilities – KCC Commissioner Joe Harkins briefing on energy efficiency $$ in economic stimulus package
March 2, 2009
(Note: Harkins did not discuss either the weatherization funds – there will be a presentation on that Wednesday – or the possibility of KS competing for the additional energy grant funds available under the stimulus)
A stimulus bill can be stimulating, on many levels – and the energy dollars available have certainly stimulated a lot of discussion in KS over the past few weeks. (For a breakdown of the funds, click here.)
It can be a little confusing, but basically here’s how it works - (1) KS will be awarded a set amount, and (2) KS can also compete for additional competitive dollars (over $2.1 billion total is available to competitive states).
The funds under (1) will be awarded through two agencies – (a) the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC)’s Energy Programs Division, and (b) the Kansas Housing Resources Corporation (KHRC), which handles the weatherization of low-income homes.
Today, KCC Commissioner Joe Harkins came to discuss (1)(a). (1)(b) will be discussed on Weds. If (2) is on the schedule, I haven’t seen it yet.
Much of the details about these monies are still emerging – they are expected to arrive around 4/17/09, and programs may begin on or before June 1.
Commissioner Harkins’ main points:
- The KS goals of the energy stimulus $$ – to reduce energy consumption and thus emissions of CO2 and other polluntants and to stimulate local economies with activity from contractors, HVAC, auditors, construction, remodeling, etc.
- KCC expects $9.8 million under EE and Conservation Block Grants, $38 million to state energy program, and possibly $3.7 million in Appliance Efficiency Rebates.
- The KCC will funnel its funds into (1) expanding existing programs, and developing new ones that target residential and small commercial buildings.
- ESCOs for large industrial and large commercial buildings (existing) – Energy Services Companies evaluate and audit structures, and guarentee the energy savings if EE improvements are made. Building owners pay for the improvements out of the savings made.
- Expansion of Facilities Conservation Improvement Program (FCIP) (existing) – which allows public agencies to contract with ESCOs.
- Kansas SAVES – Smart and Verifiable Energy Savings (new) – Based on Midwest Energy’s How$mart Program, revolving low-interest loans for EE improvements to residential and small commercial buildings. Loans will be run through the utilities, but financed by banks (This is an expansion of the KEEP program, and will be run in partnership with KHRC).
- KCC will also (2) encourage the development of dynamic (ie, real-time) pricing for all energy consumers. Reasoning – depending on time of day, peak load, etc. etc., – a kilowatt hour can cost a lot more at one time than another. Logically, you want to use power when it’s cheaper, not when it’s expensive, and dynamic pricing allows you to do this.
- The KCC will also use the funds to develop a comprenhensive study of dynamic pricing, that would focus on – methods of cost recovery, rate re-design, bill format, infrastructure (smart meter) requirements, economic modeling, pilot projects, and customer education requirements.
Quotables from the Commissioner:
- “We do not intend to spend this money. We intend to invest it. Kansas will have the funds for energy efficiency on a permanent basis into our future.”
- “We measure energy efficiency in terms of how it helps us avoid building new generation. We are not spending any $$$ that does not produce measurable, verifiable results.”
- “We will use revolving loan programs – these are not grants. They are a huge opportunity, not a traditional government giveaway.”
- “We can’t encourage energy efficiency at the expense of the utilities – rate re-design will have to occur. We currently have rate structures opposed to energy efficiency.”
- “Smart meters are like people – they have IQs that range from very high to very low. You have to find the right one to work for you.”
Some details that leapt out to me -
- Commissioner Harkins acknowledged that using the utilities to help distribute the EE dollars would not necessarily help all KS ratepayers, because not all utilities will necessarily want to participate in these EE programs – “their utility might not choose to play”
- Rate re-design. Rate re-design. RATE RE-DESIGN. And did I mention… rate re-design? I could be entirely wrong, but this sounded like a pretty big deal to me. And there would appear to be a tension between the short-term stimulative purpose of the funds, and the long-term prospect of rate re-design.
- What is the interplay between the known $$ – the guarenteed stimulus dollars – and the unknown ones, ie, the competitive grant dollars? Ie, how can you truly get dynamic pricing underway without building a smart grid? And how can you build a smart grid in an economic climate without easy access to credit markets… and are the smart grid funds available instead under the competitive grants portion of the stimulus?
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Kansas energy policy – the untold story
February 26, 2009
Winding it up at the Capitol for the afternoon. Checking in on the last emails, the blog traffic – which is off the charts, of course, given that the first vote on the coal bill happened today in House chambers. (Thanks to everyone who read!)
And I’d like to give voice to a side of the story – the untold state of Kansas energy policy – that I don’t see getting any play. I am hearing it a lot from any number of people, but no one yet has bundled these thoughts together and said, hey, this is important, this is a story, pay attention -
– and the story seems to be that Kansas is missing out. Missing out on jobs, missing out on opportunity – in renewables and energy efficiency. There are tens of thousands of jobs at stake here. It takes leadership for us to get our hands on them, but the legislative leadership is not talking about energy in the broader sense, in terms of moving ahead into the 21st century. They are not taking into account our abundant natural resources of wind and solar, our potential for manufacturing jobs. Instead they are recycling last year’s discussion about a coal plant.
A lot has changed since last year.We have a new presidential administration, and the plan for its emerging energy policy is pretty clear: A federal RPS, an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases and rules and regs from the EPA, federal climate legislation, an international treaty on climate change, and a federal energy stimulus package focused on renewables and energy efficiency that represents de facto energy policy. (And new transmission legislation is probably coming too, I might add.)
Other states know this, too. Other states are moving to make the most of the manufacturing opportunities, they are moving to attract (not repel) wind development, they are maximizing their potential for energy efficiency. They are passing Renewable Portfolio Standards and Energy Efficiency Resource Standards that are significant. They are passing net metering that meets the EERE and IREC definitions of true net metering (one bidirectional meter than runs 1:1). Their policies send clear signals that these states are open and eager for private investment, and for federal stimulus dollars in energy.
When it comes to energy, the world is moving on. Kansas is standing still. Many Kansans know this, and they’re not happy about it.
It might seem like the Kansas energy debate is all about one coal plant – but believe me, that is not the story.
—- Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Live blogging from the House Chambers – debate on coal bill, HB 2014
February 26, 2009
Summary: HB 2014 recommended for passage without a roll call vote, no headcount. (Check headcounts on other votes on amendments to bill below) final vote tomorrow. WHOOPS, maybe not – wait for calendar to come out, they may be pro forma tomorrow.
Drama/ speculation – the votes on the amendments are the only litmus test for the bill vote right now. Two significant amendments – the Governor’s energy bill was re-proposed, with an amendment that would seem to allow some sort of compromise on air emissions, and it failed 82-40. Another amendment passed – it would apparently (MH has not seen exact language) keep counties and munis from passing restrictive covenants against solar panels. A similar provision in committee about tanked a net metering bill. This amendment passed by 66-53.
So… try that math.
- 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.
***********************
This morning, the full Kansas House is expected to debate and hold a preliminary vote on the coal bill, HB 2014. As with the three coal bills last year, this one mixes some limited renewable and energy efficiency policies with provisions that would require KDHE to give Sunflower Electric the air permit for two 700 MW coal-fired power plants in Holcomb, KS.
Those plants would emit over 11 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. 1,200 MW would be owned by out of state interests Tri-State and Golden Spread. According to the Supreme Court, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act, and last week the EPA indicated it would soon release an endangerment finding.
What solid state energy policies look like – CEP recently put out a policy resources document looking at different state energy policies throughout the Midwest. Likewise, the federal economic stimulus package is very clear on what types of state energy policies will qualify states for an additional $2.1 billion in competitive energy dollars – and the checklist looks like this:
- integrated resource planning
- rate design that reimburses energy efficiency (possibly decoupling)
- residential and commercial energy efficiency building codes
- rate recovery for smart grid investments
- time-based pricing, etc.
Yesterday, the Governor promised to veto this coal bill. Last year, she vetoed all three. House Speaker Melvin Neufeld attempted an override on the second, and failed.
The vote today is expected to pass. However, it remains to be seen whether there will be enough votes to override the all but certain veto of the coal bill. 84 votes are needed.
*********************
Someone came up to me and said – “You’re even sitting in the same place you were last year. This is weird!”
Gaveled in, prayed and pledged. Everyone and no one is paying attention, it’s that kind of day. Miscellaneous business, clean up going on. Honorary resolutions. While this goes on, a few folks buzz around the floor – always interesting to figure out if they are key figures, or proxies for key figures, or if they are just at loose ends and/or need coffee.
Rep. Yoder is appointed to oversee the Committee of the Whole during the KS coal debate. Rep. Knox, vice chair of energy, carries the bill to the floor.
Notes from Senate Utilities – first day of hearings on SB 265, the senate version of the coal bill
February 18, 2009
Summary: Proponents’ testimony was heard on SB 265 and hearing continues at 7:30 a.m. tomorrow
- 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.
****************
Finding room to meet in the Capitol this session is a bit of a chore, due to construction. Case in point, we are anxiously awaiting Ways and Means getting out of their meeting so Senate Utilities can meet to begin hearings on SB 265, the senate version of the coal bill.
We are now in the room. We simply lack senators – no doubt due to the fact that they too are in other meetings. Such is the way of democracy.
(are you thinking they are at lunch? you are probably not correct. People can barely catch meals around meetings. Meetings, meetings.)
1:15 here we go.
SB 265
Staff – Cindy Lash briefs bill. (1) Energy efficiency for state government, data gathering on energy use, etc., encouragement of FCIP (2) Renewable energy portfolio (MH – essentially HB 2013) (3) net metering and easy connection act (MH – essentially HB 2051 for solar) (4) county home rule to prohibit counties from opting out of air emissions (5) parallel generation, (6) restrictions on KDHE secretary powers under Clean Air act and of emergency powers, mandates re-approval process for Sunflower Electric coal plant air permits.
Questions?
Sen Francisco – So people can only choose between net metering and parallel generation – once? What about people already doing parallel gen? Cindy – don’t know. Sen Apple – this came out of Senate bill last year we can check.
Proponents
Amy Blankenbiller KS Chamber
Supports legislation. Representing business and labor interests. Our polls show KS business leaders are worried about affordable and reliable energy. Not here to talk about pros and cons of environmental policy, we are here to talk about due process of law. Home rule amendment for uniform clean air across state – environmental rgulations should be done uniformly across state and federal jurisdictions. KDHE section, permit seekers need security that permits will be granted. My background is Wash DC and regulatory lawe and the complex permitting process is a dialogue between permit seeker and regulatory agency to discuss concerns, you don’t expect surprises at end of process. This legislation eliminates those surprises for business owners. This re-establishes rule of law for businesses to get air permits. It clarifies KDHE emergency powers. We all recognoze he needs emergency powers but they are only for true emergencies, a common sense true emergency, he can’t go outside of parameters. Kansas needs to be open for business.
Ally Devine, Kansas Livestock Association
Here to talk about cows. Seriously. We have limited regulation on this issue, there are complex legal reasons for our presence, we represent 50,000 jobs in western KS, 108 commercial cow ops that use lots of utilities, lots of meatpacking plants. Our people are worried about competitiveness. Kansas utility rates are double what they are in NE (MH note – EIA data shows that KS electricity prices averaged 7.18 cents per kilowatt hour and NE averaged 6.15 for Nov 08.). Our industry could move to NE, we are suffering losses of up to $250 per head. We need most efficient operations. We also need consistency in regulatory framework in state. Home rule is a problem with air emissions. The state needs to regulate air emissions not individual counties. And for air permits you need stable process with reliable science and studies. KS doesn’t have expertise to regulate to level of federal government, we don’t have the scientists, and we don’t want to get regulated by state of Kansas for air emissions (MH must not be following this correctly, sorry). And it’s hard to regulate cattle emissions, regulate ammonia. We need consistency across nation, since we are competing with NE and TX. Don’t be more restrictive. And what’s an emergency? KS defines pollutant differently than federal government and secretary needs to play by same rules. He can’t just show up and shut you down, there is a step by step process. You can’t set aside permitting process and do what you want. We need to know true emergency powers, this legislation here is crafted after federal air act. He gets to act in 72 hours, and then he goes to district court for restraining order, and the hearing can be held there (MH – in county district court – an air emissions finding is made). No exhaustion of agency remedies is required.
Notes from House Utilities – comprehensive energy plan passed, House Sub for HB 2014
February 12, 2009
Summary: HB 2182 – the KDHE regulatory sanctions that would pave the way for the new coal plant – was accepted as amended, and recommended for passage. HB 2012, 2014, 2225 were re-opened for amendments, HB 2639 was accepted, and all were rolled in to a new comprehensive energy plan, H Sub for HB 2014 (I think).
The new big bill contains the following bills as amended – 2015, 2271, 2224, 2017, 2014, 2035, 2013, 2043, 2182, 2639, and 2225.
- 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.
****************
Today – HB 2182 is open for debate. On the table is a seconded motion to recommend the bill for passage. Other bills passed as recommended will possibly be opened back up and amended.
The vote on HB 2182 happens fast. Boom, and motion passes 12-7.
And that is that.
HB 2012 repoened
Rep Kuether – Wait. I’m confused about this procedure. Every time you have had a hearing, you closed the hearing. And the bills were worked. Just because the bills haven’t been passed out of committee, they should be done.
New bill passed out, combining everything. Very confusing right now. MH misses lots. Apparently, all the bills recommended for passage so far are now combined into one big energy bill – House Sub for HB 2014.
Back on the re-opening of 2013 – they want to try and re-add 1.25 MW incentive for developing wind in Kansas (Josh Svaty’s amendment from yesterday).
Motion by Rep. Burgess to repeal Josh’s amendment, that each installed MW qualify as 1.25 MW.
Rep. Sloan –On top of the amendment that EE counts toward 25% of RES, if you pass this amendment you have driven the targets down by half.
Rep. Knox – That’s not quite correct… (does some math) But federal RPS is proposing 25% of EE. Maybe they are following our plan. We are doing things consistent with direction of nation. And the 1.25 MW – our interest is to incent activity in this state.
Rep. Svaty – How would it affect KEPCo, which gets 50% of its power from outside state of KS – what if they entered – (MH does not follow) KS has great wind, we don’t need to falsify our statistics and add a sweetener. It makes economic sense for companies to come here.
Rep. Moxley – We keep hearing that if we don’t act quick it could all happen in OK.
Rep. Sloan – Moxley is referring more to transmission construction. If we don’t move fast there, and we are not, we will see hubs for grid moving for south, since rest of SPP wants this development. If we have a .25 sweetener, this weakens our RPS. If you want to stimulate development, you are moving in wrong direction.
Rep. Holmes – (clarifies transmission question) We have two entities involved in transmission dispute in state. If not resolved shortly, some of the lines will bypass Kansas. I have been told that by upper management. KCPL already building wind in MO, too. Transmission is not in place in western KS.
Rep. Svaty – It is a transmission argument to act before OK. A wind argument, though – we are getting a federal RPS (MH misses)
Reconsideration to move # to 1.25 MW – divided vote. Motion is 10-10, Chair votes in favor.Motion to recommend HB 2103 as favorable – division vote. Motion 10-10, chair votes in favor.
Notes from House Utilities – working HB 2013, HB 2043, HB 2182, HB 2127 (gov. energy policy bill) dies
February 11, 2009
Summary: HB 2013 and 2043 were recommended to pass as amended. Note, that’s not actual bill passage (as MH just learned – and you might want to apply that knowledge to yesterday’s bills as well). It means that the bills can, in effect, still be opened back up and changed again.
HB 2182 was amended, and a motion to recommend was made and seconded but no vote took place. debate and vote will happen tomorrow.
HB 2127, the governor’s energy policy, was left tabled as amended by the subcommittee but some sections of it were dumped in to HB 2013 and HB 2043.
- 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.
**************
Room a little restless. Much chatter. Might be the weather, might be the day. Lots to do. Revisers walked in with a stack of amendments almost as tall as I am.
(Kidding. Although, not much.)
Rep. Forrest Knox, reporting for subcommittee. Notes lack of a report. “We did work hard.” Worked 2127, inserting lots of language from other bills, amendments, and committee tabled that bill as amended, “where it stays.” Lesson learned: let’s keep it simple, take baby steps to move ahead in renewables.
He also announces that his daughter gave birth yesterday! Congrats to grandfather Rep. Knox.
HB 2013 – RPS
Motion – Knox has amendments. Goal: a non-ambitious RPS that will still help economic development and send a signal. Tried to model 2013 RPS after 2127. Bill is based on “net renewable generation capacity.” Looked at costs in subcommittee, wanted to make it affordable and fair. Also includes EE as part of way to meet RPS criteria. Want to label KS as state that wants to move forward on renewables, want to send economic development message. (MH translation – 2013 gutted and parts of 2127 dropped in there for RPS provisions.)
Rep. Sloan – (doesn’t want EE to help meet RPS)
Motion to adopt all language except EE provisions, and firm transmission language.
Rep. Sloan – (wants to exclude meeting RPS with out of state wind)
Knox – with 1.25 MW credit, we want to offer advantage for in-state wind.
Holmes – treat this provision like they do the RECs. I am not speaking for governor’s office though, this is their language, I believe, I don’t know the intent.
Sloan – 1.25 MW credit is a policy mistake.
Svaty – Regardless of where language came from, incenting someone to locate wind farm in KS – that’s not really necessary.
Motion carries for all of language except exclusions.
Notes from House Utilities – working of house bills
February 10, 2009
Summary: Committee passed – 2014, 2225, 2271. Passed as amended – 2017, 2035, 2015, 2224. Killed – 2016, 2033, 2034, 2012, 2o21, 2116, 2064. Still remaining for tomorrow are the new coal bill, HB 2182, plus the governor’s energy policy bill, 2127, which was worked on Friday as base bill for Renewables subcommittee (but the results got tabled and outcome is uncertain).
- 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.
**************
Subcommittees reporting out today, starting with emissions subcommittee, moving to KCC issues, EE, non-committee bills, and renewables. I am betting we don’t get through all the bills today, however. Just a guess.
When we last left off, there were some questions about the fate of the governor’s energy policy, HB 2127. Was it alive? Was it dead? Was it dead as amended? Would there be a do-over? Was the subcommittee tabling it a stake to the heart, or will the bill rise again?
(It may be obvious that last night, to relax, I actually read a vampire romance novel.) (How dumb is it to relax by reading a scary novel before you go to bed? Needless to say, that move was not successful.)
However, I really don’t think we will get to learn the fate of 2127 today. Or 2182, for that matter, the new coal bill. Which looks a lot like last year’s three versions, at least so far.
Rep. Tom Moxely, emissions subcommittee
HB 2016 – cumbersome regulation, mercury and CO2 regs wouldn’t cure any problems in KS, bill not recommended.
Questions?
Rep. Kuether – to back up Rep. Moxley, anything we do on emissions will be superseded by federal government and EPA rulings.
Motion to kill 2016, it carries.
Quick notes from House Utilities
February 9, 2009
Summary: Hearing on HB 2126 – Very sober morning. Testimony from parents of Kelsey Smith, who was abducted in 2007 from Target store. Her body was recovered four days later. Verizon did not allow locater pings on her cell phone. The Smiths are here to advocate for a change to the law. Hearing on HB 2271 – amending KDHE regulation of underground storage.
- 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.
*********
For those of you interested in energy issues, here is the info you crave – but, it is encoded in bill numbers. As many of you know, there are gobs of energy policy bills this session, and several subcommittees have been meeting separately to consider them.
The rest of this week, Chairman Holmes intends to work the bills in the following order. Starting on Tuesday, the full Committee will start at 8:00 a.m. each morning unless a caucus is scheduled. The Chairman’s intent is to stay until the bills are done, and the goal is for one big bill to emerge from the committee.
The subcommittees will report in the following order, on the following house bills (HB). (and MH might have messed some of the numbers up)
Emissions Subcommittee: 2016, 2033, 2034
KCC Issues Subcommittee: 2012, 2014, 2017*, 2021, 2035, 2116
Energy Efficiency Subcommittee: 2015, 2064
Bills not from subcommittee: 2225, 2182, 2271
Renewables Subcommittee: 2013, 2020, 2038, 2043, 2051, 2127, 2017*, 2224
(* has two provisions that might be considered separately on different days.)
In bold are the two bills that MH hears the most about via email web twitter all that – 2182 is the new coal plant bill, and 2127 is the governor’s energy plan.
Oh yeah. Speaking of that plan! There seems to be some dissent and confusion, with results of dispute still TBA. Upshot: The Renewables Subcommittee spent 6.5 hours on the governor’s plan last Friday, and Republicans proposed over thirty amendments. At the end of the marathon, a majority of the subcommittee voted to table the bill as amended.
So. Points. When a subcommittee tables a bill, what does that mean? Can that bill be brought back up? What does it take? Is it gone for good? Does the tabling mean the bill as amended, or the base bill? Do the amendments remain live, as part of the committee report? Can the base bill survive?
All great questions, and I assume we will soon find out the answers. Many of the points were raised in a discussion by and around Chairman Holmes and Rep. Kuether. Kuether’s opinion seemed to be that the bill was gone, period. Several of the majority on the committee didn’t seem to agree with that position, but there were plenty that didn’t speak up, either.
I wouldn’t say there was any clear direction that emerged at this juncture.
Tune in tomorrow for the next episode – as the energy policy turns.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Notes from House Utilities on HB 2182
February 5, 2009
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.
By Nancy Jackson
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I write today not in my professional capacity but simply as the mother of two young daughters.
As I read HB2182, its passage would prevent the Secretary of Health & Environment from responding directly and immediately to emerging threats such as anthrax, avian flu, or natural disaster.
In an age of terrorism, biological weapons, and increasingly extreme weather, Kansans need and deserve a Department of Health and Environment ready and fully able to protect our health. As a citizen and a mother, I urge the Committee to preserve that ability.
Nancy Jackson
Eudora, Kansas
Notes from House Utilities on HB 2182, the bill that would bring back the Sunflower plants by restricting powers of KDHE
February 4, 2009
Summary: Testimony was heard on 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. Hearing had to be quick because House was going into session on budget bill, so it will continue tomorrow.
General themes raised – is an air permit a right or a privilege? How does the public interest in supporting a market balance with the public interest in managing risks to health and environment?
- 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.
**************
Called to order. Hearing on HB 2182 opens.
Cindy Lash briefs bill. Relating to KDHE. Limits county home rule powers re air quality, limits state powers re Clean Air Act – restricts state to act within limits of federal government on clean air act. State standards cannot be more stringent than federal, and cannot be enforced prior to date of act. Secretary cannot deny air quality permit if criteria of Clean Air Act has been met. Reconsideration of Secretary’s previous decisions – Sunflower permit would have to be reconsidered. If Secretary ruled unfavorably on reconsideration, applicant would have immediate judicial review by appeals court (within 15 days, MH thinks). Amendments included to Secretary’s current permitting powers. Amendments included on Secretary’s powers to redress emergent, immediate threats to human health and environment not addressed yet at federal level.
Rep. Sloan for Cindy – Q: Where is language on counties again? A: (answers) Q: And can Secretary require applicant to meet any new EPA standards established since 2006, or is he limited to standards in 2006? A: I don’t know.
Proponents
Mark Calcara, Sunflower Electric
Supports bill. Proud to support it with coalition of industry throughout state, They have accomplished the goal of raising level of debate above the clamor of last year to focus on major issues – first, should this state regulate emissions not regulated by Clean Air Act? We think it should be consistent with federal government. MO OK and CA have similar statutes. If you support this you will not be unique or unusual, you will be like other states. Look at KDHE response to our suit – national regulation supports level playing field of state industry. We want to compete for jobs and industry and don’t want to be different than anyone else. If you want to regulate more strictly, then come up with clear rules – but then you take risk of being pre-empted by federal law when they come up with carbon regulation. Second – is this state going to follow the rule of law? All our fundamental rights and freedoms depend on this. Last year this issue got such interest we had to move the hearing to larger room (MH’s notes from last year’s hearings are fairly centralized here). At the time Hammerschmidt from KDHE testified, and his response troubled me. KDHE staff recommended the permit and Secretary denied it anyway. Hammerschmidt said the staff had to follow rules, but Secretary has broader discretion. How is that right? Secretary should follow law, he took an oath. We can’t regulate on basis on whim and this statute protects that. Rule of law separates free and democratic nations. If we violate this law then all of our other freedoms are at risk. At what point do our freedoms end and tyranny begin? We will lose our freedoms inch by inch by well meaning Americans who think ends justify means. Some believe regulation of CO2 and denial of permit is okay and we can overlook rule of law in this instance. If we make this exception the exception will swallow the rule, and that will swallow our freedom. No freedom is won forever we have to win it again and again and again. Tyranny is the first time the rule of law is deviated from. You stand as watchman, in unique position, to win freedom – not for Sunflower or Chamber but for all Kansans. I ask you to support this legislation and support freedom one more time.
Notes from House Utilities on HB 2127 (the governor’s bill) – RPS, net metering, energy efficiency standards for state buildings
February 3, 2009
Summary: Hearing held on HB 2127, the Governor’s energy policy. No motions, amendments, or votes, bill moves to Renewables subcommittee chaired by Rep. Forrest Knox (not to be confused with the pollutant NOx, as he has pointed out) which next meets at 7:30 a.m. Thursday in Docking 783 before full committee meets at 9:00 a.m. Subcommittee will likely meet again on Friday morning as well but nothing specific announced yet.
- 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.
**************
Hearing today on the governor’s bill, HB 2127, an RPS/ net metering/ EE combo platter.
Careful readers will be thinking, right about now – exactly how many of those combo platters are actually in front of House Energy and Utilities…?
Answer: Many. We’ve gone way past combo platter, and into the land of buffet. And as a survivor of WeightWatchers, I can tell you, buffets are fraught with danger for those of us who just want to live a healthy lifestyle.
Hearing on 2127 opens
Room is not horribly overfull.
Melissa Dublin briefs the bill. Est. RPS and net metering plus EE for state buildings.
MH’s summary, re some of the differences between this bill and others – overall, this bill offers potential incentives to balance out the higher generation requirements and enforcement provisions of a strong RPS that will send the message that KS is open for serious wind business. Same with net metering – it has system caps and size limits for installations, which could help ease the pain of retail net metering for some participants.
Specifically – RPS: 2127′s targets start earlier, but allows good faith exemptions from penalties for noncompliance, offers 1.25 MW incentive, clearly defines eligible renewables and excludes nuclear, exempts munis but not co-ops, offers a rate increase cap of 1%, and counts the RES not according to nameplate but according to “net renewable energy generation” (as do most state RPS provisions).
Net metering: 2127 does not clearly define “net metering” but it does specify residential class bidirectional meter and 1:1 retail reimbursement which is credited (not paid out by check). The 25 kW cap for residential is higher than the 10kW in HB 2043 and HB 2051. It does specific FERC interconnection standards, prohibits additional insurance requirements, sorts out liability, etc. There is also no business re zoning or restrictive covenants as with the other two net metering bills.
EE for state buildings: Uses either LEED or Green globe standards.
Rep. Sloan for Melissa – Q: re utility rate cap on costs of 1%. Does rate protection last only two years.? A: Yes. Q: And if utility chooses another generation source that protection doesn’t apply? A: Correct.
Proponents
Tom Thompson, Sierra Club
Supports bill – RPS and true metering with one meter. Also includes consideration of new technologies. This bill will increase need for new generation from fossil fuels that lead to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Renewables will bring jobs. We would love to see customers receive a paycheck for net metering, not just a credit, or it expiring, but we will accept this. We need to prepare our state energy policy for upcoming federal cap and trade where carbon-based energy will cost more.
Nancy Jackson, CEP
We support RPS goals – and here’s why, but I want to talk about rate impacts first. Look at EIA data on rates across US – KS has 13th lowest electric rates in nation. Ten fastest growing states in nation have higher electric rates than we do – there are many factors to economic growth, not just electricity prices. IA has lower rates than we do – and IA also has 2,000 MW of wind and was first state ever to pass RPS. MN has most aggressive RPS in nation, 30% by 2020, their rates are .18 cents higher than ours. And these states have far poorer wind resources than we do. LBNLabs suggest that rate impact is at most 1% re historical performance of renewables. Benefits of RPS – look at case study from IA in your packet, look at benefits to roads, schools, landowners, counties. Jobs – 150 long term operations and maintenance jobs, 600 short term construction jobs – and wind manufacturing jobs – 425 existing companies in Kansas today could manufacture turbine parts. Fuel – wind is a levelized cost resource, fuel costs zero and has no carbon liability. There is now carbon liability on the federal level, there is competition for fuel sources including coal, not just oil. Water – wind operations don’t compromise our water. No harmful emissions – and with advent of plug-in hybrids we could someday drive on KS wind. 20% of wind is a modest reasonable goal. To skip to EE – you all know what I think – the cheapest, most abundant fuel source we have. We also need building standards that would be statewide.
Mark Schreiber, Westar
We support RPSs on two other bills, too – this goal is similar, it just changes the start date. Net metering provision – similar but with retail, and net excess generation granted back. Impact of this – Westar currently has 30 customers on parallel generation (MH – PG is not net metering, but it is how customers currently connect to grid in KS), and not all of them send energy back to us, most of them use it to offset their own use. They generated 12,851 kilowatt hours in 2008, and we paid out $355.28. If we paid retail rate, it would be 2.5 times that much. With restrictions in 2127, net metering can be incentive for small renewables. We can accommodate net metering without significant impact to our customer base.
Paul Snider, KCPL
Supports the bill, esp RPS and net metering. This bill is a reasonable way to move forward. KCPL is committed to adding 400MW of wind by 2012 pending regulatory approval. In MO last year we supported ballot initiative for RPS. Cost cap provision is key, important piece of this bill. More could be added to make this bill better – ie, allow EE to be used to meet portion of RPS, clarify the extent of the cost recovery and cost cap mechanisms, decide what assets actually qualify (ie, don’t doublecount), clarify use of RECs, clarify provisions on hydropower, provide variance for transmission issues. This is important step forward – and we also support building code mandate for KS.
Kimberly Gencur-Svaty, Wind Coalition
Support the bill. Kansas has rich vast natural resource of wind and RPS will help state harvest that resource. Smoky Hills WInd Farm II has capacity factor – even in summer – at 38-40%. Sometimes up to 76% other times of year. Our wind is strong in Kansas. Key point – in the U.S. last week we lost 100,000 jobs. KS has huge opportunity to bring in jobs by developing wind – also, the indirect impact of bringing new $$ into economy. The states surrounding us have RPS – look at RPS states around us, here on the map. NE KS OK and AR – there is no RPS, but as of last night, NE has 22 pieces of legislation pending on renewables. OK is looking at more than 30 pieces of renewables legislation, AR has bills in hopper as well. We are in competition here for wind jobs and dollars. Economics of wind, the benefits – if KS were to achieve 7200 MW by 2030, these are the benefits – here on the chart. Smoky Hills Wind Farm for example has 32 full time employees. Also, wind power is a hedge against fluctuating fossil fuel costs.
Written testimony from Sally Howard, Trudy Aron.
Opponents
Phil Wages, KEPCo
Opposes one piece of one sentence in bill – re hydropower. 50% of KEPCo’s fuel sources do not emit greenhouse gases, and 20% of that is hydropower. We receive it as a co-op under federal legislation. Hydropower is renewable resource, without limitation, under federal law. State RPS can’t limit hydropower definition, because it is crucial to KEPCo. This must have been a drafting oversight. Delete it please.
Earl Watkins, Sunflower Electric
Opposes two provisions in bill. Support KEPCos modification on hydropower. We do not oppose RPS legislation. We suggest modifications: Utilities should only be those who generate, not retail distribution co-ops. Do not use word “capacity” when it comes to wind resource, use “capability” instead. We do not oppose RECs but be aware that they are subject to market manipulation, dangerous, look at Wall Street, they manipulate. Caution. Specifically – we need our participation in Grey County wind farm included, that must have been a drafting oversight. Utilities also need credit for energy contracted from wind farm. On parallel generation statute, why is that language stricken, we need that reference to appropriately sized installations. We won’t speak on net metering, KEC speaks for us there.
David Springe, CURB
Opposes bill. We don’t support mandates on establishing a certain level of renewable resources by certain date. We do support acquisition of renewables, but not like this. Notes – on percentages per year, it is based on peak demand, then average demand – need to standardize that language. There is also a cost cap of 1% – (David explains how this raises utility revenue, in fact. MH thinks) And IOUS will always agree to these laws because their ratepayers pay costs, not their investors. We still oppose net metering, but it won’t cost a lot of money as policy decision. And we also need to have a provision to protect low income and fixed income people.
Alan Pollom, Nature Conservancy
Opposes bill. Focused on RPS – much is commendable but there are unintended consequences here. Large scale wind energy development has negative potential impacts on wildlife and natural areas. A new nonprofit just founded – American Wind and Wildlife Institute – conservation organizations and wind developers both on it. Wind energy players recognize impacts on wildlife is important. We are trying to map contiguous 48 states to ID sensitive areas, and areas where wind development can be prioritized, that map will be available this summer. An RPS may force development into sensitive areas, create hasty decision by utilities, etc. They might try to act in good faith manner, but an RPS would interfere. And the utilities are on board now without a mandate. There is serious push to develop more transmission, probably stimulated by federal stimulus bills, will open up more wind resources. Timing critical here, this might not be time for an RPS. Our staff works with wind energy companies all over KS, we help them ID sites we all agree on. We want truly green power, not power that damages state resources.
Written testimony from Chamber, and Reno County – neutral, but Chamber’s could be proponent.
Questions?
Rep. Sloan for Marilyn Jacobs (who did not testify but was there to answer questions) – On EE provisions (MH misses) Q: What is appropriate EE standard for determining building efficiency? A: They all have their own costs and benefits. LEED is to produce green building, ASHRAE is to save energy. Those are different goals. Q: Why isn’t ASHRAE listed here? A: (cut off)
Rep Sloan for Rep. Holmes – re net metering – Q: When sizing net metering for load, is this average load or peak load? I’m also confused at all strike-outs on parallel generation statutes.
Rep. Svaty for Allen Pollom, Nature Conservancy Q: You are not happy with the Smoky Hill wind project. What was Empire’s first project purchased in Kansas? A: Elk River. Q: Why is Empire cited as being complementary to your goals, when their wind farm is smack dab in Flint Fills? A: They made that decision to build that wind farm before they were aware of the environmental issues. Q; Empire’s second purchase is part of Horizon Wind project up at Concordia, too, right? And isn’t that on grassland. A: A mix of grass and cultivated. They did an offset project, too. Q: Did Smoky Hills ever suggest mitigation? A: Talked about it but it didn’t go anywhere. A: How does anyone get on your board? Q: Invitation. A: Is some – well, MH will summarize. Svaty is asking whether Westar rep on Nature Conservancy board slants the Nature Conservancy process – ie, does Nature Conservancy treat all wind projects equally.
Rep. Svaty for Earl Watkins, Sunflower Q: As a co-op that doesn’t have access to capital, when you select wind site, you have to look at least-cost alternative, correct? A: Yes. (MH misses)
Rep. Moxley for Earl – Q: Are there are rules and regs for wind in KS? A: There are some local zoning rules but not really other than that. Q: So in 70% of state that is unzoned, you can do whatever. A: Correct. Q: If best wind location was in Cheyenne Bottoms, would you put a wind farm there. A: No. But if you tell us we have to have wind, and KCC tells us it has to be low cost, we are in a box. If we go this route, then we would develop wind all throughout the Flint Hills. A: So if a business has no rules, you go to cheapest location. (MH missed that, actually – this is essentially a discussion about lowest cost, versus the right decision where there are other considerations like the environment, as well as money)
Rep. Myers – why are we doing this legislation, why is it necessary, and what is cost? We know answers to these questions, I am convinced. Asking both side. Earl Watkins – A: A mandate for our consumers (MH misses) we want economic development from wind in our area, but not the impact on our rates of a legislative mandate. We think we can do it though. Q: I think state should mandate production of Cessna Aircrafts to put 10,000 people back to work in Wichita.
Rep Holmes for Watkins Q how much wind do you have in your system? A: 16% among our members. Q: How much more do you need to hit 20%? A: 75 MW roughly.
Rep. Myers for Nancy Jackson –Q: Why are we doing it, is it necessary, and what about costs? Regarding wind, development is happening already. We have all the ingredients, all the incentives, why an RPS when utilities are volunteering to do it? A: There is a cost to mandates. That said, there are public policy reasons that make sense – it levelizes your costs. Q: Prove it. A: There are four components to any generation – cost of generation, cost of money, cost of fuel, cost of regulation, plus maintenance. Look at all generation – capital costs high across board for new generation. Cost of money – high right now, frequently unavailable, but often available for fuel sources without risk. Right now, carbon-based fuels have risk. Wind doesn’t. For regulation and fuel, that’s where wind helps you out. Especially since wind fuel is free and there are no GHG pollutants. Q: Are you taking into account increased transmission lines and baseload supply? A: Today we are talking about additional supply. Transmission is vital, with or without renewables. Baseload – 1:1 backup issue is not an issue right now. Wind backs down expensive gas generation. Current grid can support 20% wind penetration.
Rep. Myers for Tom Thompson Q: So why are we doing this? A: Conceptual aspects of RPS are crucial – it will attract more renewable businesses to KS. It will also decrease burning of fossil fuels, emissions of greenhouse gases, and climate change. If you don’t believe in climate change, you won’t go for my reasoning, but most people in Kansas do believe in it.
Rep. Sloan for Phil Wages Q: On hydropower, shouldn’t definition be one (MH misses). Re net metering – public perception is that you get cash value for excess generation. Under this proposal, this customer does not get any cash value.
Rep. Siewart for Nancy Jackson Q: You want to promote clean energy and renewables and get rid of carbon footprint, right? A: That would be a bonus, but that’s not my main goal. (laughter) I’m here because this is a smart business decision. Q: We have hydro available, but KEPCo will lose reneweables under this (MH misses, it gets involved) A: OK, MH misses this entirely. Nancy – I don’t know answer, I didn’t draft the bill. I am not opposed to including KEPCo’s hydro, but an RPS is intended to incent new generation usually. Q: I am not trying to pick on you – why don’t we promote hydro in this bill, too. A: That’s a great question. But this hydro is purchased from other places in country, not here in KS. We have only 4 MW of hydro in KS but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use it.
Rep. Siewart for Tom Q: You want clean fuel and energy? A: Why doesn’t Sierra push to get this hydro repaired? Q: If a new dam were built in KS, Sierra would likely oppose, because of their impact on rivers’ natural flow. That has been their position on west coast – but I don’t actually know what they would do in KS.
Rep. Proehl for Kimberly Q: We have exemption for property tax on wind generators in KS? A: Yes, ten years. Q: Holmes, no, that is lifetime. A: Sorry. Q: So how does KS get property tax income from wind? A: Actually they get Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
Rep. Talia for David Springe Q: Solar and wind require substantial up front costs but pay off later. Could this bill save money in future? A: I don’t know how to answer that question. But 20% by 2020 is an arbitrary general criteria. Why don’t we do it utility by utility, rather than politically. Q: I assume Westar knows what they are talking about and probably did studies to make sure they could do this. I think this bill is ultimately designed to save money. A; This is not a simple question.
Rep. Holmes for Nancy Q: What are average lifecycle of turbines? A: At least 20 years. But some portions of turbine have up to 30-40 year lifetimes. Many parts get changed out over time, with more efficiency components, etc. So – 20-40 years.
Rep. Neighbor for Rep. Holmes Q: I heard a report that within stimulus package, states without RPS will not be receiving energy money. A: I have not seen that. Until that bill gets into conference I’m not going to worry about that. I would just be speculating.
Rep. Holmes for Nancy – Q: You talk about 425 existing companies in Kansas who can manufacture wind parts? Are they in western KS? A: Most are in eastern and central KS. But western KS has all the wind resources.
Rep. Holmes for Alan Pollom– who left – Q: Hmmm, I wanted to aks him about transmission.
Rep. Holmes, for Mark Schreiber Q: You say bill allows for RECs, but another part of bill says KCC has discretion. MH misses. Q: Could wind built outside of state count toward RPS requirement? Could it be built in OK? A: It looks like it, so that language probably needs to be tightened and Westar would support that.
Rep. Holmes for Paul Snider Q: You want EE to be used to meet RPS requirements, how would it be measured? A: The KCC would measure and verify. We are just interested in starting discussion. Q: Would EE let company get out from under RPS? A: It depends. We want state on record as saying EE is viable. Q: Do you have any language clarifying use of RECs? A: I do not have language, but I would want RECs to be used on in between years. (MH misses) This bill does go along way to building in some flexibility.
Rep. Holmes – bring in written langiuage on each of these points for Rep. Knox.
Rep. Myers – Westar and KEPCo brought us something on costs of RPS, we should distribute it to whole committee.
Rep. Holmes – Tomorrow the budget bill might be on the floor of the House. We have hearing scheduled at that time on KDHE – might have to move it till Thursday, let conferees know. Two more bills on Thursday – compressed air, and one on power purchase agreements.
MH apologizes for typos.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Notes from House Utilities – HB 2116, HB 2117 – energy efficiency, baseload projection reporting, retail tariff for wind generation
February 2, 2009
Summary: (to be filled in later)
- 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.
******************
Called to order. First bill is 2115, telecom, MH skips.
Hearing opens on HB 2116
Cindy Lash briefs bill. (1) it requires KCC to biennially prepare electric generation report on capacity and peak load of utilities, for 5, 10 and 20 years. (2) requires utilities to develop energy efficiency and load management programs, based on PAYS.
Rep. Kuether for Cindy – explain PAYS program – Cindy – I don’t know. Larry Berg, Midwest Energy – Pay as you save – an EE program that finances EE improvements to a home based on home energy audit. It puts costs for EE renovation on the customer’s bill – and never finances more than the savings, so customers’ overall bill never go up. Usually focuses on improving building envelope. Contractors do work, Midwest finances improvements.
Rep. Sloan for staff – Q: Does KCC not have to approve the program? Am I missing it in the bill? (staff reads) Q: Are we getting into problems with cost recovery, if KCC does not approve? (They look at statute book, answer should be forthcoming)
Proponents
Tom Thompson, Sierra Club
Supports bill, reports important for consumers and citizens, will help to manage electricity and resource planning. EE and loan management programs will help reduce need to build expensive new generation capacity in Kansas, especially those based on fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases. EE will also help reduce energy bills.
Neutrals
Mark Schreiber, Westar
Neutral but has comments on bill. What does “enhanced EE” mean? Second, is purpose to slow demand growth or make it a negative trend? If lower, hard to meet that standard. That would be 50-75 MW reduction. Westar also looking at PAYS program to see if it will work for them. We’re not opposed to program but it may be duplicative. We also supply load forecasts to SPP and EIA for up to 10 years. 20 year forecasts very speculative, squishy on assumptions.(MH: Mark did not actually use the word “squishy.” Can’t recall exactly what he said.)
Happy Kansas Day! And notes from House Utilities – net metering, HB 2020, 2043, 2051
January 29, 2009
Summary: Testimony taken on HB 2020 (renewable energy incentives), and 2043, 2051 (net metering). No motions, votes, or amendments and the issue goes to subcommittee at 9:00 a.m. Friday (tomorrow) in Docking 783.
- For CEP’s notes on net metering, click here.
- 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 questions on the legislative process, call the Kansas Legislative Hotline – 1-800-432-3924, or check out the legislature’s website.
*******************
Net metering. Net metering! A topic we hear lots and lots about at CEP. I looked back over my notes on net metering from the committee hearings last year. Plenty has changed in the past year. It will be interesting to see if any of these arguments for or against net metering have changed as well.
As I recall, the arguments against – (1) only rich people can afford solar panels or wind turbines so net metering is a subsidy for them, and (2) net metering costs more for rural co-ops than IOUs, how do you get around that problem in a state with so many co-ops.
Arguments for – (1) energy independence, diversity, security, (2) offset for high fossil fuel prices, and (3) fair price needed to get everyday people into small renewables market.
That’s not comprehensive! Just off the top of my head. Will be interesting to see.
Very, very full room. Piles of testimony.
Hearing opens on HB 2020
Melissa Dublin briefs bill on renewable energy incentive program. Applies to installations of 5 MW or below. Reimburses on basis of capacity generation.
Proponents
Rep. Sloan (his bill) – This bill attempts to help people who want net metering and those who want community wind. Offers a balloon (amendment) to address rural co-op concerns with legislation. 5 MW limit is based on about three wind turbines (MH – 1.5 MW turbines?) (MH feels that Dan Nagengast, were he here, would want our readers to know that community wind turbines can start around 200 kW and move up to less than 1 MW, too – and Dan feel free to correct me) Amendment suggests that KEC would standardize interconnection among co-ops and KS Munis would standardize interconnection among munis. I don’t think we should exempt munis and co-ops from net metering.
Due to the lack of outlets in the meeting room, MH did not type. So, the abbreviated version:
Subcommittee Chair Rep. Swanson heard comments on HB 2012, 2014, 2017, and 2021, all of which revolve around the transmission question in Kansas right now. Amendments were presented and discussed, but no motions and no votes were taken. The full committee has had hearings on the bills already.
********************
Background: The KS transmission “question” – whether Westar or ITC Great Plains will build the 765kV line between Wichita and Spearville (regional transmission operator SPP has designated that route part of the V plan) – tends to dominate the larger Kansas transmission discussion, although in fact the KETA line (which ITC is building) from Spearville to Hays to Axtell is going along fine.
KS actually has a very progressive attitude toward transmission – and the issue is never whether we are going to build it. That we will do so is taken for granted. The issue is who will build it.
At any rate. Progress on the 765kV line is currently stalled in front of the KCC. Westar (aka Prairie Wind/ AEP) intervened in ITC’s docket(s) at the Kansas Corporation Commission. SPP had already approved the lines, but ITC was trying to complete the certificate of public convenience process for the state. In the debate at state level, Westar achieved standing to intervene in the KCC process based on their right of first refusal. The right of first refusal belongs to the people who own the endpoints of the transmission line, the substations.
And it turned out that there was no time deadline in statute for the KCC to resolve this part of the process.
I am simplifying all the details here, to just the ones you need to understand the following. The Kansas Electric Transmission Authority (KETA) wants to see this line built ASAP, not hung up in red tape. KETA is chaired by Rep. Carl Holmes, who also chairs the House Energy and Utilities Committee. Ranking Democrat Rep. Annie Kuether is also a KETA member.
At least four bills have been introduced to try and sort some of the mess out, and get the lines built. So far, the major technical points to emerge in the bills:
- What is the correct timeline for the appeals court to resolve the dispute, in case Westar and ITC can’t sort it out at the KCC level? On HB 2012 there was an amendment proposed for 120 days and the appeal can skip the district court and go to the appeals court.
- What is the correct timeline for the KCC to come up with a decision on certificates of public convenience – COPC (or amended certificates – another question) 240 days? 120 days? 180 days?
- What are the priorities for deciding who gets a COPC?
- One of the bills appears to tie electric utility’s retail service territories to transmission territories – a concept that does n0t exist in KS, and which was a worry to Westar in particular. They pointed out that large regional lines often cross many service providers, and that having one company build two miles, another build ten, etc., was highly inefficient.
- How do you balance the right of first refusal (who owns the substations) with the rights of service territories that get crossed along the way? (Ie, the contested line runs through a lot of Sunflower Electric territory.)
However, there are larger points and concerns as well. The one that struck me most came from Don Low of the KCC. In a new era of competitive transmission building, does it make sense to tie transmission to the local retail supplier? What rights does the retail supplier have in building transmission, especially when it comes to building a regional line?
Other points raised in the discussion:
- How is it possible to foster a competitive bidding process for building transmission lines, when companies have to get through so much red tape before they even get to the exact route siting process (which is where you have to dodge Farm A and Wildlife Area B, etc., and that adds $$$ to line construction) that a bid would only take place after significant up-front investment by the utility? You always know that a transmission line will start at Pt X and go to Pt. Y, but you don’t know for a while how it will get there.
- How do you preserve the public interest – in either building transmission, or not paying too much for it?
- While the right of first refusal is important in building transmission, and while state interests are important in building transmission, how are those balanced with regional transmission planning processes?
Were there answers to these questions? No, not really. However, they were all raised.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Notes from House Utilities on deregulation of rural electric co-ops
January 28, 2009
Summary: (to be filled in later)
- 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 questions on the legislative process, call the Kansas Legislative Hotline – 1-800-432-3924, or check out the legislature’s website.
****************
Gaveled in. Subcommittee meeting today at noon in 785 Docking – KETA legislation on transmission.
7:30-8:30 Monday morning for net metering subcommittee as well (ack!)
Hearing opens on HB 2035
Melissa Dublin briefs HB 2035. Bill redefines rural electric cooperative and thus effects who is regulated by KCC (MH remembers this from the coal bill SB 148 last year). Large rural electric co-ops can choose to exempt themselves from regulation by KCC.
Proponents
Stuart Lowry, Kansas Electric Cooperatives
This bill amends law on books since 1992. Bill does not deregulate any co-op. Gives members of co-op ability to vote that co-op gets limited deregulation from KCC. If members choose exemption they can set their own rates, and members if unhappy can petition to have rates reviewed by KCC. 3% of ratepayers can ask to have rates reviewed, low threshold, a protection in the bill. Law would also allow G&T co-ops to submit deregulation question to their membership. Right now only retail co-op can ask for deregulation.
Opponents
David Springe, CURB
We do oppose this bill. Removing 15,000 customer threshold for deregulation opens up almost every co-op in state. This threshold was put into law because expense of KCC process hurt small co-ops, but it helps protect customers of larger co-ops who can afford it. We don’t get a lot of calls at our agency, unfortunately most consumers still don’t know we are a resource, but most of the calls we do get are from customers of deregulated munis or co-ops. They have nowhere else to turn, but I can’t help them. These customers need due process protection for their rates. Under the existing law you have never had a rate appeal filed, which leads me to believe either rates for co-ops aren’t that high, or that the law doesn’t work. If you do pass the law, the consumers need to also know that they CAN appeal to petition for review of rates – they need to know consumer appeals process for rate review. But we don’t recommend passing law.
Tom Thompson, Sierra Club
HB 2035 was learning experience for me, the difference between all the co-ops. Sierra Club opposes this bill because it allows co-ops to become exempt from KCC. For customers who don’t like the situation, it’s harder to appeal. KCC acts as a balance for customers’ rights. Sunflower Electric is also in process of trying to build coal plants in Holcomb. This decision will affect their customers’ rates. There are lots of unanswered questions about those costs. This is not the time to exempt their consumers from protection. As carbon dioxide starts to increase and costs to produce, this will also cost their consumers. The KCC will be important protection for these consumers and maintain checks and balances.
Notes from House Utilities, HB 2021, time limit on KCC certificate of public convenience (transmission-related)
January 27, 2009
Summary: (to be filled in later)
- 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 questions on the legislative process, call the Kansas Legislative Hotline – 1-800-432-3924, or check out the legislature’s website.
*****************
Gaveled in. Bill introductions – Rep. Moxley, wind siting guidelines introduced.
Rep. Holmes – how many bills does that make on our list? 37? (laughter)
Hearing opens on HB 2027
Melissa Dublin briefs – water utilities, cities (MH will not cover this one).
Hearing on HB 2021
Before the hearing actually starts, MH is scanning HB 2021 testimony while they are doing the water/ cities bill. HB 2021 is very similar to HB 2017, the other bill related to certificates of public convenience.
Reminder: A company needs a certificate of public convenience (COPC) in order to build transmission in Kansas. However, during the recent transmission controversy in Kansas between ITC and Westar, it came to light that there was no statutory timeline for granting such a certificate. HB 2021 proposes a 120 day deadline.
There are four pieces of written testimony on this bill (that I have in my hands, anyway). Generally:
ITC says a deadline is needed but leaves it to discretion of committee what that time period is, 120, 240, whatever. They also propose an alternative that the Committee consider – “a new concept, a ‘Right to Participate’ (RTP), for any regional wholesale transmission project. This RTP would ensure the development and construction of regional transmission while satisfying transmission owners Right of First Refusal (ROFR). This proposal would protect state prerogatives, as there would be no changes to siting or applications for certificates of need.” The RTP would be designated by the regional transmission operator (RTO) (in our case, the SPP). Etc. They want a timeline of some sort for regulatory certainty on building transmission projects.
