Where religion and environment meet - cool! … but how exactly is this going to work?
November 20, 2008
Such a neat, thoughtful article (editorial, actually) that I thought we’d reprint it in full. It’s very long so I hid part of it behind a cut - just hit the link at the bottom of the entry to read the rest.
The original entry also has lots of links to resources that aren’t going to make the transition to this reprint, so go back and check them out if you are interested.
Reprinted in full from USAToday:
Green, meet God
The secular environmental movement sees an opportunity in the world of religion. Is this a marriage made in heaven?
By Henry G. Brinton
The greening of religion, although long overdue, is really a quite natural phenomenon. The texts of many faiths, indeed most, at some point reference the stewardship of this earth. More surprising is that today, secular environmental groups are seizing the opportunity to reach out to faith communities.
A Sierra Club report highlights faith-based environmental initiatives in all 50 states “spiritually motivated grassroots efforts to protect the planet.” One line leaps off the page: “Lasting social change rarely takes place without the active engagement of communities of faith.” Indeed. Think of the U.S. civil rights movement, Solidarity in Poland and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. Social change does not stick without the glue of religion.
But as these two movements one based on the love of God, the other on the love of the earth intersect, we should celebrate the initiative while remaining aware of the challenges and inevitable spats that await this quite remarkable marriage.
All on board
For centuries, the biblical command to “have dominion” over the earth was seen as a divine endorsement of environmental exploitation. But a radical shift has occurred, and most people of faith now support efforts to be good stewards of natural resources.
The Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey, released earlier this year, revealed widespread support for stricter environmental laws and regulations among Jews (77%), Buddhists (75%), Muslims (69%) and Hindus (67%), as well as members of mainline Protestant churches (64%), Catholic churches (60%) and evangelical ones (54%).
“Creation care” is the growing movement that has become a rallying cry among religious people who are concerned about the earth. In just the past few years, this nation has witnessed an explosion of environmental activity at the grass-roots level.
“We now have 5,000 congregations that are responding to climate change by cutting carbon emissions,” says Gretchen Killion of Interfaith Power and Light, a San Francisco-based group active in 28 states. It helps churches and religious organizations lower their energy consumption. “Many of our members have installed solar panels, and three or four even have geothermal,” Killion says.
The world needs this broad-based, interfaith movement one that offers practical environmental benefits and draws together people of diverse theologies. Catholics are working with Native Americans to preserve land and water; Muslims are making links between urban communities and sustainable farms; and Protestant churches are joining interfaith coalitions and “greening” their congregations by modifying buildings, installing compact fluorescent lamps, using conservation landscaping and purchasing organic, fair-trade coffee.
Though religions are sometimes scorned for dividing people and illuminating differences, the unifying goal of preserving the planet could do just the opposite: bring people of faiths together. Creation care can be “a great bridge-builder between evangelicals and mainline Christians,” says Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals. Although evangelicals have traditionally distrusted environmentalists, who tend to be political liberals, stewardship of the earth is not a left-wing concept. After all, observes Cizik, “Aren’t conservatives supposed to be conservers?”
News Updates: Federal transmission legislation, grid concerns, community energy systems
November 20, 2008
New federal transmission legislation to be proposed (Sen. Dorgan’s Office). I think I originally clipped this from Climateer but never got around to posting it, whoops sorry!. U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (ND) is proposing the transmission part of the Pickens plan, to create a national electric transmission grid and a major expansion of wind and solar energy.
“I will introduce part of the Pickens plan in the U.S. Senate calling for the building of a nationwide electric transmission superhighway. It will allow our country to maximize the potential to produce vast wind energy in the heartland from Texas to North Dakota. And it will allow us to develop solar energy from the southwest to California. We can put that electric energy on the transmission superhighway and move it to where it is needed in our country. By maximizing our production and use of renewable energy here at home, we will reduce our need for imported oil.”
Transmission grid and success of climate policy forever intertwined (NAWindpower). Not necessarily news to us here in Kansas, currently ground zero for cutting edge wind and transmission line discussions, but - NERC just came out with a report on this linkage. Quotable:
“We are concerned that when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system,” says Rick Sergel, president and CEO of NERC. “As we consider our energy future, it becomes increasingly clear that our success in reducing carbon emissions and realizing energy independence will hinge on our ability to provide reliable, clean, electricity where and when it is needed.”
The report says that the existing bulk transmission network is inadequate to reliably deliver power from new renewable resources to demand centers. Innovative planning and operational mechanisms will be needed as states and provinces attempt to deliver clean energy over already heavily loaded transmission lines to meet renewable portfolio standard requirements.
In addition, managing growing demand will be critical to meeting both climate and reliability goals, making demand-side resources a critical component of the resource mix. Dispatchable demand response will be particularly important as it adds needed system flexibility and supports the integration of new variable generation such as wind power.
A neat looking report than I have been meaning to summarize for WEEKS but just haven’t had the time (and probably won’t, so I’m just going to toss it out to the collective mind)- from policy think tank Newrules.org (bigtime community self-reliance organization), a report on community energy systems, like distributed generation and community wind. Quotable:
Harnessing renewable energy can dramatically improve the economic prospects of many rural areas. But new rules are needed to maximize the economic and social benefits from these new industries, policies that go beyond more, to demanding better. Current federal incentives largely enable a highly centralized and absentee owned renewable energy industry concentrated in relatively few states.
The federal government, states, and rural communities should redesign these policies to encourage a highly decentralized and dispersed renewable energy industry that is significantly locally owned. Doing so would multiply the number of rural areas that benefit from burgeoning renewable energy industries, and would create a sustainable asset whose wealth and revenue will largely remain in revived local communities and regions.
This report examines the current impact of renewable energy on rural communities and identifies existing and potential policies that could dramatically expand the economic benefit this new sector can bring to these communities.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Nancy Jackson: Notes from the Governor’s Conference - and the global picture on climate change action
November 19, 2008
Over the last year in Kansas, I have heard one sentiment again and again: Climate change is a global problem – it requires a global response.
Well, reporting from the Governors’ Global Climate Summit, I have great news: the globe is responding!
Checking in to the conference, I was handed a translation headset. Next to me, someone asked, “Do I really need this?” To which the cheerful response came: “Do you speak Mandarin, Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, and Bahasa Indonesia?” We did not – we took the headsets.
Here to discuss goals (they all have them!), programs (ditto), successes and lessons from their efforts are governors from the fastest-developing nations in the world, including Mexico, Brazil, India, Indonesia – all of whom are dramatically less prosperous than the United States and are acting decisively to manage their climate risk.
Also here are Ministers of Environment from Canadian provinces, numerous representatives of the European Union and, crucially, the Director General, Department of Climate Change, National Development Reform Commission from the People’s Republic of China.
Food for thought:
China: 600 million Chinese are expected to move from the countryside to cities by 2030. Two times the entire U.S. population will need new places to live and work in a mere twenty years. So, China is devising and finding ways to enforce energy efficient building standards, to build efficient mass transportation and further lower vehicle carbon intensity (already significantly lower than the U.S.), to dramatically increase the efficiency of their traditional power generation and add massive new renewable capacity. They have begun a massive national ghg inventory so that they can measure their reductions.
Mexico: Mexico’s voluntary registry of greenhouse gases covers fourteen industries and 80% of emissions. Soon greenhouse gases will be added to the mandatory Toxic Release Registry. Mexico has a National Special Plan for Climate Change, and the President has made climate action a priority. Mexico’s representative here said “We can achieve lower carbon intensity very soon, very cost effectively.”
President-elect Obama: in a video made for this conference, said “My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.” He called for a national cap-and-trade system that will “establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.” His closing: “I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”
Kansans, have no fear of acting alone. Put to rest your worries about industry migrating to countries who are not managing their carbon risk – there will soon be virtually nowhere to go.
Here, amid unfamiliar languages and determined leaders, I have witnessed the dawn of a new day. We’ll see it soon in Kansas. This day inspires new thinking, real innovation, and cheerful determination – and it ushers in a new, sustained prosperity.
Henry Ford – a good, practical, visionary Midwesterner – is fabled to have said, “If I had asked the people what they wanted, they would have said they wanted a faster horse.”
Let’s embrace a new vision and, together, let’s get to work!
Pres. Elect Obama speaks on climate change via video at governors’ conference yesterday
November 19, 2008
We can safely say that the following represents quite a shift in the federal position on climate change. Pres. Elect Obama spoke yesterday via video to a governors conference convened by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Analysis of the speech, reprinted in full from the NYTimes:
Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals
By JOHN M. BRODER
President-elect Barack Obama, in strongly-worded remarks to a gathering of governors and foreign officials on Tuesday, said he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet.
Speaking by video to a climate conference in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama repeated his campaign vow to reduce climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies.
“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”
Some industry leaders and members of Congress have suggested that Mr. Obama’s climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy — having the same effects as a tax on coal, oil and natural gas — and should await the end of the current downturn. A bill similar to Mr. Obama’s plan failed to clear the Senate earlier this year, largely because of concerns about its impact on the economy.
Mr. Obama rejected that view, saying that his plan would reduce oil imports, create jobs in energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, and reverse the warming of the atmosphere.
“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process,” Mr. Obama said.
State officials and environmental advocates were cheered that Mr. Obama choose to address climate change as only the second major policy area he has discussed as president-elect. In a press conference and television interview last week he said that his first priority as president will be to revitalize the economy.
The bipartisan summit meeting was convened by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, who has been a leader in state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, even when it meant confronting the Bush administration over its more hesitant approach. Attendees included the governors of Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin and Kansas, who have also been in the forefront of actions at the state level to act in the absence of a national climate change plan. Officials from 22 other states, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, India and Indonesia, as well as United Nations aides and environmentalists, also are taking part in the two-day meeting.
Mr. Schwarzenegger announced the meeting in September in part to signal to Washington and the two presidential candidates that the states were serious about moving forward with climate legislation with or without Washington’s blessing.
California enacted a sweeping climate bill in 2007 that would have, among other things, imposed strict mileage and emissions standards on all cars and trucks sold in the state. More than a dozen other states adopted the standards, but they were struck down by the Bush administration last December on the ground that the states did not have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
“When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in opening the conference, “so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could.”
Mr. Obama said that although he would not attend a U.N.-sponsored meeting on climate change next month, he has asked members of Congress who are going to report back to him on what the United States can do to reassert leadership on global climate policy.
He also told the state officials: “When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”
Governor Jim Doyle, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles that he had been frustrated by what he said was the Bush administration’s timid approach to climate issues. And he said that despite the current economic crisis, it was important to begin long-term efforts to address global warming.
“I think we all wish the economy was a lot better, but I feel very strongly that we can’t back away from progress we’ve made on really important things like climate change,” Mr. Doyle said. “I’m looking forward to having a federal government and a president who will provide real leadership and bring the United States into the world on this issue.”
More on the (third?) Sunflower suit
November 19, 2008
I say third suit because I think -I think - there is also at least one ongoing suit in state court, as well as one in the state administrative appeals system (which could end up in state court). But I have truly lost track so don’t take it from me.
The following was filed in federal district court in KCK on Monday (again - I think). Sunflower’s legal claim is that the denial of the air permit violated their civil rights. Reprinted in full from the LJWorld:
Sunflower Electric sues state leaders
Company claims Sebelius and others just wanted to advance their careers
Topeka — Claiming its civil rights have been violated, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. wants a federal court to overturn decisions by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and clear the way for construction of two coal-powered electric plants in southwest Kansas.
In a lawsuit filed in Kansas City, Kan., Hays-based Sunflower Electric accused Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson and Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby of trying to advance their political aspirations by rejecting Sunflower’s permits for the coal-burning plants near its existing facility in Holcomb.
The officials want to “further their individual political fortunes by catering to the environmental lobby that opposes the Holcomb Expansion Project and to increase their chances of being elected or appointed to some state or national office, all at the expense of Sunflower’s constitutional rights and the rule of law in Kansas,” Sunflower’s lawsuit claims.
Sunflower is seeking a court order that would prohibit the Sebelius administration from blocking the $3.6 billion project. No hearing date has been set before U.S. District Court Judge Eric Melgren.
The company claims Sebelius’ rejection of the plants based on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming was “nothing more than a pretext” and violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection.
“Indeed, since defendants denied Sunflower a permit, they have granted hundreds of permits to other CO2 emitters and continue to allow pre-existing similarly situated CO2 emitters to operate freely,” the lawsuit states.
Sebelius said she hadn’t seen the lawsuit, and declined to comment on it. She was headed to Beverly Hills, Calif., to co-chair a meeting of worldwide officials on global warming. The meeting was set up by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Sebelius has opposed the plants, citing the project’s annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, and the fact that the project would mostly serve out-of-state customers.
Sunflower has already been fighting to gain the permits through an administrative appeals process, the state court system and the Legislature.
During the last legislative session, lawmakers approved bills requiring construction of the plants, but Sebelius vetoed the measures and supporters of the plants came up just short of gaining the necessary two-thirds majorities to overturn the governor.
In the lawsuit, Sunflower warned that if it doesn’t obtain the permits to construct the plants soon “the cost of construction may well increase to the point that the project cannot be financed at all.”
If there were no project, Sunflower argued, its customers would suffer.
“In denying the air permit, the administration has discriminated against 400,000 Kansans and over 1.5 million citizens from other states who will be forced to pay the price of this decision for decades to come through higher electric rates,” Earl Watkins, Sunflower’s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. “We believe we have an obligation to act on behalf of the people we serve and to correct this wrong.”
Bruce Niles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, defended Sebelius’ actions.
“It is clear that with this lawsuit, the coal industry hopes to take away states’ rights to take action on global warming,” Niles said. “The writing is on the wall. Clean energy is where the future of America is, and that clean energy can be the engine of our economic and climate recovery. States should be free to pursue that clean energy future, and not be bullied for doing so.”
In a sworn statement, Watkins said the company has already spent $1.4 million in fees to lawyers and consultants to prepare for the permits and $1.1 million in legal fees and expenses to appeal the denial of the permits.
Sunflower said it filed the lawsuit in Kansas City, Kan., because that was more convenient for its law firm, which is based in Kansas City, Mo.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Sunflower files in district court against Gov. Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Parkinson, and KDHE Secretary Ronald Bremby
November 18, 2008
I don’t wake up very fast. Normally. Some emails, though, do have that power.
So. There aren’t any news reports out on this suit yet, although I imagine that will soon change. But we do have a copy of the complaint, if you would like to download it here. (25 pages, .pdf)
Someone asked me the total of cases this makes re the Kansas coal controversy, and I have to confess that I have lost track. And then you start counting plaintiffs and intervenors and administrative appeals and state court and now federal district court….
I know, I know. The total number is still less than ten fingers, so it shouldn’t be this hard. But someone else is going to have to tell me.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Bonaza decision: Impact on Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal plants?
November 17, 2008
Reprinted in full from Harris News:
Ruling’s effect on Sunflower plans unclear
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — Some opponents of a plan to build two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas said Friday that a new federal ruling could create a further hurdle for the stalled project.
Critics of the utility’s $3.6 billion expansion plans hailed a decision from an Environmental Protection Agency appeals board that blocked — for now — a federal permit for the Bonanza coal plant in Utah.
In making its ruling on Thursday, the appeals panel said the EPA’s Denver office must explain why it declined to limit carbon dioxide emissions in issuing a permit for the plant, which is on an Indian reservation.
State and national environmentalists said the move seems to signal that CO2 emissions of all new coal plant projects now will be considered when federal or state officials decide whether they should receive permits.
Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for Kansas Sierra Club, said the decision would put Sunflower’s plans for new coal plants on shakier footing.
“It’s our belief that this is just one more reason why Sunflower and its partners should not be moving forward with a multi-billion dollar project with increasing financial and regulatory uncertainty,” Cole said.
However, a spokeswoman for Sunflower Electric Power Corp. couldn’t say Friday whether the ruling would have have any effect on the utility’s Holcomb expansion project.
“We constantly evaluate the political and economic conditions that may affect our project,” Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel said. “Our environmental personnel have not had the opportunity to review the decision regarding the Utah coal plant as to whether or not it will impact us.”
Hertel said the Hays-based, nonprofit utility, made up of six rural electric cooperatives it provides power to, would continue to pursue the project as long as it remained in the best interest of Kansas rate payers.
A spokesman for Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado, the largest partner in the expansion project, could not be reached for comment. Tri-State plans to purchase power from one of the $3.6 billion project’s two generators and is paying development fees to Sunflower.
Permits on hold
Sunflower’s construction plans have been on hold since last year, when Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby blocked air-quality permits for the project over concerns about the plants’ CO2 emissions.
Bremby said he couldn’t ignore mounting evidence that the plants would emit 11 million tons of CO2 each year that would contribute to global warming.
But Sunflower and its supporters argue that they followed all existing laws in pursuing the permits and that Bremby overstepped his bounds in blocking them. They point out that there are no existing state or federal limits on the greenhouse gas.
The utility and its partners are pursuing a legal challenge to overturn Bremby’s decision, which could wind up before the Kansas Supreme Court early next year.
Legislative supporters could also make another run at clearing the way for the plants when they reconvene in January, after being thwarted by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes this past spring.
A spokesman for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment declined to comment on the EPA appeals board ruling. KDHE spokesman Mike Heideman said the agency couldn’t comment because of Sunflower’s pending legal challenge of the agency’s permitting decision.
But Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s national coal campaign, said he believes that Thursday’s EPA decision decreases the odds that Sunflower’s project will ever receive permits.
Not a blow?
State officials must follow the EPA’s rules in awarding permits, Nilles said. Under the new ruling, he said he doesn’t believe Sunflower could win permit approval until state officials have given the project’s potential CO2 emissions additional consideration.
He said he also believes that the board’s move paves the way for President-elect Barack Obama to immediately limit CO2 emissions through Clean Air Act — without any additional action from Congress.
“It has an immediate and nationwide impact and really lays the groundwork for even more action on global warming on day one of the Obama Administration,” Nilles said.
But an industry group that backs expanded use of coal power counters that environmentalists may be reading way too much into one decision.
Joe Lucas, a spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the ruling only shows how difficult it is to site new electric generators these days. He said that’s because of continued uncertainty about how greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated.
He said that coal plants elsewhere are still receiving permits, including one in Arkansas earlier this month.
“I know there will be people who will try to spin this as a blow against coal that it is not,” Lucas said.
Nancy Jackson, executive director of The Land Institute’s Climate and Energy Project, said the supporters of new coal-fired generation may view the Utah decision as largely irrelevant.
She said, from their point of view, the EPA has again taken a pass on limiting CO2. But opponents see a victory in the decision, one that “presses pause” on all new coal plants, she said.
“We all know carbon dioxide will soon be regulated,” Jackson said. “The Bonanza decision is a significant and decisive step in that direction.”
Working out the wiggle room - Texas starts grid-proofing for high penetrations of wind power
November 17, 2008
From the New York Times -
The major problem with wind as a power source is that it doesn’t blow all the time. To remedy that, Texas is spending $30 million a year to bolster its back-up power, in a change to the electricity grid that began on Nov. 1.
Depending on the weather conditions and time of day, wind can provide a significant proportion of Texas power – as much as 16 percent at one point in the past week, according to Dan Jones, an independent market monitor for the Texas grid. Wind farms are sprouting so quickly in the western part of the state that Texas’s grid managers decided that they needed extra back-up power to cover shortfalls when the wind stops blowing.
Adding to the sense of urgency, Texas nearly experienced wind-related blackouts in February.
Back-up power sources are always in place to handle minute-to-minute fluctuations in power supply and demand. Some power plants — usually gas plants — stand ready to deliver power at a moment’s notice as needs arise. These plants are responding not just to variations in wind, but to any unexpected uptick or downtick in demand or supply — say, when thousands of people suddenly turn on their air-conditioning at 2 p.m.
Beyond mitigating these minute-to-minute fluctuations, power systems generally maintain a number of back-up plants that are a bit slower to kick in — it takes about 30 minutes or so — but which really form the primary line of defense against blackouts.
In Texas, these back-up plants — typically natural gas plants — are often needed three to five days a month, according to Mr. Jones. It’s at this level of defense where Texas grid managers recently decided that they needed added capacity to account for wind’s variability and its significant place in the state’s power portfolio.
The requirements now call for some of these plants to be available at night, when demand is usually at its lowest. Why? Because nighttime is when the west Texas winds blow the strongest, and thus the risk is greater if the wind dies down. The new rules also require more of this reserve to be available during the daytime.
(Other, rarely used lines of defense against a statewide blackout include switching off the power to certain large users, in accordance with prior agreements, or — in an emergency — shutting off power to certain neighborhoods.)
Adding extra back-up power is only one of several ways that Texas is handling the influx of wind power into its grid. Grid managers are improving their methods for forecasting the wind day to day, said Mr. Jones. They are also trying to figure out ways to ease the strain caused by the rapid, significant changes in the wind, which unlike other supply sources, can very suddenly ramp up or die down.
More transmission lines are also sorely needed. In Texas (as well as in other states), turbines are sometimes forced to shut down on windy days, because there are not enough lines to carry the power they produce to the cities that need it.
Although Texas is far ahead in wind power, with 30 percent of the nation’s installed capacity, grid operators elsewhere in the country will be watching the changes there and improving their own abilities to integrate wind. The New York grid operator, for example, is also introducing better wind-forecasting techniques.
The original story also contains a monthly cost breakdown.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Want a little light reading? Try the Bonanza decision.
November 17, 2008
Download it here. (Light reading was a joke, BTW. Although it’s only 66 pages - which considering what it is, ain’t much.)
Future of energy efficiency policy under Obama administration? What the ACEEE thinks
November 17, 2008
Clipped in from the newsletter of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE):
November 13, 2008
WHAT TO EXPECT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THE NEW ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NEW CONGRESS
The election is over. President-elect Obama’s transition team has already started its work, and in Congress, new leadership will be elected. What can we expect from the new Administration and a new Congress on energy efficiency policy? Probably quite a bit, since Obama emphasized energy (principally energy efficiency and renewable energy) as one of his key issues (along with the economy, health care, and education). There will also be a lot of interest in energy efficiency from Congress, given expanded Democratic majorities in general and some of the newly-elected Senators in particular (e.g., Tom and Mark Udall, both of whom were very active efficiency supporters when they were in the House). While many Republicans support energy efficiency, probably a higher proportion of Democrats think government should do more to support efficiency. On the other hand, all major legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate, which means that moderate Republicans, such as new Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking-Member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and moderate Democrats have to be on board.
In terms of new legislation, ACEEE expects energy efficiency to come up in three major places—an economic stimulus bill, energy legislation, and climate change legislation.
Given the state of our economy, an economic stimulus bill is the next order of business. Congress may well pass such a bill in November or December, even before the new President and Congress are sworn in, but if not then, probably in the first month of the new Congress. There could also be two bills, one in the waning days of 2008, and one in early 2009. Such bill(s) will include many provisions, such as extension of jobless benefits and perhaps some tax rebate checks. But there’s a reasonable chance that energy efficiency investments will be included, such as extra funds for the low-income weatherization program, funds to upgrade schools and municipal buildings, a green jobs program, and perhaps some type of residential retrofit program, to create jobs and reduce the burden of energy costs on families.
Next up is likely to be an energy bill. The last Congress came close to passing a renewable portfolio standard, and there’s a very good chance one will be enacted in the next year. President-elect Obama’s energy platform calls for an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS), ramping up to 15% savings by 2020, and such a provision will likely be considered. Other potential items for an energy bill include extensions of various energy efficiency and renewable energy tax credits (Congress extended many of these until only the end of 2009), a provision addressing off-shore oil drilling, additional work on clean coal (e.g., House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chair Rick Boucher, D-Virginia, has a major bill in this area), and investments in a green economy (Obama has called for an investment of $15 billion annually for ten years).
Finally, there is climate change legislation. There are many complex issues involved and we would not expect legislation to pass until 2010 or 2011, but a lot of work on such bills will take place in 2009, with bills quite possibly moving out of committee and perhaps even getting debated on the House or Senate floor. Such a bill is likely to be a cap and trade bill, calling for an 80% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 (a target that Obama and many Congressional leaders have endorsed). Efficiency is likely to play a significant role since bills advanced by committee leadership in both the House and Senate have significant energy efficiency provisions designed to both reduce emissions and to keep the costs of addressing climate change in check.
Looking to the even longer term, Obama has called for building the green economy as a centerpiece of our economic strategy with investments in basic research, technology demonstration, commercial market deployment, and job training. Targeted areas include advanced vehicles and biofuels, and a smart electric grid. He has also called for:
* weatherizing one million low-income homes a year
* accelerating development of appliance and equipment efficiency standards
* increasing the energy savings in building codes (including grants to states that are early adopters)
* improving the efficiency of federal facilities
* assisting states and municipalities to build green buildings
* increasing vehicle fuel economy standards.
In addition, he wants to expand support for smart growth initiatives and public transit, and support for states that adopt policies to decouple utility profits from utility sales. He also wants to play a leadership role in helping to shape a new global climate change framework. How much of this will see the light of day remains to be seen, particularly given the current state of the economy and burgeoning federal budget deficits. But some of these can be done administratively and/or without spending a lot of money. With energy fairly high on the agenda in the 2008 campaign, significant Congressional action is likely, although exactly what will be in specific bills will only gradually become clear over time.
ACEEE plans to be heavily involved in each of these efforts.
FYI. Kansas ranks 38 out of 50 states on ACEEE’s 2008 Energy Efficiency State Scorecard. Oops.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Significant new Utah coal ruling on coal plant air permit
November 14, 2008
Stories about this are popping up all over the web, but I’ll clip in from just a few. People are still figuring out the full implications of the EPA appeals decision, so there will probably be more articles to follow.
From Grist:
In a major win for environmentalists, the U.S. EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board handed down a landmark decision on Thursday that essentially puts a freeze on the construction of as many as 100 new coal-fired power plants around the U.S.
It will now be up to the Obama administration to develop rules on carbon dioxide emissions from such plants.
In July 2007, the EPA issued a permit for a proposed Bonanza coal-fired power plant in Utah. Lawyers for the Sierra Club, Western Resource Advocates, and Environmental Defense filed a request that the permit be overturned because it did not require any controls on carbon dioxide pollution. The enviros pointed to the Supreme Court’s April 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which found that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
In its Thursday decision, the appeals board ruled that the Bush administration had failed to offer a good reason for not regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from the proposed Bonanza plant. The board kicked the permit request back to the regional EPA office in Denver, saying it should reconsider whether the best available pollution controls for CO2 should be required, and stressing that it must adequately explain its decision. “[T]his is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding,” the board wrote.
“Essentially what this decision does is it gives the Obama administration a clean slate to decide what our nation’s energy future should be,” said Joanne Spalding, the senior attorney at the Sierra Club who argued the case before the board. “It puts it back in the lap of an Obama EPA to determine how to treat greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and it gives the opportunity to establish policies that will essentially favor clean energy and impose restrictions on fossil fuels that emit lots of greenhouse gases.”
While greens are cheering the decision, at least one industry representative is calling it a win for his team. Rich Alonso, who represents utilities and power-plant developers for the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani and previously served as a senior air attorney with EPA’s enforcement office, points out that the board’s decision doesn’t explicitly require the EPA to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act; it simply remands the decision to the regional office.
“The EAB refused to side with the environmental groups and it found that the existing Clean Air Act does not require CO2 to be regulated,” Alonso said. “A ruling in support of regulation would have turned American industry on its head by forcing inappropriate and inflexible CO2 regulation across the country, instead of allowing Congress to develop a national program to address CO2.”
But Jason Hutt, another attorney representing utilities, sees a definite downside in the decision. “All permits in the pipeline are now stymied,” he told the Associated Press.
No matter what industry is saying, enviros see the ruling as a notable victory, even if only a partial one.
“It’s basically saying let’s stop and think before we build this whole fleet of new coal plants that will be putting massive greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere,” said Spalding.
From the AP, via LJWorld:
Washington, D.C. — The Environmental Protection Agency was blocked Thursday from issuing a permit for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Utah without addressing global warming. The ruling by an agency appeals panel means the Obama administration probably will determine the fate of other similar plants.
The panel said the EPA’s Denver office failed to adequately support its decision to issue a permit for the Bonanza plant without requiring controls on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas.
The matter was sent back to that office, which must better explain why it failed to order limits on carbon dioxide.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shrader said the agency was reviewing the ruling by the appeals panel. He declined to say how many other coal plant permits might be affected.
Environmentalists and lawyers representing industry groups said the ruling stops the permitting of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants.
“In essence, this is a punt to the Obama administration,” said Jason Hutt, a lawyer who represents a number of utilities, merchant energy developers and refineries seeking permits. He said it also would affect permits for oil refinery expansion.
The Sierra Club had appealed the Bonanza permit. David Bookbinder, a lawyer for the group, said the ruling will stop the permitting of any coal burning power plants “while EPA mulls over what to do next.”
The gas is a product of burning fossil fuels and a leading culprit in global warming.
Bookbinder had led the club’s efforts to block the attempt by six electric cooperatives to build a second coal-burning generating unit at the Bonanza facility on the Uintah and Ouray Indian reservation in Utah, knowing a decision on carbon dioxide could have broad implications.
The co-op group, Deseret Power, had no comment about the EPA developments.
One interpretation of the decision (and I phrase it like that because coming from a family of lawyers, I can tell you that there is often no end in arguing these things, no offense to my loved ones) is that at this juncture in the U.S. regulation of CO2 as a pollutant, state regulators can indeed viably claim the authority to regulate CO2.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
More about the climate study
November 12, 2008
By Nancy Jackson
Last year, as a few of you may have heard, CEP conducted a poll. Kansans, we learned, didn’t entirely know what to make of climate change. In fact, our most frequently asked question (after “Why don’t we have net metering?”) is probably “But how will climate change affect Kansas?”
Those of us in the center of the country can hardly be blamed for a relative lack of concern. After all, what do melting ice sheets and panicked polar bears have to do with us?
We asked around and found that no one really knew. Kansas, as many of us well know, covers a major precipitation gradient: the west is very dry while the east is quite wet. Temperatures will surely rise but changes in precipitation are much tougher to predict.
Because the climate models are based on data from large grids, several of which cover small parts of Kansas (and probably because “only” about three million of us live here), no one had ever crunched Kansas-specific climate data before.
So we turned to the IPCC contributor in our back yard. Johannes Feddema, a climatologist at the University of Kansas, was eager to analyze the models. He worked with KU’s Nate Brunsell, an expert on interactions between land use and climate effects, and host of talented graduate students.
The KU team compared the climate models used by the IPCC to actual historical data. Several models correlated closely with what has actually happened in Kansas. Those were selected for further analysis.
Here is a brief sample of what the scientists found:
· Storms will be more intense and less seasonal, with long dry periods in between. That is, too much rain will increasingly come at the wrong time – bad news for crops and for people like me who live on a river.
· Kansas will suffer a “net negative water balance.” What does that mean? Even with more rain (and we could get less), hotter temperatures will mean more and faster evaporation and longer growing seasons will mean plants give up more water. The effect will be that 4-8 inches of extra water will be required to grow crops in Western Kansas, putting added stress on a declining Ogallala Aquifer.
· By 2100, Western Kansas, on average, will have no freezing days. That sounds great, until you consider that mosquitoes (and ticks, and chiggers, and poison ivy) won’t go away. And that heat waves will increase – the number of days we will run our air conditioners will go up by 50% and high nighttime temps will stress crops, livestock, and people alike.
Not fabulous news, taken together. But there is a bright silver lining. As the KU team was careful to point out, this scenario is not a prediction. It is a projection based on our behavior today. We could change our behavior and get a different result.
Will we? Will you?
We know what we can do individually:
· Today is the day we replace a few old-fashioned light bulbs with a couple more CFLs.
· Tomorrow, we call KCPL for that programmable thermostat that will keep us comfy and save us money by remembering to turn down the heat and the air-conditioning when we don’t need them. (Better yet, Midwest customers call to get an energy audit and finance the improvements on their bill!)
· The next day, we decide we don’t really need two refrigerators and a freezer in the garage – we can make it with just one Energy Star combo.
· Of course, yesterday we eliminated our “phantom load” by plugging everything with an always-on light (VCR, cell phone charger, flat screen TV) into a power strip that we turn off at night — right??
These little actions add up to huge energy savings. Our small decisions can quite literally change the world. Together, we can do even more!
Today, the Kansas Energy Council meets to discuss its goals for next year. Today, the Kansas Corporation Commission meets to discuss how it will treat Westar and Kansas Gas Service’s requests for accounting treatment of energy efficiency investments – and to provide an update on its consideration of generic energy efficiency Docket 441. In a few short months, our legislature convenes to make huge choices about our state budget, our kids education, our healthcare, our transportation system, and yes, our energy future.
These folks work for you. Let them know if you would like help to use less energy, if you would like to use more renewable energy. Let them know that together, we intend to defy the projections and bequeath a stronger, more secure Kansas to our children.
Kansas has led before. Our ancestors fought for the abolition of slavery – against predictions of a crippled world economy. They granted women the right to vote – against predictions of electoral havoc and irrelevance. Native son Dwight Eisenhower created the interstate highway system – which started right here in Kansas – to usher in a new era of prosperity.
Today, it is our turn. Dr. Feddema asked yesterday who should be the first to say “We don’t want to go down this path, we want to choose another.”
I choose another! I choose it as a mom, I choose it for my daughters. If you’re reading this, I bet you choose it, too. Let’s get to work, individually and together, to defy the projections and ensure prosperity in the Sunflower State for decades to come.
Download the summary - Climate Change Hits Home: The Risks to Kansas.
Obama’s victory, and the possible impact on the coal plants
November 11, 2008
Reprinted in full from Harris News.
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — A new report funded by an environmental group argued Monday that President-elect Barack Obama’s victory last week signals another strike against the construction of two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas.
Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, a Wall Street financial research firm, concluded that a troubled economy and the increased likelihood of limits on carbon dioxide emissions during an Obama administration could make the plants an unnecessary financial risk.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, a group working to curb global warming, commissioned the study, which assumes Obama will follow through on plans to cap CO2, a greenhouse gas faulted for causing global warming.
But the project’s largest stakeholder, Colorado’s Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, called the write-up’s conclusions flawed and defended its pursuit of additional coal generation.
Tri-State spokesman Lee Boughey said in an e-mail that his company, owned by the 44 rural electric cooperatives it serves, has evaluated a wide range of carbon regulation scenarios.
“These evaluations show us that coal can remain a viable option, even with a cost on carbon,” Boughey said.
He also said that Tri-State was in the best positioned to determine how to serve its ratepayers.
“Our critics don’t have the responsibility and accountability to operate a reliable and affordable electric system,” Boughey said, “and often their analysis doesn’t take into account the many issues and complexities that drive resource choices.”
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays is partnering with Tri-State and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative of Texas to expand Sunflower’s existing plant near Holcomb.
Tri-State, which is paying development fees to Sunflower for the more than $3.6 billion project, is slated to purchase power from one of the 700-megawatt plants. Sunflower and Golden Spread will split the energy output from a twin generator.
Following last year’s denial of air-quality permits for the plants by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Sunflower and Tri-State are trying to clear the way for the generators through a legal challenge.
The issue is also expected to re-emerge in the Legislature’s next session, which begins in January. Coal-plant supporters failed to muster the votes to override Sebelius’ vetoes of bills paving the way for the plants in the spring.
Eric Kane, a senior analyst at Innovest and the report’s author, said that in continuing to pursue the project, Tri-State was ignoring financial and regulatory trends in expanding coal-power as a portion of its total production from 75 percent to 80 percent.
The reports concludes that realistic charges for carbon emissions under Obama could saddle the utility’s ratepayers with added costs of $217 million annually.
“All the economic indicators are telling us that diversifying our energy portfolios with alternatives to coal is the best way to hedge against these future risks,” Kane said. Theo Spencer, senior advocate for the NRDC’s Climate Center, also argued that coal plants face rising construction and fuel costs, as well as more scrutiny from the lenders financing such projects.
Speakers during a conference call detailing the report cited the “conservative” nature of rural electric cooperatives as reason why they’re reluctant to move away from coal, long a crucial source of power in rural America.
But Boughey countered that Tri-State is already embracing the trends the report touts by constantly reviewing all risks, reporting its greenhouse gas emissions, investing in carbon capture and sequestration technology, soliciting renewable energy generation, spurring the development of renewable energy among its members and enhancing energy efficiency programs.
Available for download:
- CEP, Climate Change Hits Home - The Risks for Kansas (research summary)
- Feddema et al, What Climate Change Means for Kansas
- For individual .gif downloads of climate graphs, see below.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the next century, climate change poses significant risks for Kansas – and eastern and western Kansas will be affected in very different ways. This overview summarizes recent research conducted by University of Kansas scientists Drs. Nathaniel Brunsell and Johannes Feddema, and assistants Trish Jackson, Aubrey Jones, and Kelly Logan. Dr. Feddema is also an IPCC scientist.
The results - if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase as projected by the middle of the road IPCC AIB scenario, then by 2100:
HEAT. Temperatures in Kansas will rise in all seasons, in all parts of the state, by an average of 2-4°F. Southwest Kansas could see a rise as steep as 8°F.
- Higher summer temperatures will create more heat waves. The number of cooling degree days (the days that people run their air conditioning) will increase by about 50%. Higher summer nighttime temperatures will also stress livestock and crops.
- Freezing days will decrease during the winter. By 2060, winter temperatures will mostly stay above freezing. The number of heating degree days (the days that people run their heaters) will decrease by about 25%. The lack of hard freezes means that insects will thrive and diseases will increase among plants, animals, and humans.
STORM INTENSITY. The weather will become more variable.
- Yearly precipitation totals will stay about the same, but precipitation patterns will shift, becoming less predictable and less frequent, broken up by longer periods of dry weather.
- There will be fewer snow events. Individual rainstorms will become more intense when they occur, likely leading to more flooding.
WATER. Temperatures will rise and evaporation rates will increase, but yearly precipitation will not increase to meet the need for additional water.
- Western Kansas will become warmer and drier. Soil moisture will decrease, putting more pressure on irrigation. During the summer, water need (the measure of how much water plants must have to grow) will increase as much as eight inches.
- Eastern Kansas will become warmer and wetter. However, the higher temperatures will offset any increases in precipitation, due to the increase in evaporation rates. The result could actually be an overall drying effect. Less water will be available for rivers and reservoirs in winter, and plant stress will increase in summer.
- Drought patterns are already intensifying across the state. The greatest decrease in winter moisture is taking place in western Kansas. The greatest increase in spring moisture is occurring in eastern Kansas.
What climate change means for Kansas by 2100
- Increased temperatures
- Fewer frost days
- More heat waves
- Lower heating costs, higher air-conditioning costs
- More intense storm cycles – precipitation intensity increases, while frequency decreases
- Higher probability of flooding
- Less predictable precipitation cycles
- Higher evapotranspiration rates
- Decreases in soil moisture and annual moisture surplus
- The state will need more water, but less total moisture will be available
DOWNLOAD ALL THE GRAPHS
By downloading these graphs, you consent not to edit, alter, or change any of captions, titles, or other information.
- Figure One. GCM grid and GHCN sites for Kansas.
- Figure Two. Annual Average Temperature Projections for Kansas through 2100.
- Figure Three. Heating degree day and cooling degree day projections for Kansas through 2100.
- Figure Four. Growing degree day and potential evapotranspiration projections for Kansas through 2100.
- Figure Five. Precipitation Projections for Kansas through 2100.
- Figure Six. Annual moisture deficit, annual moisture surplus, and soil moisture trend projections for Kansas through 2100.
- Figure Seven. Increasing temperatures and variability in precipitation for Western, Central, and Eastern Kansas.
- Figure Eight. Kansas (Kaw) River Basin.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Research firm releases report on economic risks that Tri-State’s proposed coal plants pose to rural ratepayers
November 10, 2008
Reprinted in full from Innovest press release.
PRESS RELEASE
Report: Tri-State’s Coal Plans Come With Significant Financial Risks
Last update: 1:56 p.m. EST Nov. 10, 2008
DENVER, Nov 10, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — New administration greatly increases likelihood of carbon constraints; Alternatives would help insulate electric co-op provider from risks.
With continued plans to build a new coal-fired power plant in either Kansas or Colorado, Tri-State Generation and Transmission will likely burden its ratepayers in four Western states with significant financial risks, including higher rates, according to a new financial analysis released today by a Wall Street financial research firm.
The report, “Tri-State: Coal Expansion Poses Risks to Electricity Consumers,” analyzed the company’s plans to add new coal-based generation to its current portfolio, which already consists of 75 percent coal. Innovest Strategic Value Advisors determined that the increased likelihood of carbon restrictions under a new administration, combined with a troubled economy, will leave ratepayers within its network of 44 electric cooperatives shouldering unnecessary financial risks.
The Obama administration has promised to adopt new regulatory frameworks for carbon dioxide, and the report said that assuming realistic increases in carbon prices, the estimated 4.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from Tri-State’s proposed 700-megawatt plant could lead to added costs of up to $217 million annually.
“Current and future regulatory scenarios indicate that Tri-State’s decision to pursue new conventional coal-fired generating capacity, such as the proposed 700 MW at the Holcomb Station could significantly hamper its ability to fulfill its mission of providing cost-based electricity to its member owners,” the report said.
“This doesn’t bode well for the four-state region, particularly in those rural parts of the states that are being hit the hardest from the current economic crisis,” said Eric Kane, a senior analyst at Innovest and the report’s author. “All the economic indicators are telling us that diversifying our energy portfolios with alternatives to coal is the best way to hedge against these future risks.”
The analysis concludes that because Tri-State is a consumer-owned cooperative, “its ratepayers would bear the burden of these potential future carbon costs,” a scenario that some individual co-ops think could be avoided by being allowed to develop more local clean energy projects.
“Even in today’s slow economy, it’s full speed ahead for many Western renewable energy projects,” said Dan McClendon, general manager of the Delta-Montrose Electric Association. “In light of the current economic conditions and the near certainty that some form of carbon constraints is just around the corner, we would much rather see a resource plan that gives us far more flexibility to tap into and benefit from resources in our own backyard.”
FERC investigating Westar for transmission line use in 2006-2007
November 10, 2008
Reprinted in full from Salina Journal:
Westar’s power line use probed
By DUANE SCHRAG
Federal regulators are looking into whether Westar Energy manipulated use of transmission lines, a practice that would drive up the cost of electricity to consumers.
“There was a question that came up, whether we have been over-reserving the level of capacity and preventing others’ use of the lines,” said Bruce Burns, director of investor relations at Westar Energy.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission investigation was noted in Westar’s quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was posted Friday.
“We are responding to a preliminary, nonpublic investigation by FERC of our use of transmission service … in 2006 and 2007,” Westar told investors, adding that it believes the company complied with all regulations.
Utilities schedule capacity on the lines, based on their estimates of how much power their customers will use.
At issue is whether Westar deliberately scheduled more capacity than it needed, Burns said.
He wasn’t certain when the regulatory commission began its investigation, but believes it has been ongoing for the better part of 2008.
Federal law requires that all utilities be allowed open access to transmission lines, regardless of who actually owns them. Line owners receive royalties for use of their lines.
Coal plants, round two? Sebelius: Ummm… Not so much.
November 6, 2008
Reprinted in full from the Lawrence Journal-World.
Sebelius says coal plants not on her agenda
By Scott Rothschild
Topeka — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius says she doesn’t see much future in the proposal to build two 700-megawatt coal-burning power plants in southwest Kansas, and doesn’t want it tying up the 2009 legislative session.
“I’m hopeful that given the challenges that we are going to face, that every issue that we need to deal with is not hijacked by a proposal that, frankly, may have some serious financial implications moving forward,” Sebelius said.
Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. has proposed building the two units near its existing facility in Holcomb.
Last year, the Sebelius administration rejected the plants, citing health and environmental concerns from the project’s annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, believed by many scientists as causing global climate change.
During the 2008 legislative session, supporters of the project pushed to overturn the decision by adopting bills that required construction of the plants. But Sebelius vetoed the attempts, and lawmakers couldn’t muster the two-thirds majorities to overturn those vetoes.
The Legislature will start its 2009 session in January, and supporters of the plants say they again will try to get the plants approved.
The $3.6 billion project would help the economy by providing needed jobs, said Cindy Hertel, a spokeswoman for Sunflower Electric. And Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, and House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, have already said they want to try again to get the plants built.
But Sebelius said the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president and the nation’s worsening economy make construction of coal-fired plants doubtful. Obama supports a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which many say will increase costs of coal-produced energy.
But Hertel said the Sunflower project’s funding was solid, and she said public opinion was moving toward acceptance of more coal-burning plants.
“The tide is changing. People see we need to make use of all our resources,” she said.
School is a great place to learn about natural resources and energy supply - and Kansas is lucky enough to be one of the six states involved in NREL’s pilot Wind for Schools project. Dan Nagengast of the Kansas Rural Center is facilitating the project through Ruth Douglas Miller and the Wind Application Center at K-State.
Most of the WfS turbines are Skystreams, which produce just under 2 kilowatts. They will back off 40-90% of the energy used in a typical home, but they aren’t sized to majorly offset the energy usage of a school.
However, the Skystreams have enormous educational value. They come with little radios that can transmit information to science classes. As the press release from the Concordia WfS project notes:
USD 333 Classrooms can immediately read, collect, and monitor data from the Skystream Wind Turbine. A two-way remote unit has been placed in Dustin Bender’s classroom and Concordia Jr. /Sr. High School. (Last September, Dustin was selected to attend the National Wind for Schools Conference in Golden, Colorado.) The remote box allows easy data access and also can control power of the turbine. Our goal in the near future is to make this information accessible through our USD 333 website.
Another neat aspect of WfS is how local communities and businesses pull together to get the turbines installed. Electric co-ops, contractors, volunteers - someone pours the pad, installs the pole, runs the line, etc. Another good exercise is figuring out siting -set-backs from buildings, electrical poles, and all those things you really don’t want a turbine to fall on. Highly unlikely, but it could happen.
For more a summary of the Kansas Wind for Schools accomplishments so far, you can read the following report from Ruth Douglas Miller at the K-State Wind Application Center.
************************
Here’s a summary of goings-on at the Kansas WAC and with Kansas Wind for Schools in 2008. This is a bit of a brain-dump; use what you need, and let me know if you need any more details. A few things haven’t happened yet but will in the next month or so. Dan’s been up to other things that aren’t included here.
We had 6 wind turbines installed:
2007-08 schools:
Fairfield HS (Langdon): mid-May
Sterling HS (Sterling): early June
Walton Elementary (Walton, Newton school district): mid-June
Concordia HS (Concordia): September
KSU campus: September
2008-09 schools:
Greenbush, Southeast KS Educational Center: September.
One more, at Ell-Saline HS (Brookville) is scheduled for installation the second week of November, weather permitting.
We received nine applications from school districts in April of 2007 and formally announced acceptance of five, with two alternates, this fall. The delay was due to wanting to visit sites before finalizing our choices. Besides Greenbush, mentioned above, the other 4 are Blue-Valley/Randolph, Deerfield, Rolla, South Barber County (Kiowa).
School staff at Rolla, observing the Entegrity installed at Moscow HS nearby, opted to decline a Skystream and pursue an Entegrity, so we brought in our first alternate, Pretty Prairie, to replace that school. At present Pretty Prairie, South Barber and Deerfield are deciding whether and how to pursue additional funding from the USDA for their projects. Funding from our largest utility may delay installation at Blue Valley/Randolph to 2009.
At KSU I taught a combined wind and solar system design class to 15 students in Spring 2008. Of those, three were graduate (Masters) students; the others seniors. Most were in electrical engineering; one was in architectural engineering. Eight were involved in siting turbines at WfS schools; the others pursued other projects including design of a solar system for KSU, design of a zero-energy building, construction of a tabletop wind turbine demonstration and construction of a stand-alone demonstration solar panel for displays on campus.
In Fall 2008 I directed 8 undergraduate students, 7 EEs and one Industrial Engineer, in wind siting projects at WfS schools, a Kansas Dept of Transportation site and a site belonging to the Kansas 4-H Foundation. We also visited three large wind farms nearby and one turbine refurbishing shop. Two of these students are doing honors research to build a web site displaying data from all our WfS turbines in something close to real time.
The WAC has been involved at some level in some 4 research proposals out of KSU this fall, and has received one internal grant to support development of the web site and further research into smart grid communications using the turbine data. We sent one of our grad students to NREL for training on set up of a small-wind testing site, and hope to be able to get something going along that line within the next year.
I gave six formal presentations about Wind for Schools (five invited): two to Kansas science teachers at conferences, one to Kansas School Board Association members, two to workshops for school facilities personnel, and one at the Kansas Renewable Energy Conference. An abstract has been submitted to AWEA for 2009 and other talks are scheduled for 2009 as well.
Wichita Eagle, editorial - JAMES ROBERTS of GPACE: State needs to be part of renewable energy boom
November 5, 2008
Reprinted in full from the Wichita Eagle.
By James Roberts
In the late 1920s, my grandfather, Bill Roberts, walked off the farm and into a work force that helped build the America we know.
Eighty years later, young Americans like myself walk into an economy teetering on collapse, a global energy crisis and a hemorrhaging job market.
I’ve spent the past year working to promote renewable energy and its benefits in Kansas. What I’ve discovered from talking to students, business owners and families is not a radical sense of morality regarding the environment or irrational fear that managing carbon emissions will undo the American way of life.
Instead, I’ve heard time and again from all corners of this state that young Kansans are ready to take our place in a new era of industry, growth, innovation and, yes, responsibility. We hope to make the promise of America a reality for ourselves and our children.
In Kansas, we have tremendous opportunities. As confidence in our economy wanes, a cutting-edge domestic industry filled with skilled jobs sits waiting. Kansas will have 1,000 megawatts of wind on line by the end of 2008, but we still trail Texas, Washington, California, even New York.
Last year, the wind industry grew at a rate of 46 percent in the United States. Wind manufacturer Vestas has more than 2,500 employees in Colorado. Clipper employs 1,100 in Arkansas. Iowa enjoys hundreds of new jobs from wind manufacturing plants. Nolan County, Texas, cut taxes and built new schools as a result of increased property values driven by the local wind industry.
So why not Kansas?
Legislative leadership, special interests, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and the governor’s office have squabbled over the costly future of coal in Kansas while not doing enough to promote a renewable industry that could benefit Kansans statewide. Consequently, we lack a comprehensive policy that encourages renewable energy.
We can no longer simply hope to cash in on the renewable energy economy as it enriches neighboring states. We are obligated to act if we want to ensure the benefits of an industry that blends traditional American ingenuity with 21st-century technology.
Energy policy is bigger than any party or single corporation. If we demand action on renewable energy we can — as my grandfather and his neighbors did — take our place among the great generations of Americans working together to build a better future.
James Roberts is the statewide coordinator of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Topeka.
Will the credit crunch/ financial drama kill wind development in Kansas? Doesn’t seem like it (touch wood!).
November 4, 2008
And the answer basically seems to be - if we didn’t have such a rocking wind resource (third in the nation), then - yep - wind developers might think twice about building here. But, we’ve got the wind. Problem - we ain’t got the transmission.
Yet. At the Kansas wind conference this past September I seem to recall Chairman and KETA founder Carl Holmes promising to keep a close eye on the KCC transmission docket, the ITC Great Plains v. Westar thing. He strikes me as a gentleman who keeps his promises, so we will see.
At any rate - reprinted in full from Harris News.
Financial crunch not expected to crimp state’s wind power boom
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — Advocates remain optimistic that the state’s efforts to boost wind energy production won’t be blown off-course by a more challenging financial environment.
Across the country and in Kansas, the development of wind energy has been proceeding at a record-setting pace, according to state and wind energy officials.
In recent weeks, though, energy experts have also noted that a squeeze in credit and collapsing oil and natural gas prices, both byproducts of a worldwide financial crisis, could stifle the further growth of renewable energy.
Industry observers and companies operating in the state, however, say the chances are good that the production of wind power will keep growing in Kansas.
Rob Freeman, chief executive officer of TradeWind Energy, said that while he’s concerned about the credit crunch, he said his company plans to push ahead with its developments in Kansas.
Freeman, whose company is developing the Smoky Hills Wind Farm west of Salina, said he guesses that other companies will be doing the same.
“I think in the long-term view, the opportunity for Kansas is the same that it was five or six months ago,” Freeman said.
Steve Gaw, a spokesman for The Wind Coalition based in Austin, Texas, said wind developers will likely face similar difficulties in securing financing for their projects that other industries face with banks more reluctant to lend.
However, Gaw said he believes that other trends that have gained steam over the last year would work in the favor of wind power in the coming years.
“I would also imagine that the type of push we would likely see for more independence on energy, trying to address environmental issues and other things will work as a strong counterbalance to that,” said Gaw, whose nonprofit group of wind project developers, interest groups and component manufacturers promotes investment in the industry.
The American Wind Energy Association reported last month that the nation’s wind industry was on pace to break last year’s record for installation, 5,249 megawatts. In Kansas, officials expect the state’s wind farms to be producing 1,013 megawatts of electricity, up from the 364 megawatts being churned out at the beginning of the year.
But The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio, among others, have all recently reported about concerns that the worldwide financial crisis will put a crimp in wind power’s explosive growth.
Tighter credit markets could make it more difficult for wind developers to secure financing for their projects. Plus,lower natural gas prices could give utilities less incentive to invest in wind turbines, some renewable energy boosters fear.
But Gaw said that Kansas was better positioned than most other states to weather any potential storm, largely because of state’s potential for producing wind energy.
Kansas ranks third in the nation in wind power potential and The Wind Coalition has suggested that the state is capable of producing up to 10,000 megawatts of wind energy in the coming decades.
“The thing that I would expect to see is that there would be more selective use of where you invest,” Gaw said.
Still for wind power to grow further in Kansas, Gaw said the state also will likely need to see the development of new transmission lines to carry electricity out from wind farms set up in western Kansas.
One project which could do that, a series of V-shaped, high-voltage lines through southwest Kansas, is presently before the state utility regulators.
The Kansas Corporation is mulling proposals from a transmission-only utility, ITC Great Plains, and a venture of the state’s largest investor-owned utility, Topeka-based Westar Energy, competing for the project. ITC Great Plains also plans to build a 180-mile high voltage line from Spearville to Axtell, Neb.
Carl Huslig, president of ITC Great Plains, said his company has received assurances from major banks and doesn’t expect to have any problems financing the two projects it wants to build in Kansas because of the credit crunch.
“We still see an extreme need for transmission and to provide a robust grid,” Huslig said.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
