CEP live blogging from House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future - Day 5 of working what was once HB 2949
March 18, 2008
Yep! Did that get your attention? As well it might. The bill formerly known as HB 2949 is - apparently - today to be reincarnated as a resolution, HCR 5038 (.pdf), Kansas Energy Plan. The hearing phase is considered concluded - see Day I and Day 2 (which were briefings), and Day 3 and Day 4 (which were hearings).
The Select Committee will be working the resolution today, which means adding amendments, etc. Reminder: this is the bill that proposed to establish an energy plan for Kansas by focusing on baseload power needs and encouraging coal and nuclear and minimizing natural gas.
EDIT: wait! there might be one person testifying today. Which means this too is a hearing.
What’s the difference between a bill and a resolution? I only know the major point - a bill can go on to become a law, and a law is a binding mandate (supposedly. Or else why bother?). A resolution is a more general statement that is not binding under law.
I think the resolution has to pass the committee and then get voted on by the House as a whole, but I don’t know what happens next. The HCR designation stands for House Concurrent Resolution, which seems to imply that the Senate too would get a whack at it. I also don’t think that HB 2949 is dead-dead - it doesn’t sound like it will be worked in its current version, but it could serve as a vehicle for some other legislation that may fail to get through the process in another format.
EDIT: Guess what! Since it switched from a bill to a resolution - this means that the hearings start over. All the previous four days, zippo. We start over with hearings on the resolution, and one person is submitting testimony - Tom Thompson of Sierra Club! Who is on top of it. CEP (me) said - uh, what? We start over? Didn’t know that…. oops… Doesn’t look like anyone other than Tom submitted, however. A few other voices say, um, er - it was open for new testimony? Missed that!
We await the committee. Members of the committee include: Representatives Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham. Proceedings begin at 1:30. Hit your refresh button later on and check in.
We begin.
Chairman Myers - because of frustration with regulatory uncertainty and looming carbon costs, and difficulty with financing utility expansion - there was general ipinion in testimony for utilities that this bill should not be put in statute. In order to comply, I had it put into a resolution. The revisers switched it to resolution form, but it is missing the KCC amendment from last week about changing from gigawatts to megawatts, and the (MH misses it). Myers asks for motion to make rsolution cocur with previous House bill. Olson moves, Rardin seconds, Flora supports it in discussion, all aye, no nay, motion carries.
CEP live blogging from House Energy and Utilities Committee, Day 4 of testimony on HB 2949
March 12, 2008
Is this the fourth day of HSCEEF hearings on HB 2949? I believe so. First day was Chairman Myers briefing the committee on the bill that he introduced (Day 1); second day was Paul Genoa of NEI briefing committee on potential of nuclear energy (Day 2); third day was yesterday where six participants testified, including CEP and Kansas Natural Resources Council (KNRC) (Day 3); and today we have several more to testify, including Sierra Club. A reminder: This bill, titled the Kansas Energy Plan Act, proposes to decide the future of Kansas energy for the next twenty years by focusing on baseload as represented by nuclear and coal energy.
Yesterday we had brilliant turn-out by constituents at the hearing - the room and hallway was overflowing. Folks: Your presence was definitely, definitely noted. People are still talking about it. Thank you.
What was also interesting about yesterday is that (1) no clear champions of the bill emerged, and (2) environmental organizations, utilities, and the KCC all urged great caution and a careful, long-term planning process when it came to the future of Kansas energy. FYI: this is kind of like cats, dogs, and gerbils all traveling to the vet together in one animal carrier and having no drama occur.
I’m sorry. It’s only Wednesday and my metaphors have already run dry.
Originally, additional HSCEEF meetings were scheduled on Thursday and Friday as well. I received an email late yesterday afternoon, however, saying those had been canceled. The committee will now meet on Monday, March 17 at 1:30 p.m. in 784 Docking.
OK. Here we go. We await the committee. Members of the committee include: Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham.
Hit your refresh button occasionally to check in - the hearing starts at 1:30 p.m. From the list I have now, we will hear the following testimony (in unknown order): Colin Hansen (KS Municipal Utilities), Joe Spease (Pristine Power), Tom Thompson (Sierra Club), Ray Dean, Empire Electric, Larry Berg (Midwest Energy). Repeatedly, I am hearing that there were people who wanted to testify, but who were told there wasn’t time or room on the docket.
We have some of the committee. Close to a quorum. Nice spring day out. I think most of us walked over aboveground, instead of thru the tunnel between the Capitol and Docking. No quorum, pretty decent audience (on normal days, this means 10-20 people. Big days are 20-25. Small days are under 10). We wait.
Chairman Myers notes that he does not normally start meetings late, but he doesn’t have a quorum. Joking, he asks for volunteers. Laughter. Tom Thompson notes there are no hands. Laughter.
We wait. Chatter. Talk. Idle conversation. It gets idler. And idler.
Sigh.
Chairman Myers gives up on his quorum and starts anyway.
Wes Ashton, Aquila
As proponent. Here on behalf of Aquila and ONEOK (I think). Again, congrats to committee for attempting state policy for elecricity generation in KS. A good direction. We are in favor of this bill for state policy. However, there is ome small tweak - in section 5, where you detail specifics for generation and targets for 2028 etc. You eliminate natural gas. We think natural gas should stay in there. You say “negigible” use of natural gas. This will cause challenges for utlities.
We have heard lots - that there is not one answer or fix for KS energy problems. We need to keep options on the table. Why take gas off table so soon? Natural gas has been part of KS policy for decades, and it rises and falls. As prices stand today, natural gas costs more than coal. However, that might not be true in the future, especiually with supply fluctuations, etc. Keep gas on the table. Do not limit options for long-term policy. Our legislature, state, citizens, KCC, etc., will work together in future to determine best baseload options.
CEP testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, HB 2949
March 11, 2008
by Nancy Jackson, Executive Director
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon, and for the good work you all do for the state of Kansas.
I am Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate & Energy Project (CEP) of The Land Institute. I testify today regarding Kansas House Bill 2949, the Kansas Energy Plan Act.
The issues you consider today are crucial and complex. Electricity has become central to our economy and way of life. We use more of it each year and our infrastructure for both generation and transmission is aging and was, in any case, designed for a different time. It is time to make decisions for a new century.
Today, we recognize that the way we produce and consume electricity affects our air, our water, our climate, and for all those reasons, our ability – and our childrens’ ability – to lead healthy, productive lives in Kansas over the years to come. At the same time, in an uncertain world, we face growing concerns about energy security and independence. For all these reasons and, in Kansas, to encourage rural economic development, interest in distributed generation and renewable resources is growing.
The bill before you today states early its purpose, to “develop a balanced energy approach, a plan which allows for continued development of all energy sources but is not driven by special interests or energy crises.” It provides “encouragement” for renewable energy, as well as for policies to increase transmission and promote market-driven solutions, and focuses on a “market-driven approach.” All of these are goals that CEP applauds.
The bulk of 2949, however, attends to base load generation – the sources of energy that utilities depend upon to meet the majority of their consistent demand, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The difficulty, in 2008, is that in a fluid global market, economics can be tricky to predict and the notion of base load itself is being reconsidered.
Just this week, for example, we learned that Peabody Coal shipped more coal to China in the first six weeks of this year than in all of 2007. Last week, Merrill Lynch announced its forecast that coal prices would jump by 200% this calendar year. As nuclear generation enjoys a likely renaissance, we can expect similar jumps in uranium. In a global marketplace with rapidly developing economies, competition for finite resources is and will continue to be stiff. Determining in 2008 what will be economic in 2028 is challenging to say the least.
Add to economic uncertainty the reconsideration of base load. As we speak, the Southwest Power Pool and the Midwest Independent System Operator are jointly conducting a study on the integration of large amounts of wind onto the grid and how that may affect historical understandings of base load and reliability. Just as we would not expect nuclear to conform to the profile of coal, or coal to natural gas, wind is a unique resource. It provides energy, but not “capacity” in the way we developed that term to describe other resources. If the country places a high priority on getting energy from wind – and indeed President Bush, the Department of Energy, and Governor Sebelius all agree that we should be getting 20% of our energy from wind by 2030 – then it makes sense to find new ways to talk about new resources.
All of this – not to mention pressing environmental concerns including air, water, and climate pollution and their costs, which are not mentioned in this bill – makes it difficult to project with any accuracy the most economic, reliable, and socially beneficial mix of generation for 2030 and beyond.
The suggested mix of generation reflected in Sec 5 (b)(3) – the bill’s directive to the corporation commission regarding base load analysis and planning – appears to double our nuclear generation (to 40%), reduce our coal generation (to 60%), and all but eliminate natural gas for base load by 2028. Which is to say: 2949 essentially directs that another nuclear plant be built in Kansas.
Passing such a law at this time seems premature. Another nuclear plant may ultimately prove to be a good option for Kansas, but surely that decision would result from careful consideration of a comprehensive energy plan for the state – one that considers base load, intermediate load, peaking power, the unique contributions of renewables, and the potential contribution of energy efficiency in addition to developing market forces, environmental concerns, and the desire and ability of Kansas utilities to participate.
In sum, CEP supports a comprehensive planning effort. In recognition of the complexity of the task, we trust that the committee will take a careful, considered approach and postpone determining fuel mix for future generation until more information is available.
— Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate and Energy Project
CEP live blogging from House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, Day 3 of hearings
March 11, 2008
Hi all. What a day. Now we are in the hearings on HB 2949, the Kansas Energy Act Plan that proposes to set a framework for future Kansas energy policy by focusing on dispatchable and baseload power. Six folks are scheduled to testify.
Members of the committee include: Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham.
We Await the Committee. The Room Is Full. Overflowing. Past Capacity. I hear fire sirens outside (actually not kidding). Today is Clean Energy Day of course, and GPACE and Sierra Club, etc., have done a marvelous job of outreach to local constituents interested in the energy future of Kansas. Which this bill does address.
Hit your refresh button occasionally so you can check in with us.
Overheard: someone talking about a t-shirt - “The Planet: It’s not just for treehuggers anymore”
Another overheard - “Why isn’t wind included? The wind folks signed up to testify then got kicked off, and this is supposed to be the Kansas Energy Plan. Isn’t that all of us?”
That did not come from the committee. NOW we have the committee.
Chairman Myers starts the meeting
Earl Watkins, Sunflower Electric
Kansas needs a sound energy policy. By any stretch of the imagination Sunflower is a small utility. Economy of scale is important to us, to keep costs down. Our Holcomb project - our 20oMW slice - is how we can afford to build generation capacity. Planning ahead and working with other utiltiies is importatn.
CEP live blogging from House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, Day 1 of briefings on HB 2949
March 5, 2008
Hi there. Welcome for Round Three of CEP live blogging from the Capitol today. I hope that all the CEP funders are noting our tireless efforts to make the democratic process regarding climate and energy issues ever more open and accessible…!
The committee members today (and some of these names are probably familiar. I’m starting to feel like I should post photos): Chairman Don Myers, Vice-Chair Rob Olson, Ranking Minority Vaughn Flora, and Representatives Watkins, Light, Whitham, Proehl, Faust-Goudeau, and Rardin. The bill at issue is HB 2949, the Kansas Energy Plan Act, which proposes to establish in law a baseload mix of fuel that will up nuclear, support coal, eliminate gas, and marginalize intermittent power, aka wind.
Today Chairman Meyers will brief the committee on the bill. Tomorrow Paul Genoa of the Nuclear Energy Institute will brief the committee on the costs of nuclear power. Next week there will be hearings on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
Written materials available for the audience today: The recent article in the KC Star on nuclear power, an article from the Sun Telegram on the recent dip in wind power on the TX grid (although I note not the article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that the issues is actually under investigation as a failure by a baseload provider), and an article from the LJWorld on black coal needing to be part of green debate.
Larry Holloway of KCC has also apparently offered balloon language (potential amendments) to the bill.
Myers - we want to accept this balloon language later, I know that is not usually how it is done in committee, but I asked reviser and she said it was okay.
