News Updates: E.P.A. Ruling Could Speed Up Approval of Coal Plants
December 19, 2008
Reprinted in full from the NY Times:
By MATTHEW L. WALD and FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: December 18, 2008
WASHINGTON — Officials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency ruled late Thursday. Some environmentalists fear the decision will clear the way for the approval of several such plants in the last days of the Bush administration.
The ruling, by Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator, responds to a decision made last month by the Environmental Appeals Board, a panel within the E.P.A., that had blocked the construction of a small new plant on the site of an existing power plant, Bonanza, on Ute tribal land in eastern Utah.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the agency could regulate carbon dioxide, the most prevalent global warming gas, under existing law. The agency already requires some power plants to track how much carbon dioxide they emit.
But a memorandum issued by Mr. Johnson late Thursday puts the agency on record saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant to be regulated when approving power plants. He cited “sound policy considerations.”
His said in the memorandum that each year, about 275 new sources of pollution, from power plants to apartment buildings, must obtain permits saying that they will not significantly decrease air quality. Mr. Johnson wrote that the decision he overruled had confused the federal and state agencies that issue these permits.
“Given the confusion,” the memorandum said, “the best path forward is to establish a clear interpretation” of what can be considered a pollutant to be regulated.
“The current concerns over global climate change should not drive E.P.A. into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls” in these cases, he said.
Mr. Johnson rejected a new line of attack by environmental groups. In the wake of the Bush administration’s failure to decide if carbon dioxide could be regulated under existing laws, environmental groups pursued a new strategy in fighting proposed coal plants like the one in Utah.
They asserted that because carbon dioxide must already be monitored under federal laws, that monitoring is tantamount to regulation. Therefore, they argued, its impact must be considered before new plants are approved. Last month the appeals board said the argument could be used, but was not required. On Thursday the administrator overruled the board. He said that simple monitoring cannot be considered regulation.
John Walke, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement, “It’s a marvel to behold an E.P.A. action that so utterly disdains global warming responsibility and disdains the law at the same time.”
Jeff Holmstead, a former E.P.A. official who now works with the Electrical Liability Coordinating Council, said the Johnson memo ensured that the incoming Obama administration had increased freedom to make its decisions on the status of carbon dioxide.
“I think if you’re Lisa Jackson,” whom Obama has chosen as Mr. Johnson’s successor, “you have to be pretty grateful,” he said. “She has the opportunity to go through a rule-making and see how to deal” with the issue.
Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, estimated that as much as 8,000 megawatts of new coal-fired power plants could win swifter approval as a result of the ruling.
Opponents of coal plants list several in the late stages of the approval process that could be affected by the decision Thursday.
“There are a bunch that they are going to argue now don’t have to consider carbon dioxide, and which will be beyond the reach of the incoming Obama administration,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the anticoal campaign at the Sierra Club, an environmental group.
He listed a proposed $1.25 billion plant, called Pee Dee, that Santee Cooper, a South Carolina utility, is seeking to build and that won state approval on Tuesday; a project in Rogers City, Mich., that the Wolverine Power Cooperative Electric is seeking to build; and another project in Utah, a small plant sought by Consolidated Energy in Davis County. That one would run on petroleum coke, which is also carbon-rich.
CDC climate change expert backs Kansas decision on coal plants
December 9, 2008
Reprinted in full from KHI News Service.
By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Dec. 8, 2008
ATLANTA — Kansas should stick to its decision not to build a pair of new coal-fired power plants, according to the lead climate change scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. George Luber, of CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, said a climate-change tipping point has been reached. The earth is warming and there is nothing that can be done to stop it in the short term.
“We have already committed to increased warming even if we reduced emissions to zero starting right now,” Luber told a group of Kansas and Missouri health journalists.
But for the long-term health of the planet, Luber said industrialized nations must sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption. He said the vast majority of scientists now agree that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change.
Luber said that the warming that is underway will cause public health problems by producing more extreme weather events — heat waves in particular — and facilitating the spread of certain vector-borne illnesses such as malaria and Lyme disease.
“We’re going to see a change in the distribution of Lyme disease northward,” he said. “It’s going to be our latest export to Canada.”
Though the die is cast for the short term, Luber said sharp reductions in energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the next several years would start reversing some of the damage that has been done. Luber said a silver lining to the climate crisis is that it provides people around the world with opportunities to change their lifestyles in ways that both reduce stress on them and the planet.
“Climate change is going to allow us to craft a way of life and build a public health system that I think we want,” he said. “It’s an enormous opportunity.”
Luber said the ongoing debate over whether to build two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas provides state policymakers an opportunity to set an example for the rest of the country.
“Kansas can take this opportunity to be a leader in green energy while protecting the health of its citizens,” he said.
Citing concerns about the potential health consequences of additional CO2 emissions, Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Roderick Bremby last October denied the air-quality permit needed by the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to go forward with a $3.6 billion expansion of a coal-fired power plant near Holcomb. Luber said KDHE officials sought his input on the decision.
Luber spoke to reporters who were participating in the Midwest Health Journalism Fellowship, a training program sponsored by health foundations in Kansas and Missouri.
-Jim McLean is a staff writer for KHI News Service, which specializes in coverage of health issues facing Kansans. He can be reached at jmclean@khi.org or at 785-233-5443, ext. 110.
Obama would classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant
October 16, 2008
Ganked from Climateer, this Bloomberg article (reprinted pretty much in full):
Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.
If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide. Obama’s rival in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act.
Obama “would initiate those rulemakings,” Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. “He’s not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.”
Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.
The president may take action on new rules immediately upon taking office, said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. Environment groups including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council will issue a regulatory agenda for the next president that calls for limits on CO2 from industry.
`Hit Ground Running’
“This is what they should do to hit the ground running,” Bookbinder said in an Oct. 10 telephone interview.
Separately, Congress is debating legislation to create an emissions market to address global warming, a solution endorsed by both candidates and utilities such as American Electric Power Co., the biggest U.S. producer of electricity from coal. Congress failed to pass a global-warming bill in June and how long it may take lawmakers to agree on a plan isn’t known.
“We need federal legislation to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions,” said Vicki Arroyo, general counsel for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. “In the meantime, there is this vacuum. People are eager to get started on this.”
An Obama victory would help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming, Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists, said today in Berlin. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2.
`Back in the Game’
“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. “We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus. So he’ll move quickly.”
Burning coal to generate electricity produces more than a third of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and half the U.S. power supply, according to the Energy Department. Every hour, fossil-fuel combustion generates 3.5 million tons of emissions worldwide, helping create a warming effect that “already threatens our climate,” the Paris-based International Energy Agency said.
The EPA under Bush fought the notion that the Clean Air Act applies to CO2 all the way to the Supreme Court. The law has been used successfully to regulate six pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and ozone. Regulation under the act “could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said in July. The law “is the wrong tool for the job.”
Proponents of regulation are hoping for better results under a new president. Obama adviser Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, said if Congress hasn’t acted in 18 months, about the time it would take to draft rules, the president should.
EPA Authority
“The EPA is obligated to move forward in the absence of Congressional action,” Grumet said. “If there’s no action by Congress in those 18 months, I think any responsible president would want to have the regulatory approach.”
States where coal-fired plants may be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.
The alternative, a national cap-and-trade program created by Congress, offers industry more options, said Bruce Braine, a vice president at Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric. The world’s largest cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases opened in Europe in 2005.
Under a cap-and-trade program, polluters may keep less- efficient plants running if they offset those emissions with investments in projects that lower pollution, such as wind-energy turbines or systems that destroy methane gas from landfills.
McCain `Not a Fan’
“Those options may still allow me to build new efficient power plants that might not meet a higher standard,” Braine said in an Oct. 9 interview. “That might be a more cost-effective way to approach it.”
McCain hasn’t said how he would approach CO2 regulation under the Clean Air Act. McCain adviser and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey said Oct. 6 that new rules may conflict with Congressional efforts. Policy adviser Rebecca Jensen Tallent said in August that McCain prefers a bill debated by Congress rather than regulations “established through one agency where one secretary is getting to make a lot of decisions.”
“He is not as big of a fan of standards-based approaches,” Arroyo said. “The Supreme Court thinks it’s clear that there is greenhouse-gas authority under the Clean Air Act. To take that off the table probably wouldn’t be very wise.”
More Efficient Technologies
How new regulations would affect the proposed U.S. coal plants depends on how they are written, said Bill Fang, climate issue director for the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based lobbying group for utilities. About half of the proposed plants plan to use technologies that are 20 percent more efficient than conventional coal burners.
“Several states have denied the applicability of the Clean Air Act to coal permits,” Fang said in an Oct. 10 interview.
In June, a court in Georgia stopped construction of the 1,200- megawatt Longleaf power plant, a $2 billion project, because developer Dynegy Inc. failed to consider cleaner technology.
An appeals board within the EPA is considering a challenge from the Sierra Club to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s air permit for its 110-megawatt Bonanza coal plant in Utah on grounds that it failed to require controls on CO2. One megawatt is enough to power about 800 typical U.S. homes.
“Industry has woken up to the fact that a new progressive administration could move quickly to make the United States a leader rather than a laggard,” said Bruce Nilles, director of the group’s national coal campaign.
“Comprehensive state energy plan.” A phrase many of us became very familiar with during the last legislative session - regardless, whatever that plan ends up looking like, it’s good to get many different voices involved in the conversation.
Recently the Salina Journal has been running different guest editorials on what the energy future might look like for Kansas. Here’s two.
Many of you will probably disagree with parts or all of the following. But you might find points you agree upon, too.
************************************
Prof. Ruth Douglas Miller
“Solar, wind on the horizon”
What does the future hold for energy use and energy sources in Kansas? Our state is well placed to produce a significant part of the nation’s renewable energy within the next 20 years.
The western third of the state will have several hundred wind farms of 200 to 400 megawatts each scattered roughly along a north-south line from near Goodland down to Spearville, a line that soon will be the route of a major high-voltage transmission line.
A similar amount of solar energy will be feasible within a 50-year time frame through large-scale solar plants. If they happen, they will concentrate in the southwestern quarter of the state.
More importantly, to lower carbon dioxide production, most towns now large enough to own their own local gas- or oil-fired electricity generation will own one to three medium- or large-sized wind turbines.
And many homes will have enough solar panels, or in rural areas a small wind turbine, to produce a third or more of their individual energy needs.
We won’t burn oil for electricity, but natural gas plants paired with wind and/or solar generation will be fueled from renewable sources. When the wind dies, the gas plants will take over; when the sun shines or the wind picks up, the gas plants will be turned off.
We will probably still import coal from Wyoming, but we’ll export more than enough wind and solar-generated power to balance the coal imports. If we are really serious about global warming, we will add another nuclear plant somewhere in the eastern third of the state.
Within 20 years, the bio-ethanol and bio-diesel craze will be recognized as a dead end. We cannot produce 20 percent of current 2007 gasoline demand in ethanol even if we figure out how to convert all available biomass in the country to ethanol.
And we cannot grow enough oil seed (soy, canola, sunflower or others) to meet 20 percent of current diesel demand, either.
By 2020 it will be clear we do not have land, fertilizer or especially water to make ethanol work. However, we will have realized that manure and garbage are excellent sources of methane while they are decomposing enough to use as fertilizer. So much of our natural gas, probably still needed for heat and to balance wind and solar electricity generation, will come from sources such as feedlots and municipal landfills.
What will we be doing for transportation? Driving a lot less, biking more, and driving small, light vehicles that are either hybrids or pure electric cars, whose batteries are charged from solar panels on roofs.
Instead of driving from Manhattan to Wichita for a day conference, I expect I will sit at my computer, call my Wichita, Topeka and Lawrence colleagues on the phone and join them in a vivid videoconference in which we’ll feel we’re in the same room with each other.
Kansas will be more of a desert, but we will know, watching wind turbines spin, that we’re doing our part to undo the damage of the previous century.
Ruth Douglas Miller is an associate professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at Kansas State University and a coordinator for the Kansas Wind for Schools program.
******************************
Stuart Lowry, KEPCo
“The clash of wants and needs”
The “climate crisis” is driving our energy debate. Recently Al Gore announced a goal that in 10 years, 100 percent of our nation’s electricity will be generated from renewable resources. For Mr. Gore and others who share his vision, this policy is necessary to save the planet and, therefore, cost is no object.
As the costs of such a policy become apparent, however, many will argue that we cannot afford it. Certainty about the scope of the climate crisis or low-cost energy solutions to solve that crisis would make energy policy work quite simple. If neither exists, developing sound energy policy will require reconciliation of what we need and what we can afford.
Energy efficiency — deriving the benefits of electricity while actually consuming less of it — will increase in the coming years as never before. Unfortunately, even the best energy efficiency programs will not lead us to the point of negative usage. We will still need electric supply, and that supply has to come from somewhere.
Renewable energy has an undeniable appeal to everyone — including electric utilities. At the risk of throwing cold water in the face of Mr. Gore’s dream, it is unlikely that renewable energy will provide all of our supply in the next 10 years — at least in the absence of a major technological breakthrough or a seismic shift in public policy.
We will see the use of more renewable energy, though. In Kansas, the renewable energy focus is primarily on wind energy. Electricity supply solely from wind, however, is like the wind itself: present some of the time and absent at others. Integrating wind resources into an electricity system while maintaining balance between electricity load and electric supply requires the continued use of traditional generation resources.
Experts in both the wind and utility industries believe that we can reasonably expect to integrate roughly 20 percent of our energy from wind in the future. Utilities in Kansas have made steps toward that goal. Wind power could be generated in Kansas and exported to regions that do not have renewable energy alternatives. The transmission lines and facilities needed to move bulk power, including wind energy, between regions will need to be more fully developed.
If less than 100 percent of our power is generated from renewable resources, the remainder will likely come from new versions of generation resources that build on established technologies — coal, nuclear and natural gas in combination.
Concern with carbon dioxide emissions and global climate change resulted in the current Kansas debate about the use of coal generation. If this concern drives our energy policy, it would predict a movement toward more nuclear energy, which does not have the emissions of coal plants. Proposals for more nuclear energy will likely bring equal, but different, objections from the same people that oppose the use of coal. Improvements will continue to be made in both coal and nuclear technologies. With coal, technological innovations to sequester or reduce carbon emissions will develop. Nuclear has a strong safety record and the industry will build on that success.
Any discussion of the energy future in Kansas should include consideration of the cost. Ascertaining the cost we are willing to bear requires that we discern our priorities. If we want more renewable energy, need to limit carbon dioxide emissions and want to maintain reliable service, we can do that.
If we want to provide the most reliable service at the lowest possible cost, we can do that.
The correct policy answer is found at the intersection of what we want and what we can afford.
Stuart Lowry is executive vice president of Kansas Electric Cooperatives and a member of the Kansas Energy Council and the governor’s Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
As many of you know, as part of Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the EPA to come up with rules and regulations on carbon dioxide emissions.
For a variety of reasons, the EPA has not done so. Regulatory uncertainty on CO2 at the federal level is still ongoing. It appears that the rules will not be developed until the next presidential administration.
Which leaves you, the public - with ample time and opportunity to present public comment! Share your views on the issue.
The process couldn’t be easier, actually (considering this is the federal government). Go to this EPA webpage, read the instructions, and you can even submit online or by email.
Great school project! Fun for the family! Fun for anyone with an opinion on the topic! Go for it.
The deadline for comments is 180 days after the publication date of the order. This should make it due around… November 7.
Do it by Halloween, just to make sure.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Video: T. Boone Pickens plan on wind
July 8, 2008
I have received - wait - 9 emails on this topic today alone. So I went out and found it on YouTube. People want to know about it. So watch!
I’ve also collected a fair number of emails of reactions to the plan, everything from “that’s dumb!” to “that’s great!” to … well, a fair bit in between.
Enjoy 
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Coal, carbon, and politics
July 8, 2008
Decided to bundle all the recent coal and carbon policy news into one post.
Georgia court bans coal plant proposal on basis of carbon dioxide emissions (Reuters). “A Georgia state court on Monday invalidated a permit to build a 1,200-megawatt coal-fired power plant, citing the developers’ failure to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.”
The judge cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby cited the same case in his 2007 decision to deny Sunflower Electric’s permit for a 1,400 MW plant.
Wisconsin Power & Light trying to cut deal for coal plant expansion of 300 MW (Energy Legal Blog). “WP&L has offered to retire the oldest coal-fired plant in its fleet, develop an additional 200 MW of wind power above the 300 MW it has already pledged to develop in the next several years, increase the amount of biomass co-firing planned for the new unit, and increase energy efficiency and conservation efforts. WP&L’s estimated cost for these proposed efforts are $500-$550 million.
Coal opponents going after financing (Reuters).
Speaker Neufeld appoints four coal plant supporters to new legislative joint committee on energy and environment (LJWorld). One of the committee’s goals is to develop a statewide energy policy.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
The Senate has begun debating the Climate Security Act, also known as Warner-Lieberman, also known as Lieberman-Warner. (You can find the text of the bill here, and listen in live here.) CEP took notes on the debate on Day 1 and Day 2.
W-L is the first carbon regulation proposal to make it this far in Congress. It is a system of cap and trade. Carbon regulation is not widely expected to pass until the next presidential administration - all three remaining candidates support some form of it.
A great deal of the climate and energy debate in the states - such as Kansas - revolves around the fact that Congress is expected to soon implement carbon regulation. The Warner-Lieberman bill, regardless of whether it is passed, will set the foundation for this regulation.
Thus, CEP is taking notes. The debate will go on all day and we will fade in and out, but check back for updates to this entry as we roughly follow along.
Some of the major trends we have noticed so far: There is an elephant in the room. Its name is “carbon tax.”
There are basically three main types of models for carbon regulation - command and control, cap and trade, and a carbon tax. Command and control is off the table. Supporters of carbon regulation often agree that a carbon tax is the best way to go, but that there’s no way that any policy initiative with the word “tax” in it has a chance of getting passed. So that left cap and trade.
Opposition of carbon regulation is kind of mixed right now, though. The traditional dogma about cap and trade is that it is hugely bureaucratic with lots of overhead - meaning, big government. So if you are a small government person… well… if there is going to be carbon regulation, maybe a carbon tax doesn’t look so bad after all. The opposition is very torn between trying to say that cap and trade is actually a hidden carbon tax, and then realizing that if they tank cap and trade they might be left with a carbon tax.
Rock and a hard place. That’s one interesting trend. Another is that the opposition is trying to make this about gas prices. Supporters counter that rising gas prices are happening with or without carbon regulation, that that is about peak oil.
Another trend, one that crosses opposition and support - the development of nuclear power.
Yesterday the U.S. Senate began debating the Climate Security Act, also known as Warner-Lieberman, also known as Lieberman-Warner. (You can find the text of the bill here, and listen in live here.)
W-L is the first carbon regulation proposal to make it this far in Congress. It is a system of cap and trade. Carbon regulation is not widely expected to pass until the next presidential administration - all three remaining candidates support some form of it.
If you have time - YOU SHOULD LISTEN.
Today seems to be just a comment period on the bill. They will get to amendments later at some point. The hearings will go on and off for probably at least this week. CEP is just checking in every so often and taking notes and posting them here, just to keep track of the arguments.
Just from yesterday, what we have already noticed:
Do the facts and cites quoted on both sides vary widely? You bet. And if someone doesn’t cite a reliable source I won’t repeat any numbers (although I did yesterday).
Are they debating global warming? No, not really (not even James Inhofe from OK). Mostly this morning, opposition to the bill is trying to turn it into a debate on gas prices. Then the support will come back and fight to frame the issue in their own way, probably this afternoon.
Others are trying to make it a debate on nuclear power.
(FYI, this blog entry will be updated ongoing through the day.)
Live blogging (pretending to) Warner-Lieberman Climate Change Security Act in Senate (aka, “a historic day”)
June 2, 2008
As noted earlier, the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act is being debated today in the Senate.
CEP is nonpartisan - you may have noticed that we usually just refer to “supporters” and “opponents” on policy issues, and leave their parties out of it unless the affiliations somehow make a difference to the story. We tend to find that climate and energy issues have the potential to transcend party lines.
However, try applying this approach to covering the U.S. Senate. Their dynamics make partisan politics in Kansas seem like we are all holding hands and singing hymns together.
So, the below is highly abbreviated. In part to avoid the partisan jabs they keep zinging each other with.
This live blogging is just for fun, so CEP can keep notes on different policy arguments. You can listen in live here.
****************
Mitch McConnell - carbon regulation will cost too much and when gas prices are going up this bill is really bad timing and I need to head out to a meeting now.
Harry Reid - we have to protect the beauties of nature and what McConnell said shocked me - shocked me - because gas prices have gone up 250% since the Republicans came into power but the EIA says that this bill will offset the price increases from this bill and the Republicans are planning to filibuster and we won’t get to vote. Global warming is real and is caused by manmade pollution - drought, changed growing seasons, sea level rise, increased precipitation, increased wildfires - it’s caused in part by burning fossil fuels. We gotta fix it. The one thing we can’t afford is delay. And Warner-Lieberman will restore America’s economic growth.
Jeff Sessions - this is a huge income redistribution scheme and this is a bad time to be taking this up and 30 hours is not enough we can do a lot now but we shouldn’t rush it with this bill and we need to stop buying foreign oil this is a wealth transfer and we need to get our energy at home and I really, really like the Wall St Journal editorial page don’t make fun of it this legislation is not a good idea and it shouldn’t be done in this fashion we must be good stewards over this marvelous earth over which we have dominion and energy is powerful force for good electricity is a great thing good for our families if we didn’t have it we would still be hauling water in buckets from the spring can’t see it in any other light. Many are convinced the world is warming but few would dispute the immensity of the earth and complexity of forces at work in our climate and climate experts have developed complex models to explain and monitor forces that have been warming us but apparently not for last ten years - some think these models are fact, some don’t there is dispute there are some legitimate questions that carbon dioxide -
MH - forget it, he’s getting tangled here, can’t follow. And for partisans, yes, Reid got tangled too, they all do. Regardless of party, these are all politicians. They tangle. Anyway, Sessions is debating global warming and saying that being prudent means NOT taking action right away especially since it will cost money. Supporters of the bill are essentially saying that being prudent means TAKING action right away because it will cost even more not to.
According to the calendar of the U.S. Senate, the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act (which proposes a cap and trade system of carbon regulation) will be debated on the Senate floor sometime after 2:00 east coast time today. (You can listen in live on C-SPAN 2.)
Why is this important? Because this is the first time that the chamber has discussed a climate change bill since 2005.
Lots has changed since then - and, well, lots hasn’t. Climate change is even higher on the public radar. So, however, is climate change denial.
This piece of legislation is full of compromises that at least got it out of committee. Neither side is particularly happy with the result. Opposition will be bringing lots of amendments to the floor to weaken the bill, and supporters will be trying to strengthen it. If the bill is too weakened in the process, supporters plan to pull it. It is unclear whether the legislation has enough votes to pass, at any rate.
If that’s true, then what’s the big deal about the debate? The big deal is that the legislation - regardless of flaws - is a big step forward in policy at the national level. The international order is moving ahead on treaties dealing with climate change. Across the nation, most state policies on climate and energy are lightyears ahead of the feds. Under court order, the White House just released its climate plan four years late (AP).
Some of the provisions included in the legislation, according to Grist:
The bill calls for a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions starting in 2012, with electric utilities, refineries, and the industrial and transportation sectors required to cut their emissions 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and a 71 percent by 2050. Other provisions of the bill are expected to reduce greenhouse gases from additional emitters 66 percent by 2050.
For the primary industries covered, emissions cuts would be achieved through a cap-and-trade system that would let polluting entities buy and sell the right to emit carbon. About 20 percent of emissions credits would be auctioned initially; the rest would be given out free to emitters and states. The percentage of credits auctioned instead of given away would increase gradually over time. (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both advocated for auctioning 100% of credits from the beginning, a position widely supported by enviros.)
Some new provisions in the bill are intended to help consumers deal with any increases in energy prices. There’s an $800 billion consumer tax relief package and a $911 billion allowance to local electricity and gas utilities to help them cushion consumers from price swings, invest in renewables, and promote efficiency. This would all be paid for by the revenue from auctioning emissions credits, expected to total $3.3 trillion over the life of the bill. Funds from the auction would also go to worker transition programs, block grants to local governments for energy-efficiency programs, international adaptation programs, and deficit reduction.
As NPR also describes the legislation:
The legislation would require factories, power plants, refineries and other heavy industry to pay the government for permits to emit greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide. Companies also could trade permits among themselves and even bank them to use when needed. Economists who’ve analyzed this “cap-and-trade” program say it could generate about $6 trillion by 2050 — most of it from industry coffers.
Some of the objections that are supposed to be raised in the debate today: cost containment, where the money should go (to renewable energy, or to nuclear power development?), how to allocate the credits (auction them all off to polluters, or allocate some/ auction some), and can states have stronger emissions standards than the federal government.
Perhaps the biggest issue of all - is the target for emissions set low enough to actually head off the worst effects of climate change? Scientists widely agree that carbon dioxide levels must be reduced 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (the target also endorsed by Obama and Clinton).
BTW, if you want to support Warner-Lieberman, click here - and if you don’t, click here.
We will be listening to the debate here at CEP. Actually, Maril is currently driving Eileen nuts with a nervous countdown - “Thirty minutes! 29 minutes! 23 minutes!”
Very exciting.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Sure, the Kansas legislature - and the ever-present coal controversy - is on hold until May 29. For the most part, participants in the recent session’s energy debates are temporarily off-screen.
The action continues, though, in other arenas. And in other directions. Tomorrow in Wichita is the first meeting of the Kansas Environmental and Energy Policy (KEEP), the new advisory group advising the Sebelius administration on climate and energy policy (click here for the executive order).
According to the KEEP’s website, the group recognizes the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the globe to warm, which in turn contributes to climate change. These changes will impact the economy, the environment, and the overall quality of life on earth.
Thus, KEEP’s purpose is to “respond to the challenge of global climate change, while becoming more energy efficienct and energy independent and spurring economic growth.”
This weekend, Jack Pelton - KEEP chairman and president and chief executive officer of Cessna Aircraft - also had an interesting piece in the Wichita Eagle.
Pelton described KEEP’s purpose as “to find the balance between the needs of businesses and the need to protect the quality of our air,” and their policy goal as developing a plan that meets the energy needs of Kansas, at the same time as identifying “policies and technologies that reduce the state’s carbon footprint.” As he also stated:
I also know the pressure inherent in turning a profit. But neither Cessna nor our parent company, Textron, is prepared to sacrifice the environment for the bottom line. We seek the balance we know exists; and if you ask my counterparts at the other Wichita aerospace companies, they will tell you the same thing.
When the governor asked me to lead this group, she made clear her commitment to the goals I’ve outlined here. Together, our state can ensure power resources are in place for our economic prosperity without dooming future generations of Kansans to the ravages of accelerated climate change.
I am excited to have been asked to help and am very happy to live in a state where the governor is mindful of enhancing the state’s climate for business growth while reducing the state’s negative impact on Earth’s climate.
What exactly will all this specifically MEAN? We’ll find out more tomorrow. In terms of procedure, KEEP is following what is known as a stakeholder process - where an outside facilitator (in this case, the Center for Climate Strategies) helps participants to state their priorities and then weigh them as a group.
Even if you can’t travel to Wichita for KEEP’s kick-off meeting, the process is VERY accessible to the public (YAY). While you might not want to listen for the entire duration - 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. - you can call in using the following phone number - 800.704.9804, and conference code 424 541#.
How cool is THAT. Note to those of you not used to conference calls:
(1) they’re easy, don’t be scared, just call in and listen
(2) mute buttons on your phones are helpful, but not always necessary - when a kid or spouse or coworker wanders into the room and asks very loudly where the toilet paper is, it’s nice to have that muted. However, some conference services also automatically have you muted, and you have to press a button and go through a moderator to talk
(3) most conference services track the caller ID information of participants - the name of whatever phone number you are calling from
KEEP is composed of representatives from base of industry, utilities, state and local governments, environmental interest groups, and academia. Appointees include (click here for the additional ex officio appointees):
- Steven Baccus, Kansas Farm Bureau President
- Amy Blankenbiller, Kansas Chamber of Commerce President and CEO
- Jim Boone, NorthStar Comfort Systems Inc. President
- Dr. David Braaten, Kansas University Geography Department Professor
- Casey Cassius, Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell Architects Architect
- Yvonne Cather, Kansas Sierra Club Council Delegate
- Patty Clark, Kansas Leadership Center Director of Operations
- Dr. Johannes Feddema, Kansas University Geography Department Professor
- Ashok Gupta, Natural Resources Defense Council Director of Air and Energy Program
- Colin Hansen, Kansas Municipal Utilities Executive Director
- Nancy Jackson, Land Institute Climate and Energy Project (CEP) Project Director
- Mike Kelley, YRC Worldwide Vice-President
- Mark Knight, Owner of Knight Feedlots, Inc.
- Annie Kuether, State Representative of Kansas
- Stuart Lowry, Kansas Electric Cooperatives Inc. Executive Vice-President
- William Moore, Westar Energy President and CEO
- Emil Ramirez, United Steel Workers District 11 Assistant Director
- Dr. Charles Rice, Kansas State University Agronomy Department Professor
- Bruce Snead, Kansas State University Engineering Extension Program Specialist
- Dr. John Wong, Wichita State University Urban and Public Affairs Interim Director
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Location: Kansas Capitol, Topeka KS - mainly the House Chambers, but we will probably listen in on the Senate.
Time: House convenes at 10:00, Senate at 11:00
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation, and the role of the KDHE Secretary in protecting Kansans’ health and environment
Bills/ Legislative Action:
- House leadership is on record in the newspapers as promising to call for the veto override vote today, probably on SB 148, the second Holcomb bill, which originally received 83 votes in the House. 84 are needed for a veto override. - A new trailer bill on the Sunflower issue -Senate Substitute for House Bill 2802- was passed in the Senate last night. Here is the summary, here is what was passed out to the Senate, but it was amended after that. You will note the draft quality of the legislation. - If you have only recently come to this issue, check out CEP’s FAQ’s on the Kansas Coal Controversy. - If you would like to contact your legislators, here’s the House roster and Senate roster. For how the House members voted the last time coal legislation came to the floor, please check here. Here are also some tips for how to effectively communicate with legislators. - Please hit your refresh button during the day to check for updates. - 99.9% of this entry is hidden below the surface - be sure to hit the “read the rest of this entry” link to see the full, er, glory
Summary/ Action: 9:17 pm - THE VETO IS SUSTAINED, 80-45. The trailer that was passed is dead. SPECIAL NOTE: The House Leadership is now apparently planning to “reconsider” the veto vote tomorrow. This means they will do it - all over again. Probably in the morning.
************************
Back again? Yep, yep. Here we are. Eventful day yesterday, and I feel sure we don’t even know a fraction of it. It does appear that a number of votes - on both sides of the coal controversy - possibly went a leetle bit haywire.
Was it all talk? Will anyone really walk? Guess we’ll find out later today. No idea if the deck of cards really has been reshuffled significantly or not.
Rumors aside, this is a fantastic time to contact your legislator (yet again). The response has been incredible, folks - and all those people who came to the Capitol yesterday, for Pack the Capitol - your spirit still remains strong within these walls today.
Pretty cool.
So, right now - take a break (after contacting your legislator to offer positive support and or constructive comments. I bet some of you now feel like you are in a relationship with this person!). Sip some coffee. Check back in later.
FYI - Tomorrow the KU men’s basketball national championship team is coming to the Capitol!!!!!!!!!!!!! They will meet with the Governor and be recognized by both House and Senate. I believe the KU football team, winners of the Orange Bowl, will be coming as well.
************************
10:00 a.m. We are waiting in the House. The parties are caucusing right now, which means that the Chamber is still pretty empty of Representatives. Lots of other folks, though - a large tour group of families from a Mennonite community just left, and energy lobbyists are filtering in. One or two other lobbyists. The pages are on the floor. I am always cheered by how kindly everyone treats these young kids. One young man - maybe about age 13 - is wearing a three piece suit! He looks great. Gavel crack. Here we go. Prayer said, pledge said. Chamber still pretty empty of reps. We wait. This gives everyone even more time to gossip. And count noses. For how few people are actually on the floor right now, the overall buzz in the Chambers is pretty loud. In particular, among the representatives missing are the Democrats on the House Energy and Utilities Committee. Read the rest of this entry »
Live Blogging: We’re baaaaaaaaaaaack…
April 30, 2008
Location: Kansas Capitol, Topeka KS - mainly the House Chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation, and the role of the KDHE Secretary in protecting Kansans’ health and environment
Bills/ Legislative Action:
- At 9:00 a.m. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is scheduled to make an official response to Sunflower Electric’s proposed compromise of 1200 MW. Press only is allowed into the room. CEP is not press. We will just stand outside and listen really, really hard.
- At 10:00 a.m., the legislature convenes. We await a possible veto override vote on SB 327, the first Holcomb bill.
- Also in play is SB 148, which awaits veto override attempts by both House and Senate.
- A new trailer bill on the Sunflower issue has been introduced into the Senate - we only have a summary available so far. NUmber - Senate Substitute for House Bill 2802.
- Today is also Pack The Capitol - when Kansas citizens can come show support for the Governor’s veto, as well as for clean energy in Kansas.
- If you have only recently come to this issue, check out CEP’s FAQ’s on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
- If you would like to contact your legislators, here’s the House roster and Senate roster. For how the House members voted the last time coal legislation came to the floor, please check here.
- Please hit your refresh button during the day to check for updates.
- 99.9% of this entry is hidden below the surface - be sure to hit the “read the rest of this entry” link to see the full, er, glory
Summary/ Action: (To be filled in later) SB 148 has been overridden in the Senate. A new trailer bill has been introduced in the Senate. The House adjourned with no action on any energy bill. The Senate has passed a new trailer bill for the coal plants - Sen Sub for HB 2802.
************************
Hi all. Welcome back. We had a break that didn’t feel much like a break, and now - here we are again. Yay. Today the Kansas legislature begins its wrap-up session (also known as the veto session). CEP’s plan is same as usual - hang out at the Capitol, wait for something energy-related to happen in the Kansas policy debate, then write it up and post it on the internet.
Mind you, there’s lot going on besides the coal issue. Budget, abortion, health care, immigration, etc. For the coal-focused, there will probably be long spells of ho-hum. I apologize for that in advance.
How long will all this last? In a surprise move, opinions radically differ. Supposedly, the wrap-up session is scheduled for four days. However, some glumly expect to be held here until sine die on May 29 - the day the final gavel falls and the legislature closes its 2008 session.
Other factors that might influence the length of the wrap-up session - this is an election year. This fall, all 165 seats in the House and Senate will be up for re-election. The filing deadline is June 10. The longer legislators spend in Topeka arguing about coal, the less time they have to plan campaigns. President Bush is soon scheduled to visit Greensburg, which was leveled by a tornado almost one year ago.
Last, House Speaker Melvin Neufeld has in the past shown himself to be a conscientious steward of taxpayer dollars. It is unlikely that he wants to spend the funds to hold legislators in Topeka for too long.
What in the world is going to happen? From the insane volume of totally contradictory rumors flying around, and the many bright shiny bluffing smiles that are pasted over clenched teeth, my guess would be that no one really knows for sure.
“Right now, this is the best spectator sport in Kansas,” one wise soul told me. “So everybody’s talking. Everyone wants to get on the record for making the right prediction, too, so they’re all saying a lot of broad and totally opposite things.”
And then there’s the people whose “oh dear” button is just flat broke, because it’s been pressed too many times over the past months. They’ve got the votes! Oh dear. We don’t have the votes! Oh dear.
When that button breaks, the result is a lot of people - on all sides of the debate - who have pretty much had it with drama. I just watched this happen - one person just scurried up to another, told them something fairly high-voltage (if true) - and that person merely said, “Yeah?”
We’ll all find out at about the same time, I suppose.
***************************
Governor Sebelius has rejected Sunflower Electric’s proposed compromise. She did so before a standing room only crowd of legislators, lobbyists, and press, while members of the public thronged the hallways outside her office. Read the rest of this entry »
As folks no doubt know, the Kansas legislature reconvenes tomorrow, Wednesday, April 30, at 10:00 a.m.
Kansas citizens are invited to Pack The Capitol, also convening at 10:00 a.m., in order to show support for the Governor’s vetoes of the coal bills, and for clean energy. PBS Frontline will be covering the event for a documentary.
The legislators have a lot to wade through during the wrap-up session - abortion, the budget (which still has to address home services for aging populations), immigration, health care, housing and water conservation.
CEP will be live blogging the wrap-up session, which means we will watch all these issues play out. Our focus, though - like much of the nation - will be on the fate of the coal bills. (For more info, see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy).
Both SB 327 and SB 148 have been vetoed by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. The Kansas Senate has overridden SB 327, and we await an override attempt in the House. SB 148 awaits a veto override attempt by both chambers. The Senate will doubtless get the votes. In both cases, the House is the question mark.
The two bills are essentially the same in the major respects - they would both allow Sunflower Electric’s 1,400 MW coal-fired plants to be built in Holcomb, Kansas, by means of removing the KDHE Secretary’s authority to regulate the health and environment of Kansas.
While hard to imagine - the provision against the KDHE means that this issue is actually much larger than 1,400 MW of coal power. If the legislation passes, Kansas would be left wide open, without protection against future coal development.
So. Big issues. Lots at stake. And the good news is - many thoughtful people in the state are asking excellent questions.
- Do these bills represent a prudent approach to carbon dioxide emissions generated from fossil fuels? Is 1,400 MW and eleven million tons of CO2 emissions reasonable, or excessive?
- In this uncertain economic and regulatory climate, is now the right time to be constructing such large sources of new coal generation?
- When we already gain 70% of our electricity from coal, does increasing coal power help move us toward a renewable energy economy?
- Has the intense legislative battle over coal allowed all Kansans to participate in an open-minded, productive conversation on long-term energy policy, leading to substantive green initiatives that will shape the future of this state?
- How do the “green” policies in these bills measure up to the renewable initiatives of our neighbors - Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri?
- And most important, does the scale of these coal power proposals match up with the words that Kansans hold dear? Like - Reasonable. Balance. Prudence. Common sense.
These questions come from editorials and letters to the editor from all across the state - KC Star, Hutch News, Wichita Eagle, and others.
From the Hutch News, on Sunflower Electric offer of a compromise last week:
Give Sunflower credit for bending a little from what previously had been a decidedly rigid position. Still, it isn’t enough. It remains a long way from Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ proposal to scale back the coal generation to a total of 660 megawatts - still plenty more than needed to satisfy the state’s demands - along with 132 megawatts of wind energy. That is a plan with balance.
Sunflower now is willing to commit to develop its renewable energy to 20 percent by 2016, but that’s 20 percent of its peak power requirement, and it is still not an immediate, and serious, commitment to wind energy. And this compromise remains part of legislation that would strip authority over air quality permits from the state’s top regulator. Such legislation also would remove Sunflower from rate regulation by the Kansas Corporation Commission.
No matter the size of the plants and the emissions, that is bad legislation… Legislators should leave the Sunflower matter alone and concentrate on the bigger picture, which is comprehensive energy policy that charts a sensible - and balanced - approach for the whole state.
Perhaps later today or sometime tomorrow, we will hear the Governor’s response to Sunflower Electric’s offer. Later this week (and maybe even next week - and the next - oh gosh) we will wait to see if the Governor’s vetoes are sustained or overridden.
And after that - we’ll all still be here. Energy issues are going to be on the table for Kansas, for a long time to come. Long after this chapter of this particular controversy draws to an end.
That said, see you tomorrow.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Update: Kansas and coal - the rhetoric spikes
April 23, 2008
Sparks are flying in the wake of Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson’s comments at an Earth Day event yesterday. He spoke in regards to upcoming legislative wrap-up, or veto session, where legislators will consider veto overrides on two bills that would allow Sunflower Electric to build its proposed 1400 MW coal plant in Holcomb.
The plants are the largest complex currently proposed in the United States, and would emit more than 11 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Only 15% of the power would stay in Kansas, the rest would be sold to Colorado. The air pollution, water use issues, and CO2 emissions liable under future cap and trade scenarios would all still belong to Kansas. (Also see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas coal controversy).
Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed both Holcomb bills. Speaker of the House Melvin Neufeld, however, has promised for months that the House will deliver the plants to Sunflower Electric and its backer, Tri-State Generation, which would own 1200 MW of the project. However, the House couldn’t manage to do this during the regular session.
So, when Lt. Governor Parkinson made the following statements (by Sarah Kessinger, in the Hutch News):
“If Sunflower is out there telling people that all they need to do is get this veto overridden and the plants will be built, and if they believe that, they’re sadly mistaken,” Parkinson said.
He vowed the administration would continue fighting a permit for the plants near Holcomb, even if legislators override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes of bills on the issue.
“There are multiple options, and we’re looking at them all. But I don’t want to comment on anything. We haven’t committed to any of them,” Parkinson said, adding that “legal action is inevitable” from environmental groups.
Speaker Neufeld then released his own statement:
“Any agreement we reach would represent months of substantial bi-partisan consensus building. To ignore that work for the satisfaction of a fraction of Kansans and a politically calculated governor would be pretty regrettable,” he said.
“Eighty-three representatives and 32 senators serving all 105 Kansas counties voted to allow the expansion. The majority of Kansans and their representatives made it clear the time for political grandstanding by the governor is over.”
Quick fact check - if you count the noses of legislators who supported the proposals, then yes, you do have a majority of elected officials. However, plenty of evidence demonstrates that constituents across the state are way ahead of their legislators regarding the excessive burning of fossil fuels.
Polls show that Governor Sebelius, who has taken a very strong position against the plants, is more popular among voters than ever. These continued results support the findings of an independent statewide poll commissioned by CEP and released in January, which showed that a majority of Kansans agreed with the decision to deny air permits for the plants, with overall support rising to fully 70% in the Johnson County region. In western Kansas – the proposed location of the plants – only two in five citizens oppose the decision while 51% favor it.
At the time of the poll’s release, supporters of the plants dismissed the results as biased. The wording of the polling questions is (as it always has been) available for download. If you have any doubts at all whether the questions were phrased in a leading manner, you may read them and decide for yourself.
Back to the Hutch News story. Supporters of the plants also denied that the possibility of federal carbon regulation was a reason to delay the plants’ construction. According to Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller:
Miller said the company doubts that will happen and that the country’s “been going to pass a carbon tax for years.”
“When people understand the cost of something like that, they realize people can’t afford it,” he said. “If you are worried about global climate change and you think Kansas can make a difference, that’d be a policy you could advocate, but that’s not a policy we support.”
The comments contradict those of a Wall Street investment banker, who testified to Kansas legislators last month that energy rates would double or perhaps triple in the next decade. The Morgan Stanley official attributed rising costs to Washington’s expected cap on carbon emissions in response to climate change and to growing consumer demand for power and replacement of aging power plant and transmission infrastructure. An official with Edison Electric Institute, the national association of shareholder-owned power companies, gave similar testimony.
But legislative leaders, who represent parts of western Kansas, stick with Sunflower’s contention that rates will remain lower by building the plants.
“Lost in the governor’s rhetoric is the real fact my part of the state faces much higher energy costs and a future energy shortage,” said House Speaker Melvin Neufeld in a statement e-mailed to reporters.
But the Kansas Corporation Commission’s latest rate map shows the highest rates for Kansans are in rural central and eastern Kansas. Southwest Kansas enjoys some of the lowest rates as well as some rates in the mid-range, according to the map based on 2006 data.
Not to gripe - but those same maps showed my little tiny northeastern KS rural electric co-op as having some of the highest rates in the state. Along with a good chunk of southeastern and south central Kansas… wait, I’ll just post the map again. Hang on.
This map comes via the Kansas Corporation Commission. It represents EIA (Energy Information Administration) data current as of January 2006. The highest rates in the state are in red.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Earth Day meets coal in Kansas
April 22, 2008
Focus on carbon regulation increases Kansans’ awareness of Earth Day. As reported by Sarah Kessinger, when the Supreme Court decided that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, that pretty much rocked Kansas’s world (Hutchison News).
The decision was in regards to emissions from transportation sources, but it seemed pretty logical that regulation of all CO2 would soon follow (what - the EPA is going to regulate CO2 from the transportation sector but not from electrical generation? That doesn’t seem rational). Quotable from Sarah:
The high court’s majority view of CO2 led state regulator Rod Bremby several months later to nix a permit for Sunflower Electric Power Corp, which sought to build the plants with two other utilities, Colorado-based Tri-State Electric Generation and Transmission Association and Texas-based Golden Spread Electric Cooperative.
As grueling as the ongoing legislative session has been, Stephanie Cole of Sierra Club noted one good effect - the controversy has definitely raised enormous awareness of the issues, offering Kansas environmental groups opportunities to reach new audiences.
“People are researching, asking questions, getting educated,” Cole said. “We’re seeing new faces. It used to be a pretty tight-knit group interested in these things. But not so much any more. The attention this has gotten has people asking, ‘What about climate change and what can we do to respond to it?’ ”
OK, I’ll see your veto override (if it happens) and then raise you something you REALLY won’t like. Speaking at a local Earth Day event -the source did not specify where - Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson had a few major points for legislators who support the two Holcomb bills to be considered for veto override in the legislative wrap-up session next week (49 News).
First - the fight against two proposed coal-fired power plants will continue, even if the legislation achieves an override. Sebelius’s administration will continue to take action against the plants. “Legal action is inevitable.” Oh boy.
Second - the rising costs of plant construction make it likely that the plants won’t be built anyway.
Third - if you are voting for these plants, don’t even TRY to say you are an environmentalist. No way. “You cannot say that you are an environmentalist, that you support the environment, that you are part of the green movement, and vote for coal-fired plants that are not needed for this state.”
Speaking of inevitable litigation… Are you a legal dork? If/ when the Kansas coal drama moves to the courtroom, will you find yourself enraptured with the incredibly fascinating issues wrapped up state carbon regulation?
If so, I suggest you prepare yourself by reading a pretty neato blog, Global Warming Law. I like it.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: lobbying $$$ over coal, and revolutionary new CO2 mapping technique (with cool video clip)
April 16, 2008
Your daily fix of coal and Kansas. First - whoa baby. Lobbying in KS over the Sunflower power plants has gone a little bonkers. Most sources report the total number to be over $789,000 (Wichita Eagle). Harris News also offers a more specific look at the costs. Keep in mind, though - in Kansas, you don’t have to report a lot of lobbying expenses. Ie, you don’t have to report the salaries paid to lobbyists. If those numbers were added in, we’d probably be looking at well - well - over a million dollars.
Second. The second Holcomb bill, SB 148, reached the Governor’s desk. She is expected to veto it just as she did the first Holcomb bill, SB 327. (For info on those bills’ content, see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy.)
Third, Kansas tries to figure out how to prepare for cap-and-trade (LJWorld).
Revolutionary carbon dioxide mapping techniques. HOW COOL IS THIS. Researchers from Purdue University have developed Vulcan, a revolutionary mapping technique whose purpose is to quantify North American fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It can track these emissions on the scale of individual factories, power plants, roadways, and neighborhoods, and can quantify them in terms of fuel type, economic sub-sector, and county-state identification.
How exactly will this technology matter to Kansas? Probably in lots of ways, but right off the top of my head - it can be used to help in greenhouse gas inventories, cap and trade scenarios, etc. It can also provide outside verification of the fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions that various industries report, under carbon regulation.
In some discussions you hear in the state, there seems to be a misperception that carbon dioxide can’t be tracked. In fact, emissions of fossil fuel carbon dioxide - such as that released from power plants and transportation sources - can indeed be tracked.
Watch the following short YouTube video. Don’t expect to understand all the details, and don’t worry - the gist will be pretty clear. The CO2 patterns over Kansas show up very clearly in most of the maps.
Pretty interesting, eh?
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: All Kansas energy news today, folks. Regulating greenhouse gases, coal, etc.
April 11, 2008
Kansas Energy Council mixes it up. OK, so greenhouse gas regulation is coming, including regulation of carbon dioxide. Should Kansas sit and wait for feds to act? Should it act itself? Should it get prepared, regardless?
The Kansas Energy Council addressed these issues on Monday (TCJournal). Those who attended the meetings (including CEP Executive Director Nancy Jackson) offered observations on the choices before the KEC.
Liz Brosius, executive director of the Kansas Energy Council, said all options for reducing the state’s carbon footprint would be costly.
“Tackling global warming will be expensive,” she said. “There’s going to be a lot of resistance as we begin to make things more expensive. Political considerations loom large.”
Nancy Jackson, executive director of the Climate and Energy Project at the Land Institute in Salina, said the type of face-to-face discussion about greenhouse emissions that occurred Wednesday among energy council members representing environmental groups; state government; and the refinery, trucking, housing and utility industries would help set the foundation for implementation of a national system.
“If you’re not at the table for the discussion,” she said, “you’re on the menu later.”
Jackson said Kansas was positioned to be a big winner in a rapidly changing energy economy. The state has massive underground formations where carbon could be stored rather than released to the air, she said. Greenhouse gases pumped below the surface could improve oil recovery in some areas, she said.
In addition, the state has solid potential for power production from wind and solar facilities and through burning biomass from crop residue or prairie grasses.
“We’re stuck in the ‘we’re going to lose’ mentality,” Jackson said. “Kansas should be a net winner.”
Pressure to change vote on coal plants. As reported in the Wichita Eagle by Randy Schofield, Wichita legislator and Republican Dale Swenson is feeling the heat to change his “no” vote on the Holcomb plants.
When you read the story, you begin get an idea of how intense this pressure is. More or less, Swenson’s position on the plants is, as Schofield describes it: “He’s not dead set against a new coal plant, but he’s not convinced, either, that Holcomb is the right project.” It’s a very even-handed look at the pros and cons
Reminder from CEP: Support your legislators for their votes that you like, as well as the ones you don’t. These people work under great pressure - regardless of your views on this particular issue, please do TELL THEM THANK YOU.
For how legislators voted on the most recent Holcomb vote, and for how to contact them, please check here.
KDHE Secretary Bremby speaks on his decision to deny the coal plant permits. In particular, he discusses the importance of the recent Supreme Court decision that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant (AP/ Joplin Globe). (It appears that they will probably not take concrete action to do so under this administration.) Quotable:
But Bremby said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was crucial because the state’s air-quality laws are tied to the federal Clean Air Act. Deciding that CO2 wasn’t a factor would have created “a complete disconnect.”
Bremby decided in October to deny an air-quality permit to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. for the two plants.
“I think it was a typical permitting decision until the Supreme Court decision suggested that CO2 needed to be considered as a pollutant,” Bremby said. “The science was really insufficient for the decision. It was the science coupled with the interpretation of federal law by the Supreme Court.”
The court decision in question was about carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Critics charge that it doesn’t apply to carbon dioxide emissions from other sources. Supporters say a pollutant is a pollutant - ie, mercury is regulated across all industries - and that this court decision will be used as a sanction for future carbon dioxide regulation from all sorts of industrial and transportation sources.
Regardless, this point will lead to further litigation. Bremby spoke to this as well:
“We anticipated litigation, regardless of the decision, and so we wanted to make sure that we factored in everything possible,” Bremby said. “We had to factor that (the Supreme Court decision) in.”
Bremby said while the Department of Health and Environment staff who handle air-quality permit continued its work on Sunflower’s application, another team reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court decision and whether it applied.
“As you might imagine, we had mixed views internally,” he said. “Pro or con, we knew that there would be litigation.”
Bremby also noted that for all the authority granted to him under Kansas law, the attorney general’s office told him he couldn’t do one thing — push back the Dec. 1 deadline for ruling on Sunflower’s permit application to consider more information.
“The portion of this that I have the most difficult time reconciling — and I think this is the matter that will ultimately be determined in the courts — is the timing,” he said. “Unfortunately, there’s a Supreme Court decision, there’s the science that’s moving; we have a permit that we can’t stop.”
He added: “Not withstanding all that, I felt it was the right decision at the right time for the right reasons.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org