Legislative Update: Second Holcomb bill (SB148) reborn as Sen Sub for HB 2919, will be considered today.
April 2, 2008
Short version (long version later - it’s a tale to tell) - Right after the Senate Majority leader raked the Senate over the coals for considering new bills so late in the session, and abusing the veto session to get business done that they should have handled earlier, the Senate Committee on Energy and Utilities considered new business - the second Holcomb bill.
To be fair, the House has put the Senate in this position, by not taking care of business. This bill was SB 148, remember. The House passed it after the veto of the first Holcomb bill, SB 327, but it has languished in House General Orders ever since. Evidently the House has not had the support to consider it on the floor. Criticism of the bill was that its green provisions were pretty pale, if even barely tinged with lime.
So the Senate stepped in. This morning - in an entirely legal but still procedurally squirrelly interlude - they approved ANOTHER new Holcomb bill with three major differences from SB 148: (1) they removed the CO2 provisions but left in NOX and SOX, (2) they removed the interruptible portion of the wind tariff, and (3) and a slightly odd effort to help out municipal utilities with their transmission issues (but the munis have to pay all the costs of the necessary studies, which are not inconsiderable).
The Senate then dumped this amended SB 148 into Sen Sub for HB 2919 - a gut and go. It will probably be considered on the Senate floor when they return at 2:00. EDIT: Make that 2:30. If the Senate passes it, then it goes to conference committee with the House. If they concur and vote yes in final action, then it goes to the Governor.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Location: House chambers, final action vote
Issue: Major KS utilities and a creative, interesting version of a carbon tax
Bill No.: SB 471, as amended last night by the House Committee of the Whole and passed 78-42
Summary/ Action: Measure failed on final action vote, 51 yea, 74 nay. Measure is lost. (Which means the people who would have benefited under the original measure, which offered tax credits for adoption and live organ donation, are just out of luck, because a large corporation decided to highjack their measure.)
******************
Before launching in to the record, CEP would like to note: This carbon tax is a fake carbon tax, in that it does not actually reduce CO2 emissions. Reducing emissions is the entire POINT of carbon regulation. This measure will make electricity more expensive, without making it more green.
It will also drastically affect ratepayers in northeastern Kansas, while subsidizing electricity generation in western Kansas.
Background
Last night on the House floor Representative Clay Aurand, a supporter of Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW coal-fired plants expansion in Holcomb, succeeded in amending SB 471 to include the first carbon tax in the nation.
SB 471 was formerly a pretty innocent little bill dealing with giving individuals tax credits for adoptions and live organ donation. Aurand’s amendment establishes a $37 per ton of CO2 excise tax levied on coal plant operators of 350 MW or more who emit over 110% over the state average of carbon dioxide emissions, as measured on a per MW hour basis.
The proceeds from this excise tax will be offered as a tax credit for those plants who emit less. Only one plant seems to qualify under these regulations, and that is Sunflower Electric. Ironically, the measure also specifically authorizes the Secretary of KDHE to regulate CO2 emissions. Likewise, its very existence admits that the Kansas legislature, as well as the executive branch, considers carbon dioxide emissions problematic.
This amendment primarily affects BPU, the electric provider for Wyandotte County - and also home to a legislative delegation that has proved extremely stubborn. Resisting all sorts of pressure, WyCo legislators have refused to switch their votes to help Sunflower supporters override the Governor’s veto of SB 327, the first Holcomb bill. The amendment also has implications for investor-owned utilities Westar and KCPL.
These three entities are affected because they have some of the older and dirtier coal-burning facilities in the state. The gun is aimed at BPU, but the other two are standing much too close to the target for comfort. If this carbon tax is levied on these utilities, the costs will be passed to their ratepayers. There are mitigation provisions in the amendment, but they are so vague I couldn’t make any sense of them.
Does the amendment to SB 471 have merit? In general, a carbon tax is a good thing, if it (1) actually reduces carbon dioxide emissions, and (2) is phased in gradually, in a revenue-neutral manner.
Carbon regulation - be it carbon tax, or cap and trade - will indeed increase the costs of electricity, which is problematic even for middle-income folks, let alone those on fixed or otherwise limited incomes. Revenue-neutral means to increase these prices gradually - and also, return some of the proceeds of the carbon tax to those most directly affected. According to the policy experts at the Carbon Tax Center:
Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the American people, with some small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users.
However, when you return the revenues of a carbon tax to just one utility - um. That’s not very fair. This is not really a carbon tax, as much as it is a money grab by a special interests group, at the expense of ratepayers not within their own service territory.
For media coverage of the proposed tax so far, see the TCJournal and the Salina Journal. EDIT: ha! And Kansas has already popped up on the Carbon Tax Center radar - see their blog entry. Quotable:
Major flaws in the the tax passed by the Kansas House include: its application to only one plant; its excessive initial level that does not provide consumers with time to adjust; and its failure to provide an upwards trajectory that would provide an appropriate price signal to energy consumers. Its use of revenues to provide an incentive to cleaner plants to reduce emissions further makes no sense. A carbon tax imposed on all emissions in the state would provide a far better incentive for all energy consumers in the state to reduce emissions; both relatively clean and relatively dirty generators would benefit by reducing emissions. There’s no need to waste the revenues on credits. Instead, the revenues should be returned to to the people who live in Kansas through offsetting tax reductions or equal rebates.
The Kansas carbon tax may be a yellow brick road to riches for certain generators or lobbyists, but it is not a yellow brick road to reductions in carbon emissions.
What’s the point of all this…? There are of course many theories. The two most likely candidates: (1) This measure is meant to punish Wyandotte County, and to scare Westar and KCPL into pressuring legislators to vote for Sunflower. And (2) This is a really confrontational way for Sunflower to send a message that they are ready to make a deal - if the financing can be worked out.
(And I am sure that if I walked out into the hall, I could hear at least three more.)
For the proceedings as they - proceed (sorry, my brain’s not in gear yet, late night) - please read more. Once things get started around 9:00 a.m.
Location/ Time: House floor, Monday evening
Legislative body: House
Issue: proposed Holcomb coal plants
Bill No.: SB 471
Summary/ Action (will be filled out later): Amendment to add Holcomb issue to SB 471 passed; SB 471 passes . Next steps: Final action on SB 471 will be tomorrow.
I was taking notes by hand when the brouhaha started, so I will type the transcript up later. To summarize what happened: um… I think I just saw a bunch of Kansas legislators vote to implement the first carbon tax in the nation.
Keep in mind, I don’t have my hands on a copy of the amendment. I doubt many legislators do, actually - they all seemed clustered around only a few copies, in clumps up near the front of the room.
The scene: We kind of thought the night was over. We were about to pack up to go. There was only one bill or so left - SB 471, on tax credits for expenses incurred in live organ donation, and adoption (done separately, I have to assume). Then Rep. Aurand brought in an amendment that essentially said the following:
There will be a $37 per ton of CO2 excise tax levied on coal plant operators of 350 MW or more who emit over 110% over the state average of carbon dioxide emissions, measured on a per MW hour basis. The proceeds from this excise tax will be offered as a tax credit for those plants who emit less. There is a price per ton of carbon, but bill supporters swore up and down that this was not a carbon tax, because there were carbon mitigation provisions in the amendment that could offset the emissions from dirty plants. They also swore up and down that even though these credits could be traded, this had nothing to do with cap and trade, because there was no cap.
A pause. To collect myself. That was actually more like a dream sequence. I’m still not sure I really heard “$37 per ton of carbon” Take that with a grain of salt, until I somehow track down the amendment.
The amendment passed by 78-42, roughly the same margin as the original vote on Holcomb I, SB 327, which was vetoed by the governor.
Who does this amendment affect? Essentially, KCPL, Westar, BPU, and Sunflower. KCPL and Westar in particular will be affected, because they have older plants that emit more per MWh. Sunflower has newer plants that emit less per MWh - but if the proposed Holcomb plants will be by far the largest total emitters in the state, if they are built.
If this is green, it is green in an incredibly fuzzy math, tortured kind of way. Note, carbon dioxide emissions are not measured by total volume. You can emit as much carbon dioxide as you want, as long as your plants’ per MWh average from your plants is lower than that of another facility.
Let’s be clear - in particular, KCPL, Westar, and BPU RATEPAYERS will be affected, suddenly and drastically, by the legislature, without any cushioning by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), Citizen Utility Ratepayers Board, etc. Eastern Kansas ratepayers will be paying for western Kansas electric generation.
Is this punishment for KCPL and Westar for not supporting Sunflower’s bid to build the Holcomb plants? Is it a way for Sunflower to finance the costs of meeting the Governor’s compromise of a 660 MW plant? Could be both. And while there are probably ways to work out the money issue, this seems a punitive way to do it.
The provisions do not appear to provide permission to build the Holcomb plants. However, those could conceivably be amended on in conference committee.
I’ll type up my notes on the transcript of the debate tomorrow.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from the House chamber, waiting to see if SB 148 moves onto the floor today.
March 26, 2008
SUMMARY: Nothing happened on Holcomb II, SB 148. The House Minority Leader passed over the bill today, and didn’t put it on the schedule for tomorrow. The absence of a floor debate is very, very interesting. CEP has heard rumors that the bill is stalling out. John Hanna’s article seems to confirm this, as well as other rumors about vote trading (Hays Daily News).
Also, HCR 5038 - the former baseload bill, HB 2949, which was turned into a resolution - was taken out of General Orders as well.
*****************************
11:00 a.m.
Don’t get too excited! On the House calendar, there are sixteen bills under General Orders before SB 148, the new Holcomb bill, comes up for debate on the floor. The House goes into session at 11:00.
They could get to SB 148. Or they might not. The House sergeant-at-arms seemed to think that the session could last until seven or eight tonight, with a possible recess in the middle.
Unofficially, I think I know. This is a perfect example of the Meatloaf Rule in action. Tonight, my husband was going to make meatloaf. He makes great meatloaf. (It’s my recipe and he does it better than me and I’m cool with that.) But whenever there is a House vote I am interested in, and it is a meatloaf night -
- I am late for meatloaf.
Stand by. We await the opening gavel. CRACK. I won’t blog the whole thing, I’ll just lurk and wait.
Exception. Something posted for my husband, a former Marine: Honey, Marine Sergeant Birnbaum just got honored for saving the life of Sergeant Daniel Gilyeat, the Kansas City Marine and father whose leg was blown off in Iraq (Leatherneck.com). ABC Extreme Makeover also redid Gilyeat’s family’s home last fall.
The Chamber gave Birnbaum a standing ovation for a very long time.
More of note. Rep. McLaughlan, as a veteran and Kansan, speaks on behalf of passing HSub226 - the act on funerals, stating that Kansans have a right to grieve in private at funerals, and not be harassed by hate groups - as has been happening across the nation as the Kansas-based Phelps family protests at military funerals, claiming that the war in Iraq is… well, why give that claim air time.
Bill passes unanimously.
They got thru HB 2920. We are recessed until 2:30.
Background: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed SB 327 last Friday (aka, Holcomb I) and also issued Executive Order 08-03. That bill is awaiting a veto override attempt. It is veto-proof in the Senate but apparently not in the House.
Thus, over Easter weekend the original supporters of SB 327 put together a second vehicle for the legislation (which that would allow Sunflower Electric to build two coal-fired electric generation plants whose carbon dioxide emissions would come to eleven million tons per year).
This morning in the House Committee on Energy and Utilities, a Senate bill was gutted - House Substitute for SB 148 (hereafter SB 148 or Holcomb II, because I refuse to type all that every single time) - and the vetoed bill SB 327 was thrown back into the SB 148 vehicle. Again, the bill was passed with no hearings, no presentations by experts, and it passed out of committee with minimal discussion.
There are four major new provisions - (1) nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide emissions limits for the Sunflower plants, (2) a retail wind tariff that would subject purchasers of wind power to the status of interruptible power users, (3) energy efficiency, and (4) requiring utilities (except for munis) to create voluntary programs for businesses to carry out greenhouse gas emissions inventories. I’ll discuss these provisions further below.
The apparent reasoning for resubmitting a vetoed bill with these particular changes: My assumption is that these provisions are to try and make it more palatable. Some of the criticisms of SB 327 were that its green provisions were not in fact green.
To define green a little better in this context, green would at least have to mean a fair, balanced, comprehensive, and long-term energy policy for the state of Kansas as a whole, one that also prepares us to face - even take advantage of - a carbon regulated world, where greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly.
Following this reasoning, these new provisions should probably try to approach this standard.
Let’s see how they do.
Legislative Updates: Nope, you didn’t just imagine that
March 24, 2008
Yep! A thirty-seven page bill - Holcomb II, why don’t we call it, aka House Substitute for Senate Bill 148 - just passed the House Energy and Utilities Committee with a minimum of discussion, no testimony, no presentations by experts, and with far-reaching consequences for any hope of a comprehensive, long-term Kansas energy policy. It passed the Committee by a 10-7 vote, with one member who left the room at a crucial moment. CEP covered the committee meeting (note, not a hearing) this morning. No, it is not our policy to name names in (non)voting situations.
The bill is not online yet - this is another gut-and-go (I’m starting to feel so cool, using legislative slang like I actually know what it means). SB 148 is a bill that at one time in its life, made it past the Senate Committee and chamber, but never made it out of the House Committee. So it has been hanging around, waiting for a new life…
… and it got this one! Since it passed Committee, it will have to be read into the House record before the House can take action. If the House passes the bill, the Senate doesn’t have to mess with it, it will just go straight to conference committee. Then back to House and Senate floors for final votes to send to the Governor (but no amendments are possible at that juncture).
And now here is a break in the action - MH is going to take some time, sit down with the new bill, let it sink in, and post more later. If you’d like to read that statement to mean I am also going to pick the brains of much smarter people than I - please feel free.
Look for a more “content-rich” post later in the day. Right now, I have 37 pages of fun.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Don’t get too excited. It’s Monday a.m., I am dreadfully short on brain juice, and may have no idea what I am talking about. Easter really takes it out of me.
But if I’m not too out of it, I did hear scuttlebutt (isn’t that a great word?) saying that this was the time and the place for the Holcomb bill to be introduced.
If not, we’ll just fake our way thru it, right? And I’ll catch up with the bill, wherever it is, later today. Anyway, this Committee never lacks for interesting material. Speaking of the Committee, we await their presence. Hit refresh on your browser to check back in when need be. Kick-off is at 9:00 a.m. (I think).
Members include: Representatives Johnson, Flora, Mast, Sloan, Long, Moxley, Faust-Goudeau, Swanson, Proehl, Keuther (Ranking Minority), Holmes (Chair), Olson (Vice Chair), Svaty, McLachlan, Fund, Knox, Hawk, Light, Neighbor, Morrison, and Myers.
Lots of people here. Lots of chat. Like a cocktail party with no drinks. Not even coffee. Same room circulation patterns, though, you know how it works. It always amazes me that these folks are up, dressed very nicely and everything matches, and functional enough to politic - all at this hour of the morning. At any hour really. I stand in awe. I can look halfway decent and type, but that’s about it.
Chairman Holmes has entered the room.
But… we are still waiting. Oh well. There is always a reason, even if I never know what that reason is. They do have a quorum.
Here we go.
News Update: New Holcomb/ energy bill?
March 21, 2008
This has been rumored, and the Hutch News asks the question straight out - is a new Holcomb bill in the wings?
Looks like there could be. SB 327, the original measure allowing Sunflower Electric to build its proposed 1400 MW coal-fired plant, is on the Governor’s desk and will probably be vetoed by the end of today. Apparently, supporters of the bill will try to wait until the last minute to go for an override, which probably means that it lacks the votes to make the override successful.
What new coal bill could possibly pass this legislature in a veto-proof fashion…? That is an excellent question. I am sitting here trying to figure that out myself. Just like SB 327 (and its companion HB 2066) its provisions are being drafted in secret (which wasn’t a really popular move the first time around), so, who knows. Supposedly, this new measure will be more green.
Hmm. Having sat through all the votes and conference committees, I have to say my impression was that a good chunk of our legislature did consider SB 327 to be green. Even edgily so. They gave it very reluctant support in some cases. However, that same bill struck other folks - quite powerfully - as not green at all, just green-washed, and barely so at that.
This is a pretty significant difference of opinion.
However, it could happen. Although I cannot imagine how in the world they could come up with a bill that offsets the eleven million tons of carbon dioxide that those plants would produce in one year, and also takes into account how those two plants would burden the entire state under a future scenario of carbon regulation, like cap-and-trade. I also don’t see how it can ever be okay to strip the Secretary of KDHE of his power to protect the health and environment of Kansas. I do think it is possible that the drafters could come up with a statewide energy solution, instead of a single bill tailored to one financially challenged company.
The Hutch article mentioned that the recent KDHE/ Westar agreement might be one potential model for a compromise. One significant difference between Westar and Sunflower Electric, though, is that Westar said they weren’t going to build any coal-fired generation in the near future, but rather were going to pursue energy efficiency and wind as a way to reduce and meet load growth until construction of baseload generation was more feasible.
Again, though, anything is possible. What is probable is that this fight will drag on till the last dang ditch. (And that SB 327 could also be hauled back out for an override vote at the last minute.) Quotable from the article:
Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller acknowledged there’s talk of another bill.
“That’s where it is at this point.”
The company won’t walk away if the governor vetoes the initial bill today, he said.
“We’ll be here till this place closes down.”
The thing is, with the Holcomb bill gumming up the works - this place has in effect already closed down. Forget health care reform, forget incentives for renewable energy, forget any other initiative - right now in Kansas, it’s all about coal.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from conference committee on Holcomb bill, Day 3
February 28, 2008
Hi all. Here we all are again! It’s starting to feel like a family. Weirdly.
The room is much less full than it has been. Wait, no! More have found the meeting. Just to review the cast of characters - Senators Emler (R), Apple (R), and Lee (D), and Representatives Holmes (R), Olsen (R), Kuether (R). The topic at issue is of course the Senate and House talking about the Holcomb/ energy bill, and how to resolve their two very different versions.
Emler begins. They are picking up where they left off, talking about the commission and a possible compromise thereof. Now they are passing out papers (I usually leave this part out. But there is a LOT of passing out papers at these things. A lot.)
Holmes responds. Changing some details about appointees and staffing, how to get researchers, support.
Senate side steps out into hall to talk about it. They decide not to accept the part about taking the Chairman off and putting Vice-Chairs on. The Chairmen of Energy and Utilities stay on. They agree to the rest, and leave that undecided for now.
They debate where to go now. Final bill will be 327 (that’s new). Now back on vehicles, energy efficiency provisions. Lee says the criteria are too contingent on price of gas, which might fluctuate and go down (?).
Silence. Anything else on this provision they need to discuss? Paper flutters.
CEP live blogging from House floor, the House incarnation of the Holcomb bill (House Sub for SB 327)
February 18, 2008
Morning! No, I have no idea what will happen in this floor vote today. I’ve heard a range of theories, from a whole lot of nothing will happen (no debate, simple concurrence with the Senate bill voted on last week), to a whole lot of something happening (amendments flying in from every direction).
We shall just quietly sit and record. You can also listen in live here. If anyone has the capacity to capture the live stream in mp3 or other format, please feel free. Also, we (Maril and Eileen) plan on sticking around this afternoon for the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future meeting at 1:30 p.m. I think that 784 Docking might be one of the few committee rooms wired for sound ??? (check under Committees at www.kslegislature.org) so perhaps that meeting can be captured as well.
Finally, for those of you who were thinking that this whole shebang wasn’t crazy enough yet, apparently yet another Holcomb-esque bill, SB 630, was introduced on Friday by the Senate Utilities Committee. It is identical in goal to the other two (one of which is already passed thru the Senate, and the one today is before the House) - just minus those pesky carbon offset sections.
No, I am not making this up. I couldn’t. My imagination pales in comparison to that of whomever is in charge of directing this particular policy initiative. If you really want your brain to boggle, keep in mind that although the original HB 2711 and SB 515 were thrown under other bill numbers in order to expedite their passage through the process- those bills aren’t dead yet. They are still alive, waiting in the wings, and they too could boomerang back at any time.
Hang in there. We will be back around 10:00 a.m., when either the circus or the anticlimax kicks off. It’s really not unlike the horror/ anticipation of preparing for a blind date.
10:00 a.m.
Gallery is packed. Plenty of 4-H. Floor is full. The representatives get to have coffee on the floor, but we don’t get it up in the gallery - but then, no one elected us gallery folk into being here. If you survive a political campaign, you probably deserve to have your coffee on the floor. Just don’t spill.
Eileen shows me a full color 8×12 that was abandoned in the Women’s Restroom, with no logo but with lots of talk about sound energy policy and supporting this bill. In the words of one rep (via forwarded email), House is “overrun with vote yes people putting the pressure on.”
CEP live blogging from the Senate - final vote on H.B. 2066
February 14, 2008
Happy Valentine’s Day.
The final vote on substituted House Bill 2066 (for original Senate bill 515) is today. You can also listen online at http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-legisportal/listen.do.
As I listen to people talk, the issue today seems to be not really whether the bill will pass - it seems to be expected to - but whether it will be passed by a veto-proof margin, which is 27 Senators.
Coming up next week, the House will work its own very different version of the Holcomb/ energy bill on Monday or Tuesday.
2:37 p.m.
President calls the Senate to order. Roll is called. Chaplain prays. Pledge of Allegiance takes place.
Sen. Pine (Douglas County) introduces his pages, mentions one from Eudora. One of his pages, Hannah Cobb? Copt? was the model for the Eudora centennial statue that went up last year - the sculptor was Jim Brothers.
Sen Barnett from Lyons - welcomes his special guests, nursing students from Emporia
Introduction of bills and current resolutions takes place. (MH is going to leave these bill numbers out, okay… as well as a lot of the other miscellanea.)
Motions to concur or non-concur entertained.
Vote on 2066 -
roll call. Some speak out and explain their votes.
Barnett votes aye, explains. Recognizes trade off in energy policy. ststes there is need for cnservation and clean energy. Now is the time to drive debate for a comprehensive state energy policy that does not rely on foregin countries, a previous policy that has resulted in countries that hate our nation. To further debate and discussion of these issues, I vote aye.
Francisco - she votes no on 2066. A great deal of energy has been expended on this legislation without a compormise. This bill allows any number of new coal plants to be built. This bill did not encourage or require mitigations. The CO2 restrictions failed in face of economic development worries. The bill also limits KDhe Sec ability to protect citizens against global warming, but does not take steps to protect them thru legislature. It promotes electrical deregulation. It leaves us with signfiicant carbon footprint, but without way for reduction.
Another no - missed who it was.
Huelskamp votes aye, explains - this is the first step forward down path of energy innovation, energy security, regulatory certainty for entire state and nation
Johnson - voted ??? aye - this is a big issue, big bill, this is forward looking bill. Innovative bioenergy development, lots of economic development, lower energy costs. This helps us on first step forward toward cmprehensive energy policy for Kansas.
Journey - aye. Joins Johnson’s remarks.
Kelly - no, joins Francisco in her remarks.
Lee - aye and joins Johnson.
McGinn - pass
Morris - this bil is first step toward securing Kansas energy security. Holcomb will be one of cleanest burning coal plants in the world. Wind power also viable, so we need transmission lines. Holcomb will help with that. Future of energy industry also requires conservation and other renewables, plus coal. This will also bring back regulatory certainty in Kansas.
Oskemyer - aye - Kansas is sunflower state, and if this passes we will be a lot brighter tomorrow
(BTW, MH is not counting all votes - just the ones where senators explain their vote)
Scholdorf? - no - We have some of the cleanest air in the country, and we must keep it so. We have rushed this legislation thru the senate and we are doing things in the wrong sequence. Senate shoudl develop comprehensive plan for Kansas, and then develop policy accordingly. We are getting ahead of ourselves by prmitting coal plant.
Steineger - no - Humans need coal. But as environmntalist, I have to find cleaner coal methods. I support more efficient use of coal. This bill does not challenge or incent us to do that.
Wysong - no
Getz? from Sedgwick - no - Kansas energy policy neds to be balanced consistent and fair - fair to the people regarding health and environent, and fair to business. This bill does nto do that. I would be more comfortable with aletnerative energy - geothermal, solar, hydro - if we are to honor Kansas Health Foundation peldge to make Kansas best lace to raise child, we ust make Kansas a better place.
McGinn - also Sedgewick - in turmoil over vote - last fall Kansas had started discussion on energy future and independence, looked at renewableenergy. I hope this debate continues. I think there shodl be other ting sin this bill. Lots of education needs to happen - not just of this body or the other chamber - but in understanding energy afforability, efficiency, renewables,and that need to go to the populatio. But becuase of regulatory uncertainty I vote yes on the bill. Better for business. We want to do what is right for environment but we also want to play by the rules so we need regulatory certainty. I hope the energy discussion doesn’t end with this session.
Senator Kelly, from Goodwin - aye
Sen Bradley - aye on 2066 - o those concerned about environment, this bill is a commentary on how green Kansas is or is not. Some are worried about economic development. Some want reliable energy. I voted on economic development and growth. Holcomb provides the growth. We need to set aside the politics and move forward.
Sen… heck. missed it. but it is an aye
Vote tally - ayes - 33. Noes - 7. HB 2066 passes.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from the Senate - floor debate on H.B. 2066
February 13, 2008
Just a Kansan moment before we get started here - you wouldn’t believe how beautiful the Senate chambers are, after the renovation. Worth every penny. The columns especially are really marvelous. I took a few pictures with my phone and will try to remember to upload and post them. Someone please remind me if I forget.
Quick note: I will stay here as long as I can. However, live blogging could run headlong into domestic life. The Senate has lots going on today, and I just hope they get to this bill before I have to leave. I’ll still do what I can to make the democratic process more accessible, before I have to get home for dinner.
(Actually, I believe you can also listen in live at this link: http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-legisportal/listen.do )
2:30 p.m.
Senate is called to order and roll is taken. Chaplain prays (in part, he asked that we could have the patience of Job to get thru this session, hmm), pledge of allegiance declared, special guests introduced. Senator ??? announces birth of his two new granddaughters! numbers 16 and 17. Wow.
Introduction of bills and concurrent resolutions. Read into record.
Messages from the House read into record.
The pages are figuring out where they need to go.
FYI on HB 2066
February 12, 2008
Pretty much verbatim from Jim Mason thru the Kansas Clean Energy Network, the link to HB 2066 is up: http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/2066.pdf
Sec. 1 is the new electric generation, transmission and efficiency study commission, slightly altered from the 2711/515 version.
Secs. 2-17 are the “net metering and easy connect act” -
Sec 18 is the parallel generation amendment.
Secs. 19-22 are the “let’s build Holcomb act”.
Sec. 23 is the amendment addressing REC’s.
Secs. 24-26 are the statutory language cleanup sections related to Secs. 19-22.
This bill could technically be heard on the Senate floor as early as this morning.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Day…6? CEP live blogging from House Energy Committee - HB 2711
February 12, 2008
HB 2711, aka the Holcomb/ energy bill, is back in action in the House this morning. A gutted Senate version moved thru the Senate Utilities Committee yesterday and is now ready for consideration on the Senate floor. We’re starting to go so fast that - I hate to say this, but - it feels a little like the East Coast.
For the House Energy Committee hearing, where representatives plan to “work the bill,” we are over in Docking 783 this morning. This means… outlets! Very important to those of us who work on laptops for extended periods of time. 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. counts as an extended period of time.
With absolutely no disrespect meant to our hallowed legislative process or our worthy legislators, I must confess I am not really looking forward to this morning. It may surprise me and go quickly, and let’s hope it does - but I kind of feel like I am setting out on a road trip with extremely stern parents who will not be amenable to requests for bathroom breaks. (And when it come to asking “are we there yet…?” - forget it.)
Lots of folks here early. All appear ready to rock and roll. One gentleman brought his lunch. Quotable: “The Chairman said to bring a lunch or granola bars, and I don’t eat granola bars.”
And that reminded me to get out my granola bar, so I am thankful.
NOTE: Six hours - if the hearing does go six hours - is a really long time for a transcript. Today may more take the shape of notetaking. Also, the only outlets available in the room make it fairly impossible to see half the legislators.
9:04 a.m. Chairman Holmes calls the meeting to order.
C. Holmes - A few people need to leave early. If our vote is wider than those gone, we move on.
Rep. Judy … - I want to ask you something - if we work thru this, is there any possibility when you get together with the senate that we lose the amendments we work on today?
Rep. Holmes - says he is not going to comment, and can’t speak for the three conference committee members. “It’ll depend on how it all works out.”
Rep. Judy - I am not comfortable with that, but okay.
whither CEP, re the live blogging
February 11, 2008
Just a break here to provide context - because with only one blogger and yet two bills still alive and kicking on the Holcomb/ energy policy issue, I fear our devoted readers could easily lose sight of the bigger picture. As I myself have done at least three times today.
Remember: CEP’s goal in doing the live blogging is to enhance the written record of a historical moment in Kansas energy policy. We want to make it possible for the public to have more access to the discussion and learn about this critical issue. Soon we hope to post a great deal of the written testimony as well.
However, we face some limitations. Sizeable ones, actually. First, your blogger is by no means a legislative guru who understands the Capitol and can guide our readers through the arcane insanities - excuse me, I meant complexities! - of the legislative process. Let’s be honest: there’s been mornings when I have shown up, had no idea where to go, and only by throwing myself upon the mercy of the kind Capitol secretaries have I figured it out. (They are wonderful women.) As the bills wend their way through the increasingly mysterious legislative process, I bet I get even more lost, even more often.
Also, there’s only one of poor little under-qualified me. (Poor poor pitiful me - anyone know that song? Linda Ronstadt version.) And as mentioned, there are two bills. That math ain’t good. House bill 2711 is getting worked tomorrow in committee. The Senate did a gut-and-go on SB 515, which they then dumped into House Bill 2066. That bill was approved by the House already a while back, so it could move very quickly thru the rest of the process in the Senate.
Yeah. How is all this going to work?
Here is about where I can’t tell you anything - which is okay, because I am simply recording for posterity anyway. But the inquiring mind doth wonder: these two bills are clearly racing for a finish line. Is the Senate/ House bill 2066 (and that revised language might soon be up on the kslegisture.org website) now set up to get there first…? Exactly what reconciliation procedure would that entail? Could it get to the Governor first? And if the Governor vetoed it, could HB 2711 come roaring up the stretch? You basically have two parallel bills out there, no longer identical, both being worked, and who knows what will happen.
(EDIT: KC Primebuzz figured out the legislative wrinkle that would allow the Senate to super-fast-track the bill.)
So, we’ll just see. Some days I might end up in the House, some days I might end up in the Senate. If I end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, you have been warned. Read the paper. There are plenty of smart reporters in Kansas and they will stay on top of the actual news part of it. Remember: all I’m doing is recording, while trying to figure out where the heck I need to be tomorrow.
For those of you who enjoyed the blog the way it was before these shenanigans all began - never fear! We will not let that part of CEP slide for long. I have so many cool posts in my bloglines, so many cool research reports piling up on my desk (ie, I’m getting really interested in uranium - did you know that that US imports 50% of its uranium from Russia?), so many wonderful people to interview, really interesting stories to research and write… and we will get back to it all, folks.
No worries.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
status of the Holcomb/ energy bill - I think. Still on the fast lane.
February 11, 2008
OK. What happened this morning? Summary - and it is only accurate as of this minute, 1:52 p.m., because KS legislators apparently are out to make our weather look stable and boring:
The Senate version of the Holcomb/ energy bill was worked in the Utilities committee this morning. The carbon tax provision was stripped. The efficiency and schools section was stripped. The mitigations were stripped. Provision that would accidentally strip KCC of regulatory authority over utilities is taken out. The proposed commission on transmission, etc., is taken out.
Yeah. To quote Senator Pine - “what’s left?” Or to quote someone who emailed me later - “that was a gut and go.”
What is left in the Senate version: (1) authorization to build Holcomb, (2) provisions stripping Sec. Bremby of his authority re clean air, and (3) net metering for solar. No fiscal note has yet been filed on the bill. At the end of the session, Chairman Emler also entered a strong statement on legislative intent into the record regarding Secretary Bremby’s authority - I have that in .pdf if anyone wants me to email it (the CEP server is having fits at the moment and I can’t post docs very easily to the website, sorry).
The bill is now free to be considered on the Senate floor.
Now, back to the House. I don’t think a lot of people realized that the fat lady hadn’t yet sung last week, when the House temporarily tabled consideration of HB 2711 - because, just like in Poltergeist, it’s baaaaaaaaa-ack.
The bill will be back for consideration before the House Energy and Utilities committee tomorrow morning (Tuesday) from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. It is a public meeting, and will be held in Docking Room 783. It sounds like Chairman Holmes would like to start as soon as there are enough people in the room to make that happen, so maybe even earlier than 9:00. Which will mean - coffee.
(Actually, no. It will mean chocolate.)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from Senate Utilities committee
February 11, 2008
As most of our readers know, the Holcomb/ energy bill is no longer being actively worked in the House (as of this moment) (EDIT: and hey! that seems to have changed. More later.). That has led us to the Senate. Last week, the Senate Utilities committee held concurrent hearings on the legislation along with the House, plus an additional meeting on Friday (which CEP did attend). Today on the Senate committee’s agenda, they have the possibility of taking action on previously heard bills.
So… here we are again hang on, folks. Nothing starts until 9:30 a.m., though. For now, we all sit and chat amongst ourselves, while I secretly wonder if it’s too early to have a piece of chocolate.
Verdict: It is not.
Note: I am sitting in the back row, it’s a teeny room, lots of people, standing room only, and I can only see the nameplates of half the committee members. Be prepared for lots of “Sen. ???”
9:30 a.m.
Chairman Emler calls the hearing to order. He wants to delay just a bit, because there are still amendments coming in, and being passed out. Plenty of amendments. Don’t want to go thru everything twice.
Chairman Emler - Sen Francisco, you have questions for Midwest. Please ask them, and we will get started. Senator Pine does as well. We also need to pass minutes later.
Sen. Francisco - are Midwest and Sunflower selling their RECs from wind power production at Montezuma on behalf of ratepayers.
Sunflower - I believe so. RECs are only good for 16-18 months, or they expire.
Midwest - we are no longer part of Montezuma farm.
Sen Fran. - my understanding is that the RECs are worth a lot of money. I asked to clarify. I hope Sen. Lee is paying attn.
Sen. Pyle - when we get into working of bill - there are no written rules. Emler - no. Pine - then we could have roll call vote. Emler - yes. Pyle - then I have an amendment. Francisco, more questions?
Sen Fran. - yes, I wanted committee to know I got costs of offsets. Sunflower helped me work thru equations. Teh offsets for wind would be between $25-$35 per MW hour ???. KCPL though costs of offset would be significantly above $3 per ton of carbon. KCC is asking utilities to look at lowest cost alternative when they est. costs. I know Sen. Pine had questions about algae reactor. He might have gotten questions answered. I have others. What did NREL say about the feasibility?
Sen. Pine - I am looking forward to some of the folks who are involved in bioenergy center speaking and explaining how it works.
Chairman - we have quite a few amendments. If Sunflower can do it in three minutes…
Gov. Sebelius responds to proposed energy bill
January 31, 2008
In sum: She does not support it. For the full text of her remarks, see this release from the Governor’s Office. In addition, Sebelius also announced that she had offered her own compromise deal, which the utilities rejected. I have reprinted that letter in its entirety below. (For a sample of legislators’ reaction to her statement, see Hays Daily News, AP story by John Hanna).
January 31, 2008
Dear Legislative Leaders:
As I expressed to members of the Legislature in my State of the State Address on January 14th we face an unprecedented challenge of finding clean, affordable, and secure sources of energy to meet our growing demand as a state and a nation. Clearly, one of the toughest challenges we have faced in years as state policy makers relates to the issues surrounding Secretary of KDHE Rod Bremby’s denial of Sunflower Electric’s application for permitting of two 700 MW coal-fired power plants in Holcomb.
The proposed plants have been promoted as an opportunity to bring jobs to Western Kansas, to ensure base-load power for Sunflower and Midwest Energy customers for the future, and to reduce rates in Western Kansas, which now exceed electric rates in Eastern Kansas.
The Lt Governor and I have been in discussions with representatives of utility companies, environmental groups, scientists, alternative energy experts, labor and business leaders, health experts, members of the faith communities and legislators over the last several months. As a result of those discussions, we made a proposal to the representatives of Sunflower and Midwest Energy, which has been rejected. But I thought it was important, as this dialogue proceeds, for you to be aware of this compromise offer.
The proposal is based on the following principles: we share the concerns about adequate base-load power for Western Kansas and believe those needs should be addressed so that we can continue our economic development efforts in that part of the state. We recognize that adding additional coal-fired power is likely to lower the high rates currently being paid by some Kansas customers who rely completely on natural gas for electricity.
Finally, our operating principles include a growing concern about carbon and its impact on the environment of our state and the health of our citizens. We believe that any proposal to generate significant amounts of new carbon needs to have an accompanying offset plan, recognizing that we are at least a decade away from clean coal technology.
In the spirit of reaching a true compromise with utility company officials, representatives from my office made the following offer which we would support:
- Build one new plant similar in size to the Sand Sage permit previously approved (660 MW);
- Kansas base load power needs must receive top priority;
- Plant must be able to implement carbon sequestration technology;
- Commitment for 20% wind power (132 MW)
- Commitment for 100 MW of energy efficiency
- Net metering allowed in the Sunflower service area
The framework of this proposal seeks to find a middle ground between all parties concerned and allows for the construction of one power plant that is reasonable and sensible in terms of scope and size. While there has been some discussion that a one permit strategy could not be financed, there are similar projects underway by rural electric cooperatives in other states, including a plant which has recently been approved in Montana.
A project of this size provides the base load power needed in western Kansas so that economic growth can continue, while allowing time for Kansas to engage in a process underway or completed in 36 other states that would allow our state to develop real and meaningful carbon regulations. Once those state regulations have been adopted and implemented, applications for additional power plants could be fully considered.
I would like to invite you as legislative leaders to join me in not only reaching a consensus on the Holcomb issue with the appropriate utility company officials, but committing to a thorough study, based on scientific evidence and input from community and business leaders across Kansas, to develop a comprehensive climate change action plan.
In conclusion, I sincerely believe that by successfully addressing the energy challenges we currently face as policymakers we have an opportunity to make Kansas a national leader on energy policy for the future, while also protecting our environment and growing the economy. I look forward to working with you and the other members of your respective caucuses in the days and weeks ahead on these critically important issues.
Sincerely,
/s/
Kathleen Sebelius
Governor of the State of Kansas
cc: Kansas Legislature
over the weekend… stuff happened.
January 20, 2008
Who distributed the climate change denier Fred Singer’s most recent book to all of the Kansas state legislators? According to Climate Progress, it was House member Larry Powell. If you click thru on that link, Joseph Romm (his assistant Kari Manlove is a Kansan, BTW, yay) also has some interesting comments on the book.
The Hays Daily News took a good look on the energy industry special interest money currently ricocheting around the state. They also spoke to the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy, whose website is run by Sunflower Electric. Quotable:
Bob Kreutzer, a Garden City resident who is campaign chairman of Kansans for Affordable Energy, said he believed his group adequately spread its message, which argues coal power is needed to keep energy affordable.
He said he expected to see his group take on a “perimeter role” in the debate, leaving the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy, recently started by Sunflower, at the forefront.
Yet Brian Moline, the alliance’s chairman, said he doesn’t expect his group to be a large lobbying presence.
The alliance’s list of members also includes the Finney County Board of Commissioners, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, Kansas Farm Bureau and two labor unions, in addition to Sunflower’s member electric cooperatives.
Moline said he expects the group to offer testimony to the Legislature on energy policy, with an emphasis on balancing the development of renewable energy in the state with ensuring the state has “base-generation capacity.”
“I certainly don’t anticipate us spending huge amounts of money or maybe any money at all,” said Moline, a former chairman of the Kansas Corporation Commission. “We will be taking our message to the Legislature, and our intent would be to monitor legislation and see if that fits within our agenda and our program.”
This story also notes that “Lobbying is defined in state statute as promoting or opposing, in any manner, action or non-action by the Legislature on any legislative matter. Groups that spend $100 or more in a year are required to register and file reports with the state.”
Carbon offsets are a fascinating topic, and I have plans to develop more content on that topic in the near future. However, for now just take a look at the Energy Legal Blog, and their discussion of the FTC’s plans for examining some of these offsets more closely. If you are an electricity and transmission junkie, this is a cool blog to watch. If you’re not maybe you shouldn’t.
Also along these lines - ha! (get it? get it?) - the Southwest Power Pool is holding what looks to be a pretty cool summit on January 24 - in Oklahoma City. Quotable:
SPP is working with the OEPTTF on a transmission expansion study for wind development scenarios ranging from 1,000-6,000 megawatts in Oklahoma. The study will be based on the SPP Transmission Expansion Plan (STEP) 2008-2017. Since transmission expansion plans to accommodate wind developments in Oklahoma are affected by assumptions of wind development and transmission projects in Kansas and Texas, SPP’s study will make comparable assumptions for wind development in those states. The goal of the summit is to share with stakeholders the study scope and milestones. The summit is free and open to the public.
Downloaded the agenda - it looks quite neat.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
surfacing from family time
December 28, 2007
It’s been a bit of a holiday week - and for our poor dish, it’s been a bit of a blizzard week (translation: no internet). But, really quickly -
The Superbowl is taking steps to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions (NPR). Nope, this doesn’t mean they are going to quit selling chili dogs. Rather, they are investing in carbon offsets that will reduce their carbon footprint.
And up here in NE KS, the Journal-World recently ran a story on wind power and rural economic development (mostly on the Lincoln County wind farms). Also, the Kansas Corporation Commission approved most of Westar’s request for rate financing re their 300 MW wind development project (also LJW). The first story reported that KS was on track to increase its wind production (currently at 364 MW, I think) to 900 MW in 2008. I don’t know if Westar’s 300 MW is included in that figure or not.
And amongst all the holiday celebrations, I had family contribute some great FAQs for the website. Here are the usable ones (that still need to be edited for language): “Why are solar panels so &$&#! expensive??” and “Is it global warming, or is it climate change, and what the *$^! does the ozone layer have to do with all this, I’m so confused.”
I’ll answer those soon, probably next week and I’m not going to repeat the questions I got asked about Al Gore.
