Les Evans is currently the vice president of power supply for the Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, or KEPCo. KEPCo is a nonprofit generation and transmission (G&T) cooperative. Its membership is made up of nineteen rural electric cooperatives that sell power in predominantly rural areas of eastern and central Kansas. Evans is also a commissioner on KETA, the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority (KETA).
An electrical engineer by training – “I went to K-State! I bleed purple!” – Evans has been in the power utility industry since college. He has a long perspective on how the power industry works.
(For a .pdf copy of this interview, click here)
Photo: Les Evans on his bike outside of the Gray County wind farm
at Montezuma, KS (southwest of Dodge City about 25 miles) - during Bike Across Kansas in 2005
****************************
Nancy Jackson, CEP: Why don’t you start out by telling us a little about yourself, what your background is, and what you have done in the industry over time.
Les Evans (LE): I grew up on a farm in south-central Kansas just north of Wichita – my hometown is Valley Center. I started out with the predecessor to Westar, the old Kansas Gas and Electric Company, KG&E. When I left Westar in 2001 I went to work exclusively in the renewable energy business. Then I had a chance to come back here to my roots and work with KEPCo.
NJ: You’re the vice-president of power supply – could you describe exactly what that means?
LE: It means I have responsibility for providing a reliable and economic power supply for KEPCo’s member cooperatives. Doing that can be a challenge because we don’t own all of our power generation resources. We also buy a significant portion of our power supply through long term purchase power agreements (PPA’s). KEPCo’s nineteen members are all distribution companies that take the power we provide and then provide it to retail customers – or in our case, also our owners.
A rural electric cooperative works differently than an investor-owned utility. We don’t have shareholders versus customers. In a cooperative, they are one and the same.
NJ: What does KEPCo’s power supply mix look like?
LE: It’s very diverse. I like to use an analogy here - different utilities will have different philosophies about how to put a power supply together. It’s just like different people have different preferences, or different risk tolerances, for their own personal investing strategies.
So for power supply, there is no one set of right answers. The power supply mix is also based on your members’ desires, needs, and tolerance for risk. What various aspects do they give significant weight to? So, in the case of KEPCO…
NJ: Sorry to interrupt – but how do you know your members’ tolerance for risk? How do you judge that?
Westar plans to build new transmission lines. Most Kansans know that to develop wind energy - and especially to sell these resources out of state - we need first to build more high-speed transmission lines (364 kV to 765 kV).
Existing grid management technology limits the amount of wind that our state grid can safely handle to about 20%. Kansas can’t hope to absorb all the wind we can potentially produce; other states need to buy it to meet their Renewable Portfolio standards; so we need transmission highways to get this high-value commodity to market.
Many have also heard of the proposed “V” line. This is the name for the SPP-approved transmission plan, where two lines would originate out of Spearville, Kansas (in the southwestern corner of the state, just above the OK and TX panhandles), one heading north toward NE and one east toward Wichita, KS.
This line (plus a few other smaller ones) meant that over $1 billion would be invested in KS transmission over the next five or so years. A lot of current wind development in Kansas is being based around these lines.
Last time CEP mentioned all this, ITC Great Plains was bidding and going through the approval process to build the V plan, but Westar had filed a motion against the plan.
Westar has now announced that it has formed a joint venture with Electric Transmission America (TCJournal). The venture is called Prairie Wind Transmission. It proposes to construct the super-mega-highway of transmission lines - 765 kV lines.
The Westar proposal doesn’t seem to cover the whole of the original V plan. Instead, these lines would extend from Wichita to Dodge City and from Medicine Lodge to the Oklahoma border.
Potential markets for wind energy exports are generally seen as to the east, toward either Chicago or Atlanta. Not only do the electrical systems of the western and eastern grid not connect, but the West has plenty of its own wind resources.
There are still a lot of regulatory hoops to jump through before the lines receive final approval. The news coverage doesn’t mention how the competing proposals of ITC Great Plains and Westar/ ETA might be resolved.
How do these lines get paid for? The SPP board recently approved what is know as a socialized cost, or postage stamp, recovery system for expenses. This means that the costs of these superhighway lines are paid for by the entire SPP region, not just by Kansans in the area of the new lines.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Live Blogging: Notes from the Kansas Energy Council (KEC) Electricity Committee meeting
May 15, 2008
Location/ Date: SRS building, Topeka KS, 05/12/08
Group: Kansas Energy Council (KEC) Committee on Electricity. The KEC is a 35 member group formed by a 2004 Executive Order from Gov. Sebelius (most recently updated this spring), and it is charged with making energy policy recommendations. Members of its Electricity Committee can be found here. (FYI, for those of you who have followed the legislative live blogging, legislators on this committee are Janis Lee, Carl Holmes, Mark Taddiken, and Tom Sloan.)
Objectives: In January, the Electricity Committee decided to pursue the following: (1) utility-by-utility understanding of KS baseload resources, (2) why past baseload decisions were made, (3) ID carbon dioxide emissions from existing units, and (4) planning for future demand, not limited to baseload.
Work plan: compile unit and emissions data for utilities, listen to utility presentations, try to gain access to peak load forecast data.
Summary: The Committee discussed their data aggregation and listened to presentations from Sunflower Electric and Kansas Municipal Energy Association (after being edited for proprietary info, those will also be posted on the KEC website).
Most interesting factoid: This was mentioned as an aside, not as part of the official presentations, but many of you might not know this - Kansas electricity prices are among some of the lowest in the nation right now, and over the past twenty years they have stayed relatively stable.
However, our usage has grown. Basically, we’re plugging more things in. Which is essentially one of the major reasons there has to be an Electricity Committee meeting in the first place.
**********************************
Background: The KEC is one of several groups currently examining Kansas energy policy. This past legislative session CEP followed both the House and Senate Energy and Utilities Committees, as well as the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment.
The Governor also just appointed members to the Kansas Energy and Environment Policy Advisory Group (KEEP), which will participate in a climate action plan facilitated by the Center for Climate Strategies, which has worked with 18 other states. Last year the KEC rejected a proposal to work with CCS.
Additionally, one of two new legislative groups will probably come into being after sine die on May 29. If the Governor does not veto the third coal plant bill, then a commission on science and technology will come into being.
If there is a veto, then a provision in the nuclear bill, SB 586, comes into effect (provided that the Governor signs that bill). It will create the Joint Committee on Energy and Environment.
Having sat in on at least a few of these groups, CEP has noted that Kansas energy policy groups often struggle with similar issues in how to approach electricity. (Probably these issues are not limited to KS policymakers, either.)
1 - Overwhelmingly, “electricity” is interpreted as “baseload generation” (and often, “reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)” is interpreted as “regulating utilities” - GHGs in fact have many more sources than electrical generation).
2 - These groups also struggle with data collection categories that were originally developed to understand and assess electricity as generated from fossil fuels. However, the way data was tracked in the past doesn’t necessarily help to tell the world what it now wants to know - how to track carbon dioxide emissions, and promote renewable energy.
3 - Fuel prices, construction costs, policy initiatives, etc. - it’s all changing so fast that past data doesn’t necessarily help predict future performance. Decisions have to be made now, though. When you don’t always have solid information to stand on, then you have to make decisions based on other criteria. What are those criteria?
Research and Resources: DOE study shows that 20% of nation’s wind power could come from wind by 2030
May 12, 2008
It seems fitting to be writing this on a day when the wind gusts are hitting around 40 mph.
Today the Department of Energy released a report concluding that by 2030, wind power could provide up to 20% of the nation’s electrical needs. (For press release, click here)
For comparison, that’s about as much electricity as we get from nuclear power today. Increasing the nation’s wind capacity would also save carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generated from fossil fuels - by 2030, wind power could help avert 7.6 cumulative gigatons of CO2 emissions. In 2030 and every year thereafter, this wind capacity would save 825 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.
How can this ramp-up occur? DOE set some important requirements for meeting the 20% by 2030 goal - “enhanced transmission infrastructure, streamlined siting and permitting regimes, improved reliability and operability of wind systems, and increased U.S. wind manufacturing capacity.” Quotable:
- Annual installations need to increase more than threefold. Achieving 20 percent wind will require the number of annual turbine installations to increase from approximately 2000 in 2006 to almost 7000 in 2017.
- Costs of integrating intermittent wind power into the grid are modest. 20 percent wind can be reliably integrated into the grid for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.
- No material constraints currently exist. Although demand for copper, fiberglass and other raw materials will increase, achieving 20 percent wind is not limited by the availability of raw materials.
- Transmission challenges need to be addressed. Issues related to siting and cost allocation of new transmission lines to access the Nation’s best wind resources will need to be resolved in order to achieve 20 percent wind.
Now, will EPA next come out with a report on the environmental impacts of such a colossal increase? (That’s kind of a rhetorical question. My guess is that they probably won’t.)
The construction of both wind turbines and transmission lines do have impacts on habitat, wildlife, and even water quality as a result of run-off from turbine base construction. As CEP is so fond of saying, all technologies have environmental impacts, and the key is to weigh the benefits and burdens carefully.
However, if you download the actual report (all 248 pages), it does address this topic. Definitely not at length, especially compared to the rest of the material, but the inclusion is promising.
More or less, to sum it up - siting of wind farms really, really, really matters. Kansas communities so far are getting very good at communicating their availability (or not) for wind development - and these decisions so far also seem to involve a mix of environmental and economic factors.
20% by 2030. Holy cow. Hang on!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Location: Senate Chamber
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW coal-fired plants at Holcomb
Bill No.: the measure will probably be considered as Sen Sub for HB 2919 - but it is the Senate’s version of SB 148, the second Holcomb bill, which the Senate Energy and Utilities Committee considered in an unscheduled meeting this morning
Summary/ Action: The senate version of the second Holcomb bill - the committee report on the bill was accepted by the body, but no further action was taken. The House version of the bill is high on the list for General Orders tomorrow.
Next steps: If the Senate passes this bill today, then it will await the House to pass its own version of the second Holcomb bill, SB 148 (that link takes you to CEP’s quick and dirty analysis). SB 148 has been mired in General Orders after its supposedly upgraded green provisions fell flat. CEP’s take: If by “green provisions” they mean carrots instead of sticks - and sticks have been Sunflower supporters’ dominant approach so far - then these carrots have been left in the back of the produce drawer way too long. Meaning, they are limp.
Metaphors aside. UPDATE: this all still holds true, even though the schedule is off by a day: Say the Senate passes this measure (which I imagine it will). Then the House would have to pass their version of the measure and take final action. Then the measure passes to conference committee. Since the regular session ends on Friday (thank heavens) the conference committee will be pretty zoom-zoom.
Then the House (and Senate?) would have to concur/ non-concur. If there is concurrence, the second Holcomb bill goes to the Governor to be signed or vetoed. Since it still retains all the provisions that got it vetoed the first time, odds are good that the second bill will get vetoed too.
Why two Holcomb bills? Remember that the first, SB 327, has been vetoed by the Governor. The Senate will probably vote to override it by the end of this week. The House will then have 30 days. However, having a second bill out there gives Sunflower Electric’s supporters two options during the veto session - and possibly for sine dei, which I spelled wrong and will explain later.
***************
We are now awaiting the Senate’s entry into the chambers - which was actually supposed to happen at 2:30, but is not yet. So I will take this lull to apologize to our readers… I have been too busy tracking coal drama to type up other live blogging notes! The ones from the carbon tax amendment attempt (??) should really not be lost to posterity. Nor should the ones from this morning’s Senate committee meeting.
But, they might be. And no news updates either. Sorry guys. And I have awesome wind notes from the Kingman wind forum, plus handouts and cool maps of transmission lines… news about more upcoming wind forums in Colby (April 14) and Phillipsburg (April 17), warnings about “lease hounds,” neato updates on energy efficiency, news about CEP appearing at various earth day events - but none of that will get up !!! until we slog through this next field of cow pies.
Sorry.
Anyway! Hit your refresh button now and again to check up on us. Remember the usual disclaimer of live blogging at the Kansas Statehouse: It could be a whole lot of nothing - or a whole lot of something. No way to tell.
We kick off. 2:52 p.m.
CEP proceedings summary (live blogging after the fact) on the House floor - SB 586, nuclear power incentives and energy efficiency
March 27, 2008
SUMMARY: This morning Eileen was awesome enough to fill in for MH and cover SB 586 (bill, supplemental note, and fiscal note) as it was brought to the House floor.
CEP has been covering the content of this bill in a couple of different formats. The original SB 586 was introduced by Sen. Roger Reitz, Republican from Manhattan. It authorized the KCC to allow utilities to adjust their rates to recover the costs of “prudent expenditures” incurred in the course of exploring the possibilities of developing nuclear power. Nuclear power has been a live issue this session, although not as much as coal, and CEP tracked it through KCC and House Select Committee on Energy and Environment proceedings, and also offered our own thoughts on the issue.
SB 586 passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Utilities, passed the Senate, and then was sent to the House Committee on Energy and Utilities. There it was amended to add the contents of - original HB 2632! the KCPL bill on energy efficiency!
If you are thinking that that bill shows up in more places, you are correct. I did not link the original bill because it was significantly amended in Senate Committee on Energy and Utilities. More on that later if I get to it. In essence, this language allows utilities to rate base the costs of developing and implementing energy efficiency programs to help their customers save energy.
In the proceedings below, SB 586 passed. There was, however, some interesting discussion.
CEP live blogging from House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future - Day 5 of working what was once HB 2949
March 18, 2008
Yep! Did that get your attention? As well it might. The bill formerly known as HB 2949 is - apparently - today to be reincarnated as a resolution, HCR 5038 (.pdf), Kansas Energy Plan. The hearing phase is considered concluded - see Day I and Day 2 (which were briefings), and Day 3 and Day 4 (which were hearings).
The Select Committee will be working the resolution today, which means adding amendments, etc. Reminder: this is the bill that proposed to establish an energy plan for Kansas by focusing on baseload power needs and encouraging coal and nuclear and minimizing natural gas.
EDIT: wait! there might be one person testifying today. Which means this too is a hearing.
What’s the difference between a bill and a resolution? I only know the major point - a bill can go on to become a law, and a law is a binding mandate (supposedly. Or else why bother?). A resolution is a more general statement that is not binding under law.
I think the resolution has to pass the committee and then get voted on by the House as a whole, but I don’t know what happens next. The HCR designation stands for House Concurrent Resolution, which seems to imply that the Senate too would get a whack at it. I also don’t think that HB 2949 is dead-dead - it doesn’t sound like it will be worked in its current version, but it could serve as a vehicle for some other legislation that may fail to get through the process in another format.
EDIT: Guess what! Since it switched from a bill to a resolution - this means that the hearings start over. All the previous four days, zippo. We start over with hearings on the resolution, and one person is submitting testimony - Tom Thompson of Sierra Club! Who is on top of it. CEP (me) said - uh, what? We start over? Didn’t know that…. oops… Doesn’t look like anyone other than Tom submitted, however. A few other voices say, um, er - it was open for new testimony? Missed that!
We await the committee. Members of the committee include: Representatives Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham. Proceedings begin at 1:30. Hit your refresh button later on and check in.
We begin.
Chairman Myers - because of frustration with regulatory uncertainty and looming carbon costs, and difficulty with financing utility expansion - there was general ipinion in testimony for utilities that this bill should not be put in statute. In order to comply, I had it put into a resolution. The revisers switched it to resolution form, but it is missing the KCC amendment from last week about changing from gigawatts to megawatts, and the (MH misses it). Myers asks for motion to make rsolution cocur with previous House bill. Olson moves, Rardin seconds, Flora supports it in discussion, all aye, no nay, motion carries.
CEP live blogging from House Energy and Utilities Committee, Day 4 of testimony on HB 2949
March 12, 2008
Is this the fourth day of HSCEEF hearings on HB 2949? I believe so. First day was Chairman Myers briefing the committee on the bill that he introduced (Day 1); second day was Paul Genoa of NEI briefing committee on potential of nuclear energy (Day 2); third day was yesterday where six participants testified, including CEP and Kansas Natural Resources Council (KNRC) (Day 3); and today we have several more to testify, including Sierra Club. A reminder: This bill, titled the Kansas Energy Plan Act, proposes to decide the future of Kansas energy for the next twenty years by focusing on baseload as represented by nuclear and coal energy.
Yesterday we had brilliant turn-out by constituents at the hearing - the room and hallway was overflowing. Folks: Your presence was definitely, definitely noted. People are still talking about it. Thank you.
What was also interesting about yesterday is that (1) no clear champions of the bill emerged, and (2) environmental organizations, utilities, and the KCC all urged great caution and a careful, long-term planning process when it came to the future of Kansas energy. FYI: this is kind of like cats, dogs, and gerbils all traveling to the vet together in one animal carrier and having no drama occur.
I’m sorry. It’s only Wednesday and my metaphors have already run dry.
Originally, additional HSCEEF meetings were scheduled on Thursday and Friday as well. I received an email late yesterday afternoon, however, saying those had been canceled. The committee will now meet on Monday, March 17 at 1:30 p.m. in 784 Docking.
OK. Here we go. We await the committee. Members of the committee include: Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham.
Hit your refresh button occasionally to check in - the hearing starts at 1:30 p.m. From the list I have now, we will hear the following testimony (in unknown order): Colin Hansen (KS Municipal Utilities), Joe Spease (Pristine Power), Tom Thompson (Sierra Club), Ray Dean, Empire Electric, Larry Berg (Midwest Energy). Repeatedly, I am hearing that there were people who wanted to testify, but who were told there wasn’t time or room on the docket.
We have some of the committee. Close to a quorum. Nice spring day out. I think most of us walked over aboveground, instead of thru the tunnel between the Capitol and Docking. No quorum, pretty decent audience (on normal days, this means 10-20 people. Big days are 20-25. Small days are under 10). We wait.
Chairman Myers notes that he does not normally start meetings late, but he doesn’t have a quorum. Joking, he asks for volunteers. Laughter. Tom Thompson notes there are no hands. Laughter.
We wait. Chatter. Talk. Idle conversation. It gets idler. And idler.
Sigh.
Chairman Myers gives up on his quorum and starts anyway.
Wes Ashton, Aquila
As proponent. Here on behalf of Aquila and ONEOK (I think). Again, congrats to committee for attempting state policy for elecricity generation in KS. A good direction. We are in favor of this bill for state policy. However, there is ome small tweak - in section 5, where you detail specifics for generation and targets for 2028 etc. You eliminate natural gas. We think natural gas should stay in there. You say “negigible” use of natural gas. This will cause challenges for utlities.
We have heard lots - that there is not one answer or fix for KS energy problems. We need to keep options on the table. Why take gas off table so soon? Natural gas has been part of KS policy for decades, and it rises and falls. As prices stand today, natural gas costs more than coal. However, that might not be true in the future, especiually with supply fluctuations, etc. Keep gas on the table. Do not limit options for long-term policy. Our legislature, state, citizens, KCC, etc., will work together in future to determine best baseload options.
CEP testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, HB 2949
March 11, 2008
by Nancy Jackson, Executive Director
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon, and for the good work you all do for the state of Kansas.
I am Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate & Energy Project (CEP) of The Land Institute. I testify today regarding Kansas House Bill 2949, the Kansas Energy Plan Act.
The issues you consider today are crucial and complex. Electricity has become central to our economy and way of life. We use more of it each year and our infrastructure for both generation and transmission is aging and was, in any case, designed for a different time. It is time to make decisions for a new century.
Today, we recognize that the way we produce and consume electricity affects our air, our water, our climate, and for all those reasons, our ability – and our childrens’ ability – to lead healthy, productive lives in Kansas over the years to come. At the same time, in an uncertain world, we face growing concerns about energy security and independence. For all these reasons and, in Kansas, to encourage rural economic development, interest in distributed generation and renewable resources is growing.
The bill before you today states early its purpose, to “develop a balanced energy approach, a plan which allows for continued development of all energy sources but is not driven by special interests or energy crises.” It provides “encouragement” for renewable energy, as well as for policies to increase transmission and promote market-driven solutions, and focuses on a “market-driven approach.” All of these are goals that CEP applauds.
The bulk of 2949, however, attends to base load generation – the sources of energy that utilities depend upon to meet the majority of their consistent demand, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The difficulty, in 2008, is that in a fluid global market, economics can be tricky to predict and the notion of base load itself is being reconsidered.
Just this week, for example, we learned that Peabody Coal shipped more coal to China in the first six weeks of this year than in all of 2007. Last week, Merrill Lynch announced its forecast that coal prices would jump by 200% this calendar year. As nuclear generation enjoys a likely renaissance, we can expect similar jumps in uranium. In a global marketplace with rapidly developing economies, competition for finite resources is and will continue to be stiff. Determining in 2008 what will be economic in 2028 is challenging to say the least.
Add to economic uncertainty the reconsideration of base load. As we speak, the Southwest Power Pool and the Midwest Independent System Operator are jointly conducting a study on the integration of large amounts of wind onto the grid and how that may affect historical understandings of base load and reliability. Just as we would not expect nuclear to conform to the profile of coal, or coal to natural gas, wind is a unique resource. It provides energy, but not “capacity” in the way we developed that term to describe other resources. If the country places a high priority on getting energy from wind – and indeed President Bush, the Department of Energy, and Governor Sebelius all agree that we should be getting 20% of our energy from wind by 2030 – then it makes sense to find new ways to talk about new resources.
All of this – not to mention pressing environmental concerns including air, water, and climate pollution and their costs, which are not mentioned in this bill – makes it difficult to project with any accuracy the most economic, reliable, and socially beneficial mix of generation for 2030 and beyond.
The suggested mix of generation reflected in Sec 5 (b)(3) – the bill’s directive to the corporation commission regarding base load analysis and planning – appears to double our nuclear generation (to 40%), reduce our coal generation (to 60%), and all but eliminate natural gas for base load by 2028. Which is to say: 2949 essentially directs that another nuclear plant be built in Kansas.
Passing such a law at this time seems premature. Another nuclear plant may ultimately prove to be a good option for Kansas, but surely that decision would result from careful consideration of a comprehensive energy plan for the state – one that considers base load, intermediate load, peaking power, the unique contributions of renewables, and the potential contribution of energy efficiency in addition to developing market forces, environmental concerns, and the desire and ability of Kansas utilities to participate.
In sum, CEP supports a comprehensive planning effort. In recognition of the complexity of the task, we trust that the committee will take a careful, considered approach and postpone determining fuel mix for future generation until more information is available.
— Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate and Energy Project
CEP live blogging from House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, Day 3 of hearings
March 11, 2008
Hi all. What a day. Now we are in the hearings on HB 2949, the Kansas Energy Act Plan that proposes to set a framework for future Kansas energy policy by focusing on dispatchable and baseload power. Six folks are scheduled to testify.
Members of the committee include: Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham.
We Await the Committee. The Room Is Full. Overflowing. Past Capacity. I hear fire sirens outside (actually not kidding). Today is Clean Energy Day of course, and GPACE and Sierra Club, etc., have done a marvelous job of outreach to local constituents interested in the energy future of Kansas. Which this bill does address.
Hit your refresh button occasionally so you can check in with us.
Overheard: someone talking about a t-shirt - “The Planet: It’s not just for treehuggers anymore”
Another overheard - “Why isn’t wind included? The wind folks signed up to testify then got kicked off, and this is supposed to be the Kansas Energy Plan. Isn’t that all of us?”
That did not come from the committee. NOW we have the committee.
Chairman Myers starts the meeting
Earl Watkins, Sunflower Electric
Kansas needs a sound energy policy. By any stretch of the imagination Sunflower is a small utility. Economy of scale is important to us, to keep costs down. Our Holcomb project - our 20oMW slice - is how we can afford to build generation capacity. Planning ahead and working with other utiltiies is importatn.
Research and Resources: wind leases, transmission lines
March 10, 2008
Don’t Sign Anything Yet. It’s fairly common knowledge that wind speculators are drawn to Kansas like flies are drawn to - to - honey (what did you think I was going to say?).
However. It might be wise to confer with a wide variety of sources before signing those leases, folks. My dad’s generation will probably tell you that when oil and gas first came to Kansas in a big way, a lot of people signed leases that they would not have otherwise signed after SWKROA got in gear. (And if you want to see what SWKROA has to say about wind leases, check out Guidelines for Landowners in Negotiating Wind Energy Leases.)
Don’t be the one to sign too much away. I was forwarded this letter to the editor (I think from the Kingman Leader-Courier - haven’t verified yet) that makes some interesting points:
Wind Farm Leases: Don’t Sign Anything Yet!
Some landowners in the area have recently been approached by wind energy developers interested in leasing their land for wind farm development. I would like to urge landowners to be very careful in evaluating these potential developers. Not all of these companies are actual developers. Some potential lessees that have been active in Kingman County are not true developers but are actually what is known as ‘lease hounds’, a term many are likely familiar with from the oil and gas leasing industry. These ‘lease hounds’ have no intention to develop a wind farm, but are looking to lock up land under lease and then sell the leases to a developer or power company. It is very common for these lease hounds to present an agreement with terms that are extremely one-sided, hoping to lock the land up for a very long time for a fairly small up-front payment and below-market lease payments.
Wind energy is an exciting opportunity for landowners in our area. However, we all must be careful to make sure we work with the right partner to turn this opportunity into reality, and I believe our best option is to work together as a coalition to make sure we find the best partner for tapping our wind resource. This is what is happening in many areas: landowners are forming cooperatives and negotiating lease terms collectively, sometimes even developing the wind farm themselves. I think a cooperative would be a excellent approach in our area.
If you have been contacted by a potential lessee or are otherwise interested in wind power development in our area, I strongly encourage you to attend the upcoming South Central Kansas Regional Wind Energy Event on March 26 from 9 am to 4pm at Kingman High School. Topics to be covered include: Leasing, Community Wind, Distribution Lines, and Coalition Building. This event is sponsored by the following organizations: Sumner County Economic Development Commission 620-326-8779; Kansas Rural Center 785-748-0959; Sunflower RC&D 620-896-7378; Kingman County Farm Bureau 620-532-6721; and the Kingman County Economic Development Council 620-532-3694.
Please wait until after you have attended this event before entering into any lease agreements. If the potential lessee gives you a deadline that is prior to this meeting then it is just further evidence that they are not a good wind energy partner. If you have already entered into an agreement and are concerned about its fairness, please also attend the event as there may be actions you can take to improve your situation with the lessee.
Signed Kenton Rosenhagen
Wind Development Figures. Also forwarded through the grapevine, Dorothy Barnett of Reno County Growth organization has come up with some PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) figures for Kansas counties for wind farm development. PILOT are annual payments that go to county/ schools:
Ford Co (Spearville Wind Energy Facility), 100 MW, $496,000 for 30 years annual payment to county/ schools
Gray Co Wind Farm, 112 MW, $330,000
Butler Co (Elk River Wind Farm), 150 MW, $150,000
Lincoln Co (Smoky Hills Wind Farm), 100/250 MW* $500,000
Ellis Co (proposed project), 100 MW, $600,000
Cloud Co (Meridian Way Wind Farm), 200 MW, unknown $
*100 MW in operation, Phase II to be built in ‘08 will be additional 150 MW — not sure whether figure is for Phase I or both Phases.
PILOT amounts vary widely because they are negotiated on a county by county basis by local commissioners. This can occasionally cause problems, and get county commissioners accused of taking bribes, etc. One alternative is the way they do it in Minnesota - a production tax that is returned to local units of government. The more megawatts produced, the more tax paid. A property tax is another option.
Grant funds for wind. Also via Bill Roush of Heartland Solar Energy Industries Association, DOE has announced funding through the Windpowering America program. Kansas is one of the states that qualifies. More information:
State recipients will continue to focus on state level technical assistance and outreach initiatives to stimulate wind development by helping to remove market barriers, improve the knowledge of modern wind systems and benefits to the numerous stakeholder groups…. The Program expects to award up to twenty-two grants supporting targeted states that have adequate wind resources, yet are struggling with little installed capacity, inadequate wind development policies, and developing WWG’s and advocacy groups.
FYI, WWGs are Wind Working Groups. Kansas just launched one of those. Oklahoma’s WWG started a while ago and has done very well, especially as evidenced by their recent development in the panhandle, and SPP’s intense focus on improving transmission in OK.
I noted that this grant application process takes place through the grants.gov portal - a warning: GET STARTED ON THE PROCESS EARLY. There are a lot of hoops to jump through to submit a grant.
Updated Transmission Line Map for KS. Dan Nagengast, with the help of Kimberly Gencur-Svaty, has put together an updated map of transmission lines for KS.
This should help give a rough idea. If you download that and then print it, it SHOULD print with more detail. If it doesn’t let me know and I can send it to you in an email.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Hi, all. Welcome to the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, where they are considering HB 2949. This bill proposes to establish the framework for a broad, long-term Kansas Energy Plan by focusing on baseload and dispatchable power issues in electrical generation. In particular, as introduced (and amended) it would mandate (or encourage) coal and nuclear, eliminate natural gas, and not particularly address wind, solar, or any other renewables. EDIT: although the committee has not had a whack at it yet.
(FYI - we are missing the vote in the Senate on whether to approve the Holcomb bill. But there’s not a whole lot of suspense there. We will catch that via the grapevine later.) EDIT: I am in the Senate now - I don’t think we DID miss it. They are in recess. I will hang out.)
Today the committee is being briefed by Paul Genoa of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who is going to to speak on the costs of constructing nuclear power plants. Genoa also gave a presentation last week at the KCC’s nuclear power roundtable (where CEP live blogged). Next week there will be hearings on the bill on Tuesday, Wednesday, and possibly Thursday, but the bill might be worked on Thursday.
The committee members today: Chairman Don Myers, Ranking Minority Vaughn Flora, and Representatives Watkins, Light, Whitham, Proehl, and Rardin. Lots of schoolkids here today
MH - this powerpoint presentation looks as if it is the same one the Genoa delivered last week. For those of you who read thru that live blog account, I am going to clip that in here, then modify and add info that I missed the last time around. I am sticking thru the presentation, round two, because I am interested in hearing questions from the representatives. Hit your refresh button as we go along. Also refer to the nuclear power comment I made after the KCC roundtable, where we also heard a lot more about nuclear waste than we will hear today.
I am also cracking up and trying not to. A very funny lobbyist is making jokes behind me, and telling everyone that every good Republican surely know how to pronounce “nuclear” - “new-cule-ee-er.”
Paul Genoa, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction. Finding a middle ground between high expectations and total pessimism.
2007. Operating performance. Great year for nuclear fleet - 104 plants in US, about 10% of installed capacity in US, and generates 20% of electricity because of high capacity factor. Record output - 807 billion kilowatt hours in 2007. 5,222 MW of power uprates approved, 912 MW of uprates pending, 1,751 MW of uprates expected. What is an uprate? MH (still) has no idea. $16.80 per MWh production. Approx. 90% capacity factor. Wait. Let’s google “uprates nuclear power”. Okay, here, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An uprate is where they increase the maximum power level at which a commercial nuclear power plant may operate, typically by where “more highly enriched uranium fuel and/or more fresh fuel is used. This enables the reactor to produce more thermal energy and therefore more steam, driving a turbine generator to produce electricity.” The plant equipment must be upgraded to make this happen.
License renewals continue, and plant restarts (facilities that were closed) ongoing. 48 plant license renewals granted, which helps upgrade operations and infrastructure. 15 renewal apps under review.
hi all. just some follow-up on yesterday’s live blogging of the second House floor vote on the Holcomb energy bill, the vote that sent the bill to the governor. We now await her promised veto.
The final vote was 75 to 47. 3 representatives were absent. It would take 84 for a veto. I have heard all sorts of convincing theories on both sides - that this vote is really significant, to that it means noting at all. I guess we’ll see.
Here’s how they voted. As always, check for your legislator’s name, then contact them to give them either your support and/or constructive criticism. That goes for anyone. I know from my email that we have a lot of different perspectives reading this blog - hey. You’re all welcome to add your voice. (Even if it sometimes means hollering in my ear.) You can find your representative by checking here. The Senate Roster is here and the House Roster is here, and these lists contain their contact info.
Votes to approve the conference committee report and send the bill to governor: Beamer, Bethell, Bowers, Brown, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Colyer, Craft, Crum, Dahl, Donohoe, Faber, Feuerborn, Fund, Gatewood, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Grant, Hayzlett, Hill, Hodge, Holmes C, Holmes M, Horst, Huebert, Humerickhouse, Johnson, Kelley, Kelsey, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Knox, Light, Mast, Masterson, McKinney, McLeland, Merrick, Morrison J, Moxley, Myers, Neufeld, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Owens, Palmer, Patton, Pauls, Peterson, Phelps, Powell, Powers, Proehl, Rhoades, Roth, Ruff, Schroeder, Schwartz, Shultz, Siegfreid, Sloan, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Watkins, Whitham, Wilk, Williams, Wolf B, Yoder
Votes against the bill: Ballard, Burroughs, Carlin, Colloton, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Faust-Goudeau, Flaharty, Flora, Frownfelter, Garcia, Goyle, Hawk, Henderson, Henry, Holland, Huntington, Kuether, Landwehr, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Lukert, Mah, McCray-Miller, McLachlan, Menghini, Metsker, Morrison J., Neighbor, Peck, Pottorff, Quigley, Rardin, Ruiz, Spalding, Storm, Svaty, Swenson, Tietze, Treaster, Trimmer, Ward, Winn, Wolk K, Worley
Not present: Aurand, Sawyer, Wetta
To compare the earlier House vote on the bill, check here.
It always warms my heart to click on the blog stats and see how many people follow these links. Yay for a constructively engaged citizenry!
Also, some very helpful people have been forwarding me their email correspondence with their legislators on the Holcomb topic. Please feel free to do this. I’ll keep it all and maybe centralize the legislators’ responses into one main file at some point, if there is interest.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging, week of March 3-7
March 3, 2008
Hi all. The legislature is on “turn-around” right now, so we are enjoying a bit of a breather. Actually, we’re not - CEP is moving offices, which I would not describe as relaxing. But we are on a slight breather re the live blogging.
So far, the live blogging plan for the week, once the Kansas Legislature is back in session:
Wednesday - House Select Committee on Energy and Environment for the Future (HSCEEF) will “brief” regarding HB 2949, the pro-nuclear and anti-natural gas bill which was introduced thru a blessed committee last week - 784 Docking, at 1:30 p.m.
Thursday -
House Energy and Utilities Committee, meeting at 9:15 in 783 Docking, agenda TBA.(EDIT: Meeting canceled.) HSCEEF, second briefing on nuclear power/ HB 2949, and costs of new nuclear power plants - 784 Docking, 1:30 p.m.Friday - this will depend on what bills are introduced onto the House or Senate floor, which we won’t really know until the week gets underway. And/or it will depend on when the Holcomb/ energy bill makes a comeback into conference committee.
Next week - the schedule is up in the air, except for one sure thing - several organizations from all around KS have decided to get together for a Clean Energy Day at the Capitol on Tuesday, March 11. CEP has also decided to participate.
On the federal level, there is apparently a possibility of some interesting legislation being introduced from Representative Waxman’s committee (Government Oversight and Reform) next week. Waxman initiated the investigation of the RUS program of the USDA, which is the agency that helps rural electric cooperatives such as Sunflower Electric finance coal-fired power plants.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
newz updatez
March 3, 2008
Just felt like a “z” this morning. Not an “s”. No reazon.
Wind power. Did the wind stop blowing in Texas and lead to a recent major power failure for interruptible users (usually big users who agree to have their power cut off in times of need)… or did baseload providers fall down on the job? (Houston Chronicle). Quotable: “the state’s grid operators say a problem they could normally handle was complicated when a number of traditional power plant operators failed to provide the amount of electricity to the grid as promised.”
It appears several power providers didn’t perform as expected, according to a spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s quasi-public grid operator, but names won’t be revealed at this point.
Coal and Kansas. (Agh.) Sunflower Electric responds very strongly to Westar’s announcement that Westar will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put off construction of new coal plants as long as possible (press release, pulled off PrimeNewsWire). Southeast KS tries to figure out if the technology is there yet for them to mine their “dirty” coal resource (Pittsburgh Morning Sun). Not that “clean coal” exists, in terms of a technology free of significant environmental impacts.
Duane Schrag of the Salina Journal steps back and looks at the big energy picture in Kansas. Amongst the drama, sometimes it helps to just calmly take stock. He notes that immediately following the denial of the Holcomb permit, there were lots of predictions about the negative impact this would have on transmission and wind development, as well as baseload resources in Kansas. His findings were that, since the denial:
ITC Great Plains has said it plans to build transmission lines to Spearville, with or without the Holcomb plant expansion.
Wind farm development continues. In recent weeks a study was requested for a 600 megawatt wind farm in Finney County.
The Kansas Corporation Commission posted a statewide map of the average retail price of electricity in 2006. Western Kansas — in particular, the western third — enjoys some of the lowest rates in the state.
Westar Energy, the state’s largest utility and one that uses coal-fired generation for nearly 80 percent of its power, published a comprehensive energy plan explaining why it is delaying for as long as possible the construction of new coal-fueled generation.
Research. Xcel Energy is experimenting with battery back-ups for wind power, so as wind power keeps increasing in the energy mix, the natural ebb and flow of wind can be more easily mitigated (Finance-commerce.com). Topeka-based Mother Earth News (super-cool resource for homesteaders and gardeners) offers an update on the public and scientific discussion of global warming. I can summarize: (1) is it still going on? Yep. And (2) are human actions, such as burning fossil fuels, still a part of the issue? Yep, yep. And finally, an article for those paying attention to the evolution (hee hee) of the creation care movement.
Editorials. For serious, KC Star encourages KCPL to develop wind power, as they had already committed to do in their agreement with Sierra Club (the one that allowed them to construct a new coal-fired power plant), although they put off the investment in 2008 due to other financial commitments. (For more details on the Sierra Club deal, check out slide 7 of the powerpoint presentation that KCPL representative Paul Snider gave at the CEP Take Charge forums). KCPL said you betcha.
KCStar also urged caution on adding nuclear power to the state’s fuel mix, pointing out that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what to do with the waste, as well as the true costs of building new nuclear plants.
For funny, Richard Crowson of the Wichita Eagle asked readers to help come up with a caption for his following image:
Although I don’t mean to imply that respiratory problems are funny. I just enjoy it when people take on issues in creative and interesting ways. Here’s a selection of the runner-up captions -
Jason Griffin: “Where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are…are…oh, forget it.”
Bill Hess: “It’s to the stars through greenhouse gases!”
Karen Wallace: “Is this what they mean by a state coal-ition???”*
Burt Parry: “Add aspirator per coal plant.”
Kim Dunakey: “Rough road to the stars my foot. Just line the right pockets and the road becomes an 8-lane expressway.”
* my favorite
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Nuclear power
February 29, 2008
Nuclear power. The KCC roundtable on Thursday was quite interesting, and I am sorry I couldn’t stay for the roundtable itself where the commissioners spoke. Just listening to the information, here were some of my general thoughts:
First a really general thought, about technology. All technologies have benefits and burdens. All technologies impact the environment. All technologies have shortcomings, to the extent that they are not one size fits all solutions. What works in one place might not work in another. All of these evaluations of a technology should ideally be assessed in terms of their entire life cycle.
When it comes to energy technologies, “life cycle” means looking at a technology from the origin of its fuel source (including the costs of mining or land use), materials and energy used in construction of the energy source or the processing facility(ies), operations costs (including decommissioning), manufacturing of components, waste generated in all these processes, and general impact on the environment. Above and beyond that are the climate, air, water, soil, cultural, economic, and global security costs.
Yes, I know. Let’s just head back to our caves, that would be so much easier.
But seriously. You can put nuclear energy in this larger context and have one heck of a freewheeling discussion, certainly. The emails I received while I was there on the site blogging definitely testify to this. What I would comment, in a more focused manner,on the materials presented yesterday (at the limited part of the event I was able to attend) is:
Nuclear energy has learned from events like Three Mile Island. I was very impressed by the on-site safety precautions and improvements in the industry from that angle. If you think of any energy industry as having several links in its chain, they are on their way to getting a very good handle on that link.
Much less under control, however, are the links immediately before and after. The link before - where does the fuel come from? Who controls it? Who processes it? Exactly how much is there of it? How does this affect national security? wasn’t much addressed, but I alluded to some of the issues when I also linked to this CFR article on uranium.
The big link - the missing link, ha - of course is what to do with the waste. For a variety of reasons, managing nuclear waste on a long-term basis is not happening. Likewise, even reprocessing technology is iffy, because the main technology (ie, that used by France) separates out the plutonium. Plutonium go boom. Internationally speaking, plutonium scary.
So, nuclear waste - big problem. On many levels. Not just safety, but also public perceptions.
Are the effects of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere (as a result of burning fossil fuels) also scary? Yep. They are.
Everyone have a great weekend!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from KCC Nuclear Power Roundtable
February 28, 2008
Morning, all. Welcome to the KCC Nuclear Power Roundtable, an informational session on recent changes in the nuclear energy industry. This is Maril Hazlett, and I can be here for a few hours this morning, although the session does go all day. CEP’s goal in attending this session is simply to take notes (as always, don’t expect a word perfect transcript) and to make the information accessible to members of the public interested in climate and energy issues. The presenters will also be taped, and the presentations will be available on the KCC website.
FYI, David Klepper of KCStar has a story on nuclear this morning - click here.
Some cool speakers are set up for this morning - Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) will kick off the morning with a talk titled : “Changes in Nuclear Technology and the Nuclear Industry.” That will be followed by Brian O’Connell, Director of the Nuclear Waste Program Office of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).
Then there will be a break, hopefully with snacks. Hopefully. After that, Dave Matthews - no, not that one! not the musician who’s very into organic produce - but the Dave Matthews who is Director of New Reactor Licensing, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will speak on the “New Nuclear Plant Licensing Program.”
8:45 a.m.
Larry Holloway begins with introduction - no new baseload built in KS since 1985. As many folks know. Introduces Paul Genoa, of NEI - check above for the website link as to who they are. Somewhat like a trade association, but they represent 100 % of nuclear industry in U.S., with a lot of tech experience.
Paul Genoa, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction. Finding a middle ground between high expectations and total pessimism.
2007. Operating performance. Great year for nuclear fleet - 104 plants in US, about 10% of installed capacity in US, and generates 20% of electricity because of high capacity factor. Record output - 807 billion kilowatt hours in 2007. 5,222 MW of power uprates approved, 912 MW of uprates pending, 1,751 MW of uprates expected. What is an uprate? MH has no idea. $16.80 per MWh production.
License renewals continue, and plant restarts (facilities that were closed) ongoing. 48 plant licesnse renewals granted, which helps upgrade operations and infrastructure. 15 renewal apps under review.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning, and for the fine work this committee and its members do for the state of Kansas.
I am Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate & Energy Project (CEP) of The Land Institute. I testify today on behalf of Kansas House Bill 2881, regarding net metering for the state of Kansas.
Net metering offers Kansas farmers and ranchers greater energy independence and gives rural small businessmen a hedge against fluctuations in the price of energy.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), net metering programs “serve as an important incentive for consumer investment in renewable energy generation,” and represent a “low-cost, easily administered method” that benefits not only consumers but utilities, because consumer systems often offer support during times of peak load. Net metering is already offered in more than 35 states, including our neighbors, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.[1]
Additionally, net metering serves other important purposes:
* By developing more diverse sources of power generation, net metering increases our entire nation’s energy security and energy independence. In his recent State of the Union address, President George Bush mentioned these criteria as the drivers for his own energy initiatives.[2]
* Effective net metering policies spur economic development. By opening up markets for manufacturers and installers of renewable energy, net metering creates new jobs. According to the American Solar Energy Society, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries “already generate 8.5 million jobs in the U.S., and with appropriate public policy, could grow to as many as 40 million jobs by 2030.” Kansas deserves its share of this booming industry.
* In addition, states with policies that encourage the use of renewable energy attract businesses to relocate and bring jobs to their state. As we have recently seen, Colorado, whose net metering standards are widely acknowledged as some of the most effective in the nation, also recently attracted the Vestas wind turbine manufacturing plant which brought the state 400 new jobs.
CEP Conversations: Kimberly Gencur-Svaty on transmission lines
February 16, 2008
Kimberly Gencur-Svaty has worked in the energy and transmission industries for several years, most recently for International Transmission Company (ITC). CEP interviewed her for our Conversations series because she is very familiar with the transmission picture in Kansas. (If her last name sounds familiar, it might be because she is also the wife of Representative Josh Svaty, Ellsworth.)
ITC currently has a proposal before the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) to build two transmission lines originating out of Spearville, Kansas – one leading north toward Nebraska, and the other heading east.
Maril Hazlett, CEP: Nice view! (Kimberly’s 5th floor office window in downtown Topeka looks directly at the Capitol.)
Kimberly Gencur-Svaty: Thank you! (There is also a little bit of chat about how MH’s father is from Sterling and her grandfather was once the registrar of Sterling College, and discussion of how many of KGS’s in-laws attended Sterling College.)
MH: OK. Let’s start with the basics. Transmission is a key ingredient in getting electricity to markets and eventually to consumers. Please briefly describe how the system works.
KGS: There are basically three portions to the electricity system. First, you’ve got your power plant or generating source. That power plant could be a wind farm, it could be coal, nuclear, natural gas - any generation type.
That generated power then feeds through of series of high voltage transmission lines. It goes to a substation where the voltage is stepped down so it can be fed through the distribution system. The distribution system is basically the shorter or smaller poles that you see basically everywhere. (MH: For additional information on how electricity works, see the CEP website.)
MH: The ones your car runs into when you are in a wreck.
KGS: Exactly. Those could be telephone poles too.
MH: The distribution system usually travels along roadways, or existing right of ways, correct?
KGS: Exactly. That is called the last mile into the home. In some older neighborhoods, you will see the wires actually going into the home. In areas built in the last thirty to thirty-five years, you see the boxes in the middle of someone’s backyard, and then the line runs underground to the home.
Distribution is much lower voltages. When we are talking transmission, we mean the high voltage lines that usually run cross-country.
MH: What is the average voltage of a transmission line?
KGS: Well, that is completely dependent upon where your region is. Interestingly enough, for example, in Kansas we have a lot of 115 kV transmission and 230 kV transmission.
MH: 115 kV - is that low? Do lower voltages typically date from earlier eras?
KGS: Well, when you are looking at the grid itself, we do have a lot of older infrastructure in Kansas. But we are no different in that respect than any other portion of the country.
MH: The electric grid is patchy all over the country, is my understanding.
KGS: Exactly. And …that is kind of a tough question because you have to be diplomatic about it. Basically you do have some vintage -
MH: Vintage. I like that word.
KGS: - vintage material out there. Utilities are in the process of re-energizing those lines, or upgrading them from maybe 69 kV to 115 kV or from 115kV to 230kV. In Kansas, we have primarily 69 kV, 115kV, 230kV, and some 345 kV. The older portions of the grid are often in the more rural areas of the state where you just don’t have the tremendous demand.
Holcomb/ energy bill - or, what the heck just happened (again)
February 13, 2008
Recap on yesterday - what exactly happened in the House Energy and Utilities Committee as they worked HB 2711, which they dumped into Senate bill 327 (another gut and go occurred, just like in the Senate on Monday when they dumped a stripped down SB 515 into HB 2066 (.pdf), which is being debated on the Senate floor this afternoon). Bremby was speaking in the Senate at the same time as the House Committee met, actually, so I did miss that (LJWorld). Oh for a clone.
Before getting into the details, just the broad strokes: Two very different things have happened with what were originally identical bills. The Senate stripped out everything but permission to build Holcomb, regulatory restrictions on KDHE, and net metering for solar. In effect, they created a stick. The House did strip some things (see below) but in effect they dumped in everything but the kitchen sink, trying to create a carrot.
Now - is the stick a real stick - or if it is used, can it be guaranteed that the entire state of Kansas won’t end up knocking itself upside the head instead of just clobbering KDHE? And is that carrot really something you want in your mouth? Those are some of the decisions that your state government now faces.
To summarize yesterday, since the transcript was long and the hearing got pretty interesting in parts: Well over 20 new amendments were tacked on to the House bill (and the revised language might be online by this afternoon). The permission to build Holcomb is still in there, as in the regulatory language re KDHE, and the solar net metering (although slightly changed).
Some of the more interesting amendments:
The regulatory restrictions on KDHE were eased slightly, with the goal of not making Kansas an non-compliant state under the federal Clean Air Act. If this occurred, EPA standards would take over. The federal Clean Air Act currently allows states discretion in some of what Kansas enforces. If the legislation made KS strictly compliant with all federal standards, then KS would have to enforce the entire act.
Most of the energy efficiency requirements for schools are out.
A big chunk of the original mitigation is out (most of Sections 10-12). However, “affected facilities” are now - required? strongly urged? - to use “available best practices” of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Who are these facilities, exactly, how does one define best practices… dunno. There seems to be some debate.
There is now a nameplate Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) included. It is phrased as an incentive, not really as a requirement, since there seems to be no enforcement mechanism. Utilities (and which utilities was unclear) would have to generate 10% of their electricity portfolio from renewables by 2010 and 25% by 2025. There was also a requirement for KCC to allow an additional 1% return on investment for projects that were started with the goal of complying with the RPS. An amendment to require an 8 percent reduction in peak demand by 2010 and 20 percent by 2025 failed.
The mission of the Kansas Electrical Transmission Authority (KETA) was expanded, some say greatly.
The language that would have allowed the unintended consequence of all utilities being able to deregulate and escape the jurisdiction of the KCC was removed, although it is evidently different than the Senate version of same.
The energy commission looks totally different. The Kansas Energy Council more or less got panned as an effective body for providing policy suggestions. As a substitute, a much smaller group made up of a wide range of scientists (including climate scientists) and engineers plus one or two legislators will take over the job of providing good information on climate and energy and suggesting future energy policy. Rep. Sloan, who drafted this amendment, stated that Kansans do not currently trust their legislature to have a sound grasp on the current science.
HB 2066 hits the Senate floor later this afternoon, and CEP should hopefully be there. This morning I took a long walk with the dogs over the frozen hills of Jeff County, and managed to drink a whole cup of coffee at my desk instead of while roaring down I-70. I think I’m ready.
And before we leave, a public service announcement - tomorrow is Valentine’s Day. If you have a significant other (or parent, or grandparent, or other loved one) to whom this occasion matters, now is the time to act.
