CEP live blogging from House Energy Committee - Edison Electric and JP Morgan presentations
March 18, 2008
Good morning. Today the House and Senate Committees on Energy and Utilities are meeting jointly in the Old Supreme Courtroom on the third floor of the Capitol.
The occasion is two pretty cool presentations. The first is by electric industry group Edison Electric Institute - they have both an industry side website, and a public portal. The latter is kind of an idiot’s guide to electricity, which Lord knows many of us need, but I also prefer the issue briefs they give on the industry side.
The other presentation is by investment bank JP Morgan. Not only is that the bank that just got a serious deal (I think) when they bought Bear Stearns, but more germane to the Energy committees of the KS legislature (maybe!), JP Morgan is also one of the Carbon Principles signatories, a deal also endorsed by Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. This agreement essentially said that since carbon regulation is coming, the power companies who come to them for financing for new plants need to have a plan to deal with greeenhouse gas emissions.
EDIT - Hey, guess what. The second presenter is from Morgan Stanley, not JP Morgan. Unlike what was announced earlier…? The audience debates in low tones.
We await the committee(s). Hit refresh on your browser to check back in when need be. Kick-off is at 9:15 or so. Members of the House committee 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.
I might be wrong about the Senate Committee being invited… am I? Could be. Thought I read it somewhere, but maybe no. If I’m in the ballpark,
Everyone is here early!!! We start early. Joint meeting starts at 9:30, apparently. First, they will consider SB 586, the Senate side nuclear power bill. A little bonus here.
Chairman calls meeting to order. Monday, he will work this bill. Tuesday ? KDHE Secretary Bremby has agreed to appear before them ? or Wednesday?. Hearings on 469 and 468 Thursday (?). Friday, possible actions on bills already heard.
Meeting is being recorded on video.
Are there questions?
Sen. Franscisco - my questions are general regarding bill, and the reasoning behind some of the statements. Ie, mechanisms for offsetting CO2 emissions. Is the intent to try and encourage actions that take place in Kansas? IS the mitgation in state?
Sen. Lee responds - yes, as much as possible.
Sen Francisco - so it would be appropriate to have amendments that make this distinction, between in and out of state.
Chairman - if you have amendments, give them to staff to prepare for Monday.
Sen. Fran. - what is the necessity for the $3 ton charge, if what we are trying to encourage is reduction of emissions. Why should facility pay money rather than take actions to reduce emissions.
Chairman - Its an incentive to do what the bill says.The $3 was based on the Chicago exchange. That was the price on the day we wrote the bill.
Sen. fran. - what is the price of the other mitigation actions? Is this $3 p/ ton an actual penalty or incentive to reduce or avoid emissions… What is the cost per ton of mitigation emissions. Do we know.
Chairman (in essence, we don’t) The price of is even less on the Chicaog Exchange today.
Sen. Fran. - I would be interested in cost of carbon or comparative offsets. We have heard testimony on nuclear reactor. What would a company have to invest to offset carbons, or mitigate carbons. We need to reduce CO2 as quickly as possible. We need to know what the best balance is.
What is cost to construct wind plant, and then compare to this formula in the bill? Can we use that as a measuring stick?
Chairman - we did not calculate this.
Sen. Fran. - can we calculate it? We need a quantified list of mitigations, apart from the $3. One option would be energy efficiency. These are things - we need to put together an accurate list.
Sen. Lee - western Kansas already uses less kW per hr that eastern Kansas. I think this wording was taken from the KCPL (??? may have been KCC) agreement. It would be appropriate to have similar wording in this legislation.
Sen. Fran. - we need to figure out most cost-effective mitigation. This seems like there is a limit on energy efficiency.
Chairman - Monday, have an amendment to clarify this.
Sen. fran. - I would like to, but it is hard to do that without the costs. Or the costs of IGCC/ coal gasification. Or no-till offsets. We do know how to do that. The basic ratio here seems off -
Se. Lee - those numbers came from the IPCC and the value the IPCC attributes to those activities.
coal special interest dollars (coming soon to a town or TV near you)
January 18, 2008
More on coal from today’s Washington Post - $35 million being spent on PR to build coal plants and fight climate change legislation. (I’ll reprint it in full below, because I have noted that the Post’s links often expire on me.)
Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 18, 2008; Page D01
A group backed by the coal industry and its utility allies is waging a $35 million campaign in primary and caucus states to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change.
The group, called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, has spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina.
One of its television ads shows a power cord being plugged into a lump of coal, which it calls “an American resource that will help us with vital energy security” and “the fuel that powers our way of life.” The ads note that half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants.
winding up the week
January 18, 2008
Big story on coal from the LA Times. A selection of quotables:
America’s headlong rush to tap its enormous coal reserves for electricity has slowed abruptly, with more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states canceled or delayed in 2007 because of concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportation problems…
The setbacks have energy regulators jittery about the prospects for meeting America’s ever-increasing hunger for electricity. They say that any delays in building new capacity — coal-fired or otherwise — add pressure to an already strained electricity infrastructure, raising the prospect of shortages or sharply higher prices….
A recent study by the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute projects that coal power will cost more than nuclear power or natural gas by 2030 if coal’s carbon dioxide problem is solved the way most experts envision. Still unproven, that method involves separating carbon dioxide from the gas stream before it heads out of the stacks, collecting the vapors and then storing them underground. That would also require a new network of pipelines to move carbon dioxide from the power plant to a geologically sound site….
Another industry analysis predicts that wholesale electricity prices will rise 35% to 65% by 2015 if the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill — one of the more conservative plans put forward in the Senate — is enacted…..
A more immediate challenge is transportation, from missing links in the rail routes to silted-up Great Lakes shipping channels, which raise concerns that coal may not be so simple to get at after all. “Can coal deliver?” asked Gary Hunt, president of Global Energy Advisors, a Sacramento-based unit of Global Energy Decisions. “The answer is no,” he said — not without “billions and billions” spent on improvements for mining capacity, railroads and shipping….
Go ahead and read it all, don’t be at the mercy of my editing skills. There’s a lot more to the story that the parts I just clipped out. The overall article is good in that it takes a good overview of the coal power issue, beyond the will-the-plants-get-built-or-not perspective. (I’m as guilty of that limited view as anyone, I know.)
The piece sure could have stood to mention, though, how increasing our energy efficiency can help get some of our demand (our increasing demand, mind you) better under control.
Finally, a short video clip from our friends Down Under - the “black balloons” approach to envisioning how carbon dioxide emissions in our daily lives.
I completely blew out my right arm while playing Wii Tennis the other night. I doubt you’ll hear much more from me today 
typing is hard. everyone have a good weekend.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
Coal, China, India, Climate, and Dad
November 12, 2007
The International Energy Agency, a consortium of 24 countries working together on energy issues, just published their 2007 World Energy Outlook. It focuses on the impact of potential greenhouse gas emissions from China and India’s emerging energy markets and fast-developing economies. I didn’t order the full report but I did scan the Executive Summary linked above – it’s well-written and easy to understand.
Unfortunately, what I understood… eek. The report sent the NYT into a mild tizzy, too, but I’ll just sum it up with a quotable from the IEA:
If governments around the world stick with current policies… the world’s energy needs would be well over 50% higher in 2030 than today. China and India together account for 45% of the increase in demand in this scenario. Globally, fossil fuels continue to dominate the fuel mix. These trends lead to continued growth in energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and to increased reliance of consuming countries on imports of oil and gas – much of them from the Middle East and Russia. Both developments would heighten concerns about climate change and energy security. The challenge for all countries is to put in motion a transition to a more secure, lower-carbon energy system, without undermining economic and social development (emphasis in original).
Which leads me to… my Dad. Quite often, as dads do, he is wont to ask me what I am doing with my life, what I am interested in, my opinions about X or Y… and just last week, he asked me a very good question on exactly this topic – “With all the carbon emissions and coal consumption in China and India, why does it even matter what we do here in the United States?”
He stunned me for a second. Part of my surprise - at certain times in my life, I have been the one asking HIM a version of this question. Dad, things are bad, I’m not sure what to do, why does it matter and why should I try?
He’s never asked me before, though. And so it took a minute to switch gears and tell him what he has told me over the years. He definitely knows the answer (just like I usually did) but there’s times we all just need to hear someone else say it:
Yes, it’s bad, but you were raised to give it your best shot. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Doing this is hard and there’s a risk it might not work out, but it’s also the right thing to do. That alone makes it worth doing.
Thank you, Dad.
EDIT: yo! Dad! an update. There is movement of some sort from China on the emissions issue - they are at least trying to get 15% of their energy from renewables by 2020 (NYTimes, article is actually on China’s hydropower issues) Problematic and challenging as that will be.
