Putting Energy into Stewardship: Kansas Interfaith Power and Light
December 10, 2008
Yes, we too have been struggling to identify the perfect acronym. Is it KIPL? Is it KSIPL? If this catches as a national trend among the other state chapters, then Georgia becomes GIPL, Vermont becomes VIPL, and Nebraska becomes….?
One thing we haven’t had to struggle with though is recruitment of member-congregations. The interest in Kansas IPL has been outstanding and inspiring! Congregation leaders from across the state, from a rural Episcopal church with 30 families in McPherson to a 300 family Methodist church in Overland Park, have contacted us.
They all want to know: How can their congregation spend less money on their utility bills? (and thereby, spend that money on mission trips, food bank supplies, and materials for religious education classes, etc.)
Therefore, our first task has been to connect congregations with resources for low cost (and sometimes free!) energy audits of their facilities. The point of an energy audit is to help the facility managers identify the cost-effective, immediately available measures they can do to reduce their building’s energy use.
We’ve partnered with Energy Solutions Professionals (ESP), an Overland Park-based company, that has done free preliminary energy analyses for several of our member congregations. The results have been inspiring! For example, one congregation in Mission, Kansas, could reduce its energy costs by $7500 PER YEAR by instituting a series of energy-saving measures and investing in energy efficient equipment.
Many of the recommended measures have been similar, and include:
- Upgrading to fluorescent lightbulbs
- Using programmable thermostats fully- with aggressive temperature set-backs
- Installing water saving devices
- Installing EnergyStar rated appliances and equipment
Let me repeat: Measures like these save congregations THOUSANDS of dollars in avoided energy costs/year.
And the bonus? Reducing energy use reduces greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Congregations can meaningfully address climate change, be better stewards of creation, AND save money at the same time.
For that congregation that could save $7500/year, ESP made the following table- highlighting the other impacts of their reduced energy use:
Interested in joining Kansas IPL? Contact Eileen Horn at horn@climateandenergy.org
Want to learn more about how congregations can save energy?
Check out EPA’s Energy Star for Congregations page and publications.
-by Eileen Horn, CEP’s director of education and outreach
CDC climate change expert backs Kansas decision on coal plants
December 9, 2008
Reprinted in full from KHI News Service.
By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Dec. 8, 2008
ATLANTA — Kansas should stick to its decision not to build a pair of new coal-fired power plants, according to the lead climate change scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. George Luber, of CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, said a climate-change tipping point has been reached. The earth is warming and there is nothing that can be done to stop it in the short term.
“We have already committed to increased warming even if we reduced emissions to zero starting right now,” Luber told a group of Kansas and Missouri health journalists.
But for the long-term health of the planet, Luber said industrialized nations must sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption. He said the vast majority of scientists now agree that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change.
Luber said that the warming that is underway will cause public health problems by producing more extreme weather events — heat waves in particular — and facilitating the spread of certain vector-borne illnesses such as malaria and Lyme disease.
“We’re going to see a change in the distribution of Lyme disease northward,” he said. “It’s going to be our latest export to Canada.”
Though the die is cast for the short term, Luber said sharp reductions in energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the next several years would start reversing some of the damage that has been done. Luber said a silver lining to the climate crisis is that it provides people around the world with opportunities to change their lifestyles in ways that both reduce stress on them and the planet.
“Climate change is going to allow us to craft a way of life and build a public health system that I think we want,” he said. “It’s an enormous opportunity.”
Luber said the ongoing debate over whether to build two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas provides state policymakers an opportunity to set an example for the rest of the country.
“Kansas can take this opportunity to be a leader in green energy while protecting the health of its citizens,” he said.
Citing concerns about the potential health consequences of additional CO2 emissions, Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Roderick Bremby last October denied the air-quality permit needed by the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to go forward with a $3.6 billion expansion of a coal-fired power plant near Holcomb. Luber said KDHE officials sought his input on the decision.
Luber spoke to reporters who were participating in the Midwest Health Journalism Fellowship, a training program sponsored by health foundations in Kansas and Missouri.
-Jim McLean is a staff writer for KHI News Service, which specializes in coverage of health issues facing Kansans. He can be reached at jmclean@khi.org or at 785-233-5443, ext. 110.
NYTimes - Xcel Energy agrees to disclose risks of global warming to investors, including the implications of building more coal-fired generation
August 28, 2008
Xcel Energy agrees to warn investors about the risks of global warming (NYTimes).
ALBANY — One of the country’s largest builders of coal-fired power plants will give investors detailed warnings about the risks that global warming poses to its business under a deal with New York’s attorney general.
The agreement Wednesday between the attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, and the company, Xcel Energy of Minneapolis, is the first of its kind in the country. It could open a broad new front in efforts by environmental groups to pressure the energy industry into reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
Until now, advocates have largely relied on shareholder resolutions as a way of pushing the companies to reduce their carbon dioxide output and invest more aggressively in renewable energy sources like wind or solar power.
That effort has picked up pace, according to Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups, with dozens of shareholder resolutions filed during the 2008 financial reporting season.
“This really takes it another step, by making it a settlement agreement that should have an impact across the industry,” said Dan Bakal, the director of electric power programs at Ceres.
Mr. Cuomo subpoenaed Xcel and four other companies last September, seeking to determine whether their efforts to build new coal-fired power plants posed risks not disclosed to investors, like future lawsuits or higher costs to comply with possible regulations restricting carbon emissions.
The attorney general’s office is still negotiating with the four other companies — the AES Corporation, Dominion, Dynegy and Peabody Energy. But Mr. Cuomo hopes that the agreement will help persuade other companies to follow in the footsteps of Xcel, which supplies natural gas and electricity to customers in eight states. Among utilities, Xcel is one of the nation’s largest producers of greenhouse gases and a major provider of wind energy.
Many coal-fired power plants have been proposed or are under construction across the country and environmental advocates have made it a priority to reduce their impact.
“This landmark agreement sets a new industrywide precedent that will force companies to disclose the true financial risks that climate change poses to their investors,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. “Coal-fired power plants can significantly contribute to global warming, and investors have the right to know all the associated risks.”
The agreement represents another novel use by Mr. Cuomo of the Martin Act, a powerful tool that allows the attorney general to bring criminal as well as civil charges. Mr. Cuomo’s predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, used the law to vastly expand the office’s investigations of suspected Wall Street malfeasance.
Now Mr. Cuomo has turned it into a de facto form of environmental enforcement, too. For energy companies, including those based far from New York, he is able to claim jurisdiction because they issue securities on Wall Street.
The agreement with Xcel requires the company to analyze the likely effects on its business of current and future legislation or regulations in the states and countries where it operates and to disclose that information in its investor filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Congress and many states are considering global warming legislation. Ten states stretching from Maryland to Maine, including New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, have struck a deal to cap emissions and allow trading of pollution allotments among producers.
Under the agreement with Mr. Cuomo, Xcel will disclose the financial risks of lawsuits and of federal or state court decisions that would affect its business. The company will also analyze and disclosed the “material financial risks” to itself associated with global warming, like drought — coal plants are prodigious users of water — or rising sea levels.In a statement, the chairman of Xcel, Richard C. Kelly, said the company had already voluntarily reduced carbon emissions and planned to continue to do so.
“We previously provided detailed information concerning the expected impact of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions regulations on our operations, and under this agreement we will make even more detailed disclosures,” Mr. Kelly said. “This agreement will enhance our already aggressive efforts to be responsible environmental stewards.”
Xcel officials said their reductions of greenhouse gases had totaled 18 million tons since 2003. They added that the company planned to build an additional 6,000 megawatts of renewable energy generation by the end of the next decade.
Justin McCann, an energy analyst at Standard & Poor’s, said that the company had included more detailed information on climate change risks in its most recent filing, since Mr. Cuomo’s investigation began. But the new agreement will require even more disclosure, he said, and probably encourage other companies to follow suit.
“Utility lobbies are very strong, but they have read the writing on the wall in terms of greenhouse gas reductions,” Mr. McCann said. “They know it is extremely popular with the public, and so they have wanted to get ahead of the curve, so they can have some input.”
But some of the companies that Mr. Cuomo scrutinized might be less amenable to adopting the new requirements than others. When Mr. Cuomo issued his subpoenas last year, Vic Svec, a spokesman for Peabody Energy, described the attorney general’s inquiry as “outrageous” and suggested that Mr. Cuomo’s use of the Martin Act was a form of legal harassment.
Reached Wednesday, Mr. Svec said: “We’re confident that our disclosures around CO2” — carbon dioxide — “have been and continue to be adequate.”
Federal regulatory uncertainty over carbon continues
July 17, 2008
Just a sampling of the carbon drama - rules? regulations? harmful? not harmful? etc. - at the federal level this past few weeks or so.
Keep in mind, during all this, President Bush just accepted greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets as part of G8 negotiations.
EPA says carbon dioxide emissions harm human health (Rueters). Quotable: “In a 149-page document, the agency’s scientists said that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that potential health risks include more heat waves, floods and droughts, insect outbreaks and and wildfires, along with crop failure and decline in livestock and fisheries productivity.”
The White House had previously refused to open the email that contained that EPA study (NYTimes). “The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.” What was finally released was supposedly significantly watered down.”
Vice-President Cheney was also involved in heavy censoring of CDC testimony on the health risks of climate change (AP), apparently “fearing the presentation by a leading health official might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, a former EPA officials maintains.”
The EPA administrator refused to create rules and regs for carbon dioxide, despite a Supreme Court decision mandating this compliance (Reuters and LATimes). Instead, he kicked the issue over to Congress, where a cap and trade bill failed last month. Quotable:
Last year’s Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court ruling had found that greenhouse gases can be regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act. The decision pressured the EPA to reconsider its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from new cars and trucks.
But instead of laying out rules, Johnson solicited public comments for a 120-day period on a nearly 1,000 page draft on the effects of climate change and the ramifications of the Clean Air Act on greenhouse emissions.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Busybusybusy, here’s the highlights of climate and energy news lately, especially as it affects KS and the Midwest.
Note first: Everyone here is talking about the weather. Tornados, floods, crops harvest commodities it’s all about the weather. And bemoaning or boasting about the state of our tomato plants after said weather. I’m fighting blossom drop. too much wet.
News:
More on the KS connections of sustainability architects working in Greensburg - Salina Journal. Quotable: “ After all, Hardy said, while nothing might be left of grandma’s house, many people still feel an attachment to the land it was on — and wouldn’t want to be told it was going to be the site of the new city hall, library or park. The property lines were still intact, Wedel said, and “if a plot of land has been in the family for four or five generations, going back through your parents, grandparents and to your great-grandparents who settled it,” that plot retains some importance. “We quickly learned that without any buildings, what you think of as a community, the community is still there,” Hardy said. “All of what you think of as a community is gone, but the relationships are still there.”
East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC, Garnett, Kan. wins award from EnergyStar/ EPA for cutting greenhouse gas emissions - EPA press release
Utilities scrambling as floods compromise railways and delay coal shipments; prices could rise even further as a result - CNNmoney
Controversy over financing coal plants with bonds - Reuters - Even new coal plants with up to date pollution standards are at risk due to upcoming changes in regs re CO2 emissions. Quotable:” Thompson called on the federal government to investigate how tax-exempt bonds are used in building the plants because current plans are “based on outdated assumptions and a suspension of disbelief that the risks will be managed or wished away.”… But Moody’s, which gave the bonds a “A1″ rating, also warned that there are “no assurances that environmental regulation will remain the same. Any federal legislation that addresses greenhouse gas emissions could have an adverse impact on the cost of coal-fired generation.” Changing environmental regulations, including limits on the pollutants, or greenhouse gases, released into the atmosphere, is one threat to all coal plants’ viability, Thomson wrote. “Plants constructed under current rules will incur new financial obligations to curb greenhouse gases,” he wrote. He also said that AMP-Ohio is “proceeding based on the assumption that ratepayers will simply pay any price increases without question.” Problems could arise if they rebel against the increases.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Sure, the Kansas legislature - and the ever-present coal controversy - is on hold until May 29. For the most part, participants in the recent session’s energy debates are temporarily off-screen.
The action continues, though, in other arenas. And in other directions. Tomorrow in Wichita is the first meeting of the Kansas Environmental and Energy Policy (KEEP), the new advisory group advising the Sebelius administration on climate and energy policy (click here for the executive order).
According to the KEEP’s website, the group recognizes the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the globe to warm, which in turn contributes to climate change. These changes will impact the economy, the environment, and the overall quality of life on earth.
Thus, KEEP’s purpose is to “respond to the challenge of global climate change, while becoming more energy efficienct and energy independent and spurring economic growth.”
This weekend, Jack Pelton - KEEP chairman and president and chief executive officer of Cessna Aircraft - also had an interesting piece in the Wichita Eagle.
Pelton described KEEP’s purpose as “to find the balance between the needs of businesses and the need to protect the quality of our air,” and their policy goal as developing a plan that meets the energy needs of Kansas, at the same time as identifying “policies and technologies that reduce the state’s carbon footprint.” As he also stated:
I also know the pressure inherent in turning a profit. But neither Cessna nor our parent company, Textron, is prepared to sacrifice the environment for the bottom line. We seek the balance we know exists; and if you ask my counterparts at the other Wichita aerospace companies, they will tell you the same thing.
When the governor asked me to lead this group, she made clear her commitment to the goals I’ve outlined here. Together, our state can ensure power resources are in place for our economic prosperity without dooming future generations of Kansans to the ravages of accelerated climate change.
I am excited to have been asked to help and am very happy to live in a state where the governor is mindful of enhancing the state’s climate for business growth while reducing the state’s negative impact on Earth’s climate.
What exactly will all this specifically MEAN? We’ll find out more tomorrow. In terms of procedure, KEEP is following what is known as a stakeholder process - where an outside facilitator (in this case, the Center for Climate Strategies) helps participants to state their priorities and then weigh them as a group.
Even if you can’t travel to Wichita for KEEP’s kick-off meeting, the process is VERY accessible to the public (YAY). While you might not want to listen for the entire duration - 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. - you can call in using the following phone number - 800.704.9804, and conference code 424 541#.
How cool is THAT. Note to those of you not used to conference calls:
(1) they’re easy, don’t be scared, just call in and listen
(2) mute buttons on your phones are helpful, but not always necessary - when a kid or spouse or coworker wanders into the room and asks very loudly where the toilet paper is, it’s nice to have that muted. However, some conference services also automatically have you muted, and you have to press a button and go through a moderator to talk
(3) most conference services track the caller ID information of participants - the name of whatever phone number you are calling from
KEEP is composed of representatives from base of industry, utilities, state and local governments, environmental interest groups, and academia. Appointees include (click here for the additional ex officio appointees):
- Steven Baccus, Kansas Farm Bureau President
- Amy Blankenbiller, Kansas Chamber of Commerce President and CEO
- Jim Boone, NorthStar Comfort Systems Inc. President
- Dr. David Braaten, Kansas University Geography Department Professor
- Casey Cassius, Berkebile Nelson Immenschuh McDowell Architects Architect
- Yvonne Cather, Kansas Sierra Club Council Delegate
- Patty Clark, Kansas Leadership Center Director of Operations
- Dr. Johannes Feddema, Kansas University Geography Department Professor
- Ashok Gupta, Natural Resources Defense Council Director of Air and Energy Program
- Colin Hansen, Kansas Municipal Utilities Executive Director
- Nancy Jackson, Land Institute Climate and Energy Project (CEP) Project Director
- Mike Kelley, YRC Worldwide Vice-President
- Mark Knight, Owner of Knight Feedlots, Inc.
- Annie Kuether, State Representative of Kansas
- Stuart Lowry, Kansas Electric Cooperatives Inc. Executive Vice-President
- William Moore, Westar Energy President and CEO
- Emil Ramirez, United Steel Workers District 11 Assistant Director
- Dr. Charles Rice, Kansas State University Agronomy Department Professor
- Bruce Snead, Kansas State University Engineering Extension Program Specialist
- Dr. John Wong, Wichita State University Urban and Public Affairs Interim Director
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Editorial on energy efficiency. This week in the Wichita Eagle, Randy Scholfield asked an excellent question - what is Kansas doing to maximize its energy efficiency resources?
In terms of concrete state policy, that answer is - as yet, not much. Other energy issues overshadowed the energy efficiency legislation, which crashed and burned in the last hours of the 2008 session. The KCC has yet to offer any findings on the energy efficiency (in effect, decoupling) docket currently before it.
As Randy observes:
Kansas has been locked in a bitter controversy about whether a proposed coal-plant expansion in western Kansas is needed. Largely overlooked in the debate is the untapped promise of energy efficiency and conservation to reduce our state’s energy needs.
All sides should agree that energy conservation is a goal worth pursuing.
Kansas has hardly begun realizing the potential — the state ranks near the bottom of the nation in energy efficiency programs. It’s one of just 10 states that in 2006 reported zero net savings from efficiency. Zip.
Coal prices rising. You know how gasoline prices rise during the summer months, when more people are driving? Something similar happens with coal - because of increased demand (mainly for air conditioning), electric generators have to start stockpiling coal in the spring to make sure they have enough for summer.
However, due to increasing exports of U.S. coal, domestic supplies are decreasing. Thus they are also rising in price (Reuters - story one and two.)
Greenhouse gases in atmosphere higher than any other time in past 800,000 years. In a study of Antarctic sea ice, researchers discovered that “‘today’s concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are 28 and 124 percent higher respectively’” (Reuters). Quotable:
Before the Industrial Revolution, levels of greenhouse gases were guided mainly by long-term shifts in the earth’s orbit around the sun that have plunged the planet into ice ages and back again eight times in the past 800,000 years.
The U.N. Climate Panel last year blamed human activities, led by burning of fossil fuels that release heat-trapping gases, for modern global warming that may disrupt water and food supplies with ever more droughts, floods and heatwaves.
“The driving forces now are very much different from the driving forces in the past when there was only natural variation,” Stocker told Reuters of the study in the journal Nature by scientists in Switzerland, France and Germany.
Sierra Club has filed suit over eight coal plants in six different states. The legal claim is that the plants violate the Clean Air Act (Reuters). States involved are Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas and Wyoming. Sierra is considering suing additional plants in Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
As of right now, Kansas is not on that list.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Earth Day meets coal in Kansas
April 22, 2008
Focus on carbon regulation increases Kansans’ awareness of Earth Day. As reported by Sarah Kessinger, when the Supreme Court decided that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, that pretty much rocked Kansas’s world (Hutchison News).
The decision was in regards to emissions from transportation sources, but it seemed pretty logical that regulation of all CO2 would soon follow (what - the EPA is going to regulate CO2 from the transportation sector but not from electrical generation? That doesn’t seem rational). Quotable from Sarah:
The high court’s majority view of CO2 led state regulator Rod Bremby several months later to nix a permit for Sunflower Electric Power Corp, which sought to build the plants with two other utilities, Colorado-based Tri-State Electric Generation and Transmission Association and Texas-based Golden Spread Electric Cooperative.
As grueling as the ongoing legislative session has been, Stephanie Cole of Sierra Club noted one good effect - the controversy has definitely raised enormous awareness of the issues, offering Kansas environmental groups opportunities to reach new audiences.
“People are researching, asking questions, getting educated,” Cole said. “We’re seeing new faces. It used to be a pretty tight-knit group interested in these things. But not so much any more. The attention this has gotten has people asking, ‘What about climate change and what can we do to respond to it?’ ”
OK, I’ll see your veto override (if it happens) and then raise you something you REALLY won’t like. Speaking at a local Earth Day event -the source did not specify where - Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson had a few major points for legislators who support the two Holcomb bills to be considered for veto override in the legislative wrap-up session next week (49 News).
First - the fight against two proposed coal-fired power plants will continue, even if the legislation achieves an override. Sebelius’s administration will continue to take action against the plants. “Legal action is inevitable.” Oh boy.
Second - the rising costs of plant construction make it likely that the plants won’t be built anyway.
Third - if you are voting for these plants, don’t even TRY to say you are an environmentalist. No way. “You cannot say that you are an environmentalist, that you support the environment, that you are part of the green movement, and vote for coal-fired plants that are not needed for this state.”
Speaking of inevitable litigation… Are you a legal dork? If/ when the Kansas coal drama moves to the courtroom, will you find yourself enraptured with the incredibly fascinating issues wrapped up state carbon regulation?
If so, I suggest you prepare yourself by reading a pretty neato blog, Global Warming Law. I like it.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Here’s the press release from the Governor’s office (which should be available soon on the Governor’s website):
Governor vetoes bill with same elements of the last; remains committed to seeking common sense compromise
Veto message for House Substitute for Senate Bill 148 from Governor Kathleen Sebelius:
“Legislators who promote the expansion of coal-fired plants in Kansas made a strategic decision with SB 148. Rather than working toward a compromise solution or having any conversation about energy policy, this bill was drafted behind closed doors. It contains the same onerous elements of the previous bill that I vetoed; and again, these are elements I cannot accept and will not support.
“I am still hopeful we can have meaningful discussions about a true compromise; rather than being sent the same bill in disguise yet again.
“This maneuver has done nothing to address the issues at hand – developing comprehensive energy policy, providing base-load energy power for Western Kansas, implementing carbon mitigation strategies and capitalizing on our incredible assets for additional wind power. Furthermore, putting the regulatory permitting process into the hands of a Legislature whose membership changes every two years would set a dangerous precedent and result in real regulatory uncertainty.
“President Bush has announced a new goal for stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and recognized that the power sector must make significant efforts to achieve that goal. Since the most likely way to achieve this goal is through a cap and trade system, which would, in effect, tax carbon, it would be unfair to Kansans, for our utilities to build coal fired plants for other states until we can evaluate the costs of those plants for Kansas tax payers and rate payers.
“We must remember the decisions we make today have a huge impact on Kansans for generations to come. The challenges before us can and should be met through a common sense solution.
“Pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto House Substitute for Senate Bill 148.”
With this action, Sebelius has signed 91 bills this legislative session and vetoed two.
CEP: What does this all mean?
Now there are two major bills currently before the legislature, SB 327 and SB 148. Both have now been vetoed by Governor Sebelius. The veto on SB 327 has been overridden by the Senate, and now awaits an attempted override by the House. SB 148 will now go back to the legislature where override votes will be considered in both the Senate and the House.
The legislature is currently on break and returns on April 30th for the veto session.
Check back for more legislative updates as the situation unfolds! Also, if you need to know more, check out CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
— Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: lobbying $$$ over coal, and revolutionary new CO2 mapping technique (with cool video clip)
April 16, 2008
Your daily fix of coal and Kansas. First - whoa baby. Lobbying in KS over the Sunflower power plants has gone a little bonkers. Most sources report the total number to be over $789,000 (Wichita Eagle). Harris News also offers a more specific look at the costs. Keep in mind, though - in Kansas, you don’t have to report a lot of lobbying expenses. Ie, you don’t have to report the salaries paid to lobbyists. If those numbers were added in, we’d probably be looking at well - well - over a million dollars.
Second. The second Holcomb bill, SB 148, reached the Governor’s desk. She is expected to veto it just as she did the first Holcomb bill, SB 327. (For info on those bills’ content, see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy.)
Third, Kansas tries to figure out how to prepare for cap-and-trade (LJWorld).
Revolutionary carbon dioxide mapping techniques. HOW COOL IS THIS. Researchers from Purdue University have developed Vulcan, a revolutionary mapping technique whose purpose is to quantify North American fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It can track these emissions on the scale of individual factories, power plants, roadways, and neighborhoods, and can quantify them in terms of fuel type, economic sub-sector, and county-state identification.
How exactly will this technology matter to Kansas? Probably in lots of ways, but right off the top of my head - it can be used to help in greenhouse gas inventories, cap and trade scenarios, etc. It can also provide outside verification of the fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions that various industries report, under carbon regulation.
In some discussions you hear in the state, there seems to be a misperception that carbon dioxide can’t be tracked. In fact, emissions of fossil fuel carbon dioxide - such as that released from power plants and transportation sources - can indeed be tracked.
Watch the following short YouTube video. Don’t expect to understand all the details, and don’t worry - the gist will be pretty clear. The CO2 patterns over Kansas show up very clearly in most of the maps.
Pretty interesting, eh?
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy
April 15, 2008
This got posted on the regular website yesterday - and in just a few hours became one of CEP’s most popular downloads (even more than Energy and Water! which is saying something).
For a .pdf of the following, please click here.
For questions specifically related to currently pending legislation on the coal plants, skip to the end of the entry/ document.
*****************************
This session, CEP’s blog has listened in and reported on hearings, debates, and votes regarding climate and energy matters in the Kansas legislature.
During recent weeks, many questions have come our way. Most of them are about what reporters are calling the “coal legislation” - the bills that would allow Sunflower Electric to build two 700 megawatt (MW) plants near Holcomb, KS.
CEP couldn’t begin to answer every inquiry. So instead, we offer a broad selection of the most frequently asked questions – and our best answers – below.
Q: Why do environmentalists object to Sunflower’s proposed Holcomb Expansion?
A: The reason most often cited – and the basis for Secretary Bremby’s decision on the permit – is the 11 million tons of carbon dioxide that the plants would emit each year. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas (GHG). A major source of CO2 emissions comes burning fossil fuels. When too many GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere, they lead to global warming, which contributes to climate change.
11 million tons of carbon dioxide is more than 1.65 million cars would emit during the same period. In other words, every year these plants would release more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the cars in Kansas.
But it’s important to realize - concerns about coal plants go well beyond environmentalists. The American Lung Association objects to their increased particulate pollution, which contributes to lung and heart disease, stroke, and asthma (especially in otherwise healthy children).
Perhaps because Kansas City has skirted or been in noncompliance with the Clean Air Act in recent years, we have heard particular concern from that area. One legislator has focused especially on the dangers of mercury emissions, which impair brain development in fetuses.
In face of global warming, some in the faith community have also expressed substantial concern about building coal plants. They worry both on the grounds of creation care, and because climate change will disproportionately harm the world’s least fortunate.
Finally, some in the business community question the wisdom of the deal. Innovest, one of the few firms to predict the Bear Stearns debacle, recently warned that the decision to build new coal at this time would expose Sunflower’s ratepayers to “significant risk.”
Q: Wouldn’t the Holcomb plants be the cleanest burning coal plants in the state?
A: No. And yes. No – the plants’ carbon dioxide emissions would not be limited. The plants would still emit eleven million tons of CO2 per year. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies will not be feasible for probably the next twenty years.
Yes – because these plants would be new and so would employ the best available control technology for other pollutants. Their emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury would be reduced in comparison to emissions from many other plants in the state.
Q: What about the algae reactor? I’ve heard that would remove most of the emissions. Shouldn’t environmentalists be in favor of that?
A: The algae reactor is an experimental technology. Early tests to select strains of algae show promise, and algae could one day contribute substantial amounts of liquid fuel. Research will surely continue, and many (including CEP) applaud Sunflower Electric for supporting that research.
However, the Salina Journal reported that the algae reactor’s deployment at commercial scale is many years off, according to NREL’s National Bioenergy Center, which began these experiments more than 20 years ago. Sandia National Laboratory’s energy systems department, which is working to commercialize the production of algae today, emphasized that the energy required to produce and process the biomass could match or dwarf the emissions captured.
So - well in the future - this process could make money and provide fuel. However, it is not likely to reduce overall emissions.
Q: We’ve never regulated carbon dioxide before. How is it fair to start now?
A: As a neutral utility executive observed at one of the hearings, emissions regulations on pollutants from coal-burning power plants change fairly often as their threats are understood, legislation changes, and control technologies improve.
News Updates: All Kansas energy news today, folks. Regulating greenhouse gases, coal, etc.
April 11, 2008
Kansas Energy Council mixes it up. OK, so greenhouse gas regulation is coming, including regulation of carbon dioxide. Should Kansas sit and wait for feds to act? Should it act itself? Should it get prepared, regardless?
The Kansas Energy Council addressed these issues on Monday (TCJournal). Those who attended the meetings (including CEP Executive Director Nancy Jackson) offered observations on the choices before the KEC.
Liz Brosius, executive director of the Kansas Energy Council, said all options for reducing the state’s carbon footprint would be costly.
“Tackling global warming will be expensive,” she said. “There’s going to be a lot of resistance as we begin to make things more expensive. Political considerations loom large.”
Nancy Jackson, executive director of the Climate and Energy Project at the Land Institute in Salina, said the type of face-to-face discussion about greenhouse emissions that occurred Wednesday among energy council members representing environmental groups; state government; and the refinery, trucking, housing and utility industries would help set the foundation for implementation of a national system.
“If you’re not at the table for the discussion,” she said, “you’re on the menu later.”
Jackson said Kansas was positioned to be a big winner in a rapidly changing energy economy. The state has massive underground formations where carbon could be stored rather than released to the air, she said. Greenhouse gases pumped below the surface could improve oil recovery in some areas, she said.
In addition, the state has solid potential for power production from wind and solar facilities and through burning biomass from crop residue or prairie grasses.
“We’re stuck in the ‘we’re going to lose’ mentality,” Jackson said. “Kansas should be a net winner.”
Pressure to change vote on coal plants. As reported in the Wichita Eagle by Randy Schofield, Wichita legislator and Republican Dale Swenson is feeling the heat to change his “no” vote on the Holcomb plants.
When you read the story, you begin get an idea of how intense this pressure is. More or less, Swenson’s position on the plants is, as Schofield describes it: “He’s not dead set against a new coal plant, but he’s not convinced, either, that Holcomb is the right project.” It’s a very even-handed look at the pros and cons
Reminder from CEP: Support your legislators for their votes that you like, as well as the ones you don’t. These people work under great pressure - regardless of your views on this particular issue, please do TELL THEM THANK YOU.
For how legislators voted on the most recent Holcomb vote, and for how to contact them, please check here.
KDHE Secretary Bremby speaks on his decision to deny the coal plant permits. In particular, he discusses the importance of the recent Supreme Court decision that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant (AP/ Joplin Globe). (It appears that they will probably not take concrete action to do so under this administration.) Quotable:
But Bremby said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was crucial because the state’s air-quality laws are tied to the federal Clean Air Act. Deciding that CO2 wasn’t a factor would have created “a complete disconnect.”
Bremby decided in October to deny an air-quality permit to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. for the two plants.
“I think it was a typical permitting decision until the Supreme Court decision suggested that CO2 needed to be considered as a pollutant,” Bremby said. “The science was really insufficient for the decision. It was the science coupled with the interpretation of federal law by the Supreme Court.”
The court decision in question was about carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Critics charge that it doesn’t apply to carbon dioxide emissions from other sources. Supporters say a pollutant is a pollutant - ie, mercury is regulated across all industries - and that this court decision will be used as a sanction for future carbon dioxide regulation from all sorts of industrial and transportation sources.
Regardless, this point will lead to further litigation. Bremby spoke to this as well:
“We anticipated litigation, regardless of the decision, and so we wanted to make sure that we factored in everything possible,” Bremby said. “We had to factor that (the Supreme Court decision) in.”
Bremby said while the Department of Health and Environment staff who handle air-quality permit continued its work on Sunflower’s application, another team reviewed the U.S. Supreme Court decision and whether it applied.
“As you might imagine, we had mixed views internally,” he said. “Pro or con, we knew that there would be litigation.”
Bremby also noted that for all the authority granted to him under Kansas law, the attorney general’s office told him he couldn’t do one thing — push back the Dec. 1 deadline for ruling on Sunflower’s permit application to consider more information.
“The portion of this that I have the most difficult time reconciling — and I think this is the matter that will ultimately be determined in the courts — is the timing,” he said. “Unfortunately, there’s a Supreme Court decision, there’s the science that’s moving; we have a permit that we can’t stop.”
He added: “Not withstanding all that, I felt it was the right decision at the right time for the right reasons.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
When the House returned for 30 minutes then decided to go on another recess, MH decided to wander over to the Senate.
SB 148, the second Holcomb bill, passed the House this morning on a 83-41 vote. It takes 84 votes for a measure to be veto proof in the House.
The House lost no time in kicking this measure back to the Senate. The Senate voted to accept the change that the House had made on the floor (ie, that KDHE and KCC would have to identify utilities whose CO2 emissions were in excess of the statewide average) and to concur by a 32-7 vote.
This does two things: (1) SB 148 will now be sent to the Governor. It will probably get to her desk sometime next week. Odds are pretty good she will veto this one, too. (2) This gives Sunflower supporters a back-up plan to have another bill in play during the veto session, in case they do not get the override on the first Holcomb bill.
Actually, (3) the Senate’s own version of the second Holcomb bill, HB 2919, is not actually dead. It’s just kind of hanging out there in limbo.
It’s like a zombie movie!
And on that note, everyone have a great weekend. Go outside. Run and play. Stay away from computers.
Then go watch basketball.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Live Blogging: waiting - yet again! - for a possible override vote on the first Holcomb bill
April 4, 2008
Location: House Chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation in Holcomb, and the role of the KDHE Secretary in protecting Kansans’ health and environment
Bill No.: SB 327, the first Holcomb bill
Summary/ Action: The House came back at 2:00, stayed until 2:30, and went into recess until 6:00 p.m. tonight.
******************
Fair warning: The rumor mill on the likelihood of a veto override in the House is split 50/50. But, since CEP is in Topeka anyway, we are hanging out in the House gallery and waiting. You can listen to the proceedings live here if you would like.
The House in fact has 28 or 29 more days to hold an override veto. They may get to it today, they may not. Either way, I have chocolate.
What we might be missing: More rumor has it that they will take SB 148, the second Holcomb bill, to the Senate floor this afternoon. (But I can’t be in two places at once.)
The whys and wherefores of this action are a little complicated, but the ultimate end is for Sunflower Electric supporters to have another legislative option during the veto session, in case they can’t override the first Holcomb bill, SB 327.
What all this reminds me of. Have you ever watched a little kids’ basketball league? Say kids about 10-12. They’re fast, but not very tall. They zoom up and down the court, there’s lots of action, arms and elbows and legs everywhere, bodies crash and burn, the ball goes squirting out in every direction -
- but there are not usually a lot of baskets.
Somedays that’s a lot what it’s like, watching legislative action.
2:14 p.m. The House is back, but arguing about the committee report on the immigration bill. Will post if there is anything interesting re climate and energy issues.
2:30 p.m. - 
The House came back for 30 minutes, and is now recessed until 6:00 p.m. No baskets!
NOTE: Today is the last day of the session, although it sounds like they will have to work tomorrow since there is still so much undone. Since they are going late tonight I will miss whatever happens, because I absolutely must attend a good-bye party for a dear friend who is moving to Australia (!).
But, you can always listen in yourself online (see link above).
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Given that the vote on SB 148 - the second Holcomb bill - was one vote shy of veto-proof, there’s probably also a chance that Sunflower supporters might also be only one vote away from overriding the Governors’ veto on SB 327.
Since I am getting emails asking me how to contact legislators, here’s how: (1) if you don’t know who your legislator is, you can find out at www.congress.org, and/ or (2) you can look at the KS House roster.
Remember to support your legislators, as well as to offer constructive comments for positive change. If you email them, please still include your street address in your signature. Your legislator needs to know that you are one of his or her constituents.
Legislators who changed their votes from no on the first Holcomb bill, to yes on the second Holcomb bill, include the following: JoAnn Pottorff, Judy Morrison, Steve Lukert, Jerry Henry, Virgil Peck, and Brenda Landwehr.
HOW THEY VOTED - on SB 148, the second Holcomb bill - and keep in mind, please check for the OFFICIAL House tally of how they voted in the Journal tomorrow, MH’s count cannot be considered official:
Against the measure (41): Ballard, Burroughs, Carlin, Colloton, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Faust-Goudeau, Flaharty, Flora, Frownfelder, Garcia, Goyle, Hawk, Henderson, Holland, Huntingdon, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Mah, McCray-Miller, McLachlan, Menghini, Metzger, Neighbor, Quigley, Rardin, Ruiz, Sawyer, Storm, Svaty, Swenson, Tietze, Treaster, Trimmer, Ward, Winn, Wolf K, Worley
For the measure (83): Aurand, Beamer, Bethell, Bowers, Brown, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Colyer, Craft, Crum, Dahl, Donohoe, Faber, Feuerborn, Fund, Gatewood, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Grant, Hayzlett, Henry, Hill, Hodge, Holmes C., Holmes M, Horst, Huebert, Humerickhouse, Johnson, Kelly, Kelsey, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Knox, Landwehr, Light, Lukert, Mast, Masterson, McKinney, McLelland, Merrick, Morrison Jim, Morrison Judy, Moxley, Meyers, Neufeld, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Owens, Palmer, Patton, Pauls, Peck, Peterson, Phelps, Potorff, Powell, Powers, Rhoades, Roth, Ruff, Schroeder, Schwartz, Shultz, Siegfried, Sloan, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Watkins, Wetta, Whitham, Wilk, Williams, Winn, Wolf B, Yoder
Not Present - Spalding
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Legislative Update: Waiting for veto override attempt in the House, during last official day of session (supposedly)
April 4, 2008
Location: House chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW coal-fired generation at Holcomb
Bill No.: (1) Final action on the second Holcomb bill, SB 148, is scheduled for this morning. It will be passed by a majority, but the question is how much of a majority. Seven representatives did not vote on the measure yesterday, in the preliminary vote. In the House, 84 votes represents a veto-proof majority. (2) There may be a veto override attempt by the House on the first Holcomb bill, SB 327. However, I must point out that technically the House does have 30 calendar days to vote to override, starting from the Senate’s override vote yesterday.
Summary/ Action: SB 148 passes 83-41, one vote shy of veto-proof.
In a perfect world, they would get to all the votes that I care about today - and then I could focus my mental energies on the KU game. Hit your refresh button to check in, but I am only going to record the highlights.
9:00 a.m. - House is supposed to start at 9:00, but I don’t think it will. They were here until almost midnight last night, and there were scads of conference committees scheduled for this morning on various bills.
9:02 a.m. - I was wrong! They are getting started. Even though the chamber is about 2/3 empty.
9:23 a.m. - Please note - today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. A resolution was just passed, commemorating this legacy.
Final action vote on SB 148, the second Holcomb bill (the insurance policy should the first Holcomb bill, the vetoed SB 327, not be overridden).
Roll call vote. Call of the House. (Meaning, the three who haven’t voted are being tracked down so they can vote) It stands at 40 no, 82 yes, with 3 not voting yet. 84 is a veto-proof majority. Aurand (proposer of the carbon tax on Monday), Crow, and Spalding are the outstanding votes.
We wait.
MH checks her email. Just to break the dramatic tension.
MH checks her horoscope. (You never know.) It was not particularly helpful. It said I am supposed to get as much possible done before lunch.
There are hollers for the call to be erased. Meaning, that they DON’T track down or wait upon the three non-voters. Actually, we know Aurand’s vote is a yes, and that Crow’s is a no - and that leaves Spalding. The hollers are not sustained.
Location: House Chambers
Issue: Sunflower proposed plants, if and when they pop up - and/or a veto override attempt by the House on SB 327, which the Senate overrode 32-7 earlier this afternoon.
Summary/ Action: MH gave up and went home at 9:00 p.m. Yawn.
3:30 p.m.
This is just hanging out and waiting. I will only post if something comes up. Refresh your browser only if you are really bored. And meanwhile, you can vote on the new KS license plate design! I was torn between 2 and 4. 1 was surprisingly Jerry Garcia.
Hey, something interesting did just happen. Senate must have moved on their version of the second Holcomb bill this morning, HB 2919, because Holmes just carried the message to the House. He recommended that the House non-concur, and that the bill go to conference committee. The House appointed Holmes, Olson, and Kuether (Chair, Vice-Chair, and Ranking Minority of the House Energy Committee) as conferees.
When the House takes final action on SB 148 tomorrow (their version of the second Holcomb bill), then the two bills will meet in conference committee, in all likelihood. That will have to happen fast, because tomorrow is the OFFICIAL LAST DAY OF THE SESSION. Although there are rumors of working on Saturday. Sadly.
4:11 p.m.
Sounds like the Senate side went ahead and voted to override SB 327 (the first Holcomb bill) by 32-7, one person out sick. Which means the override attempt could kick back here to the House this afternoon.
Mayve you should hit your refresh button once in a while. OH NO. They are recessing till 7:30 this evening! Criminentally.
7:30 It’s deserted.
7:49 It’s alive! But not yet in a formal fashion. 7:56 here we go. As earlier, MH will not post unless something actually happens. 8:06 we are missing five representatives, so all is on hold.
News Updates: More Kansas wind forums - Colby and Phillipsburg - and the override rumor mill
April 3, 2008
Greetings from the O.K. Corral, I mean the capitol, where we are all half-felled by coal fatigue! Enough already. For a break, I entertained myself by typing “global warming dance” into YouTube and watching the offerings. None are suitable for posting here, sorry. CEP does actually have standards.
New Kansas wind forums scheduled for Colby and Phillipsburg. The Colby forum is April 14, and I don’t seem to have a press release for that one. The Phillipsburg info, though, is as follows:
Spring is the time when Kansans’ thoughts turn to… wind power. Of course!
If you live near the Colby or Phillipsburg areas, please consider attending one of these wind forums.
Protect yourself, your farm, your community, and your land by informing yourself about how wind power works. Learn about the issues, and especially about your legal rights in the development process.
- 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Registration begins at 8:00 a.m.
- Huck Boyd Center, 860 Park Street
- Lunch included with registration fee. Register by April 11 and pay $10. After, pay $20.
- Other speakers include:
Steve Errebo, Lincoln County
Kimberly Gencur Svaty, ITC Great Plains
Rep. Josh Svaty
and others.
- Topics covered: community wind, basics of how wind power works, pro-wind policies, wind leases, and transmission
Override speculations. And to folks emailing me about whether the Sunflower proposal has the votes for an override in the House, and whether the Senate is then going to go for it this afternoon as is being rumored and reported - sorry but I am not doing drama right now. No offense!
The House vote this morning didn’t seem too decisive either way. I could entirely be wrong, but I received the impression that everyone was so tired of the whole topic that they just wanted it out of their hair, and their votes were pretty much cast toward that end. Frankly, I also thought that people were digging in, rather than pulling out. Of course I could be wrong.
Likewise, it was also my understanding that the Senate was voting to override Thursday or Friday, anyway. That was already expected.
All the rumors flying around - it’s a lot like bluffing in poker. It’s just not possible to really know what hand anyone is holding until the cards are laid down. This morning I just saw nothing worth getting excited about either way.
And if the veto gets overridden, so be it, and we all just hitch up our pants and head to the courts. (EDIT: Whoops! Meaning, CEP will observe and report as usual. I prefer my only courtside appearance to be regarding basketball games, pretty understandably.) I promise not to whine if I have to go cover court proceedings.
And either way, there will still be gobs of work to do on a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas. Including figuring out some reasonable solutions for baseload power needs in western Kansas.
Location: House Chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation at Holcomb
Bill No.: The House’s second version of the Holcomb bill, SB 148, is first up on General Orders today. There are rumors about other potential drama also, see below.
What CEP coverage is missing: The Senate is considering its version of the second Holcomb bill, 2919, today on General Orders as well. However, the Senate vote on Holcomb is veto-proof (unless the super-conservatives hyperventilate at the supposedly greener provisions in 2919) and the House’s vote is not. We will hang out in the House.
Summary/ Action: SB 148 passed the committee of the whole by 79-39, 7 didn’t vote; the measure now awaits a final action vote. That could happen tonight or tomorrow.
Again, why are we here… Remember, the first Holcomb bill, SB 327, was vetoed by the Governor. Since the House’s ability to override is uncertain, Sunflower supporters pushed a second Holcomb bill, SB 148, into the queue. The queue is pretty busy, though, since this is the last 48 hours of the regular session, so - folks are tense.
Is there much difference between SB 327 and SB 148? Nope. You can read CEP’s opinion in more detail here, but basically:
(1) the legislation puts the disputed air permit directly into law (SOX and NOX emissions, but mysteriously not mercury is mentioned) and allows regulation of CO2. Ironic, but still doesn’t get around the constitutional point that this is the legislature doing the KDHE Secretary’s job,
(2) the wind tariff is interruptible, meaning if you buy wind power utilities have the option to turn off your power whenever the wind isn’t blowing
(3) a mandate for the KCC to have investor-owned utilities and cooperatives voluntarily draw up energy efficiency plans for their customers. Westar and KCPL are getting into energy efficiency in a big way right now anyway, they didn’t wait around for legislation on the issue, and
(4) a greenhouse gas emissions inventory program for utilities, which is far less expansive than the GHG inventory established in the Governor’s executive order. The Order goes much further than SB 148. SB 148 is not necessary to making positive energy policy in Kansas.
The rumor mill, as to why we are even messing with this stuff: The House vote on SB 148 will be a headcount for the veto override vote on SB 327. If 148 goes down this a.m. (meaning, the vote to pass it is less than 84 votes, which is a veto-proof majority in the House), what next?
Well. That’s where the rumors are going nuts. For example, I don’t find the following a reasonable, persuasive scenario, but the story goes like this: There are high value bills coming up in the next few days, in particular big money incentive measures for the aviation industry in Wichita. The Wichita delegation has members who did not vote for Holcomb. Ergo, to switch their votes, these measures will be held hostage.
Nuts! We are getting out of control here. While they have found themselves suddenly playing the part of Darth Vader, Sunflower Electric is not a bad corporation - in fact, if you ignore the current 1400 MW coal plant issue (granted, that’s a big ignore) they are actually one of the greenest utilities in Kansas. For existing coal plants, theirs are among the cleanest, and they are also invested in renewable energy.
If we toss out all the drama, and just take it for granted that this mess is caused by a whole bunch of people doing what they think is right, with very different definitions of what “right” is - as messes usually are - then you can also take it that Sunflower is actually run by reasonable people, who probably are way too smart to take on the aviation industry.
Talk about the tail of a tiger that you don’t want to pull. And if the lobbyists of the aviation company in question got word of this rumor, I think they would squash any such attempt. I also can’t see them taking the public relations hit of having their good name - and their environmental record - dragged into this mess. At this point, there is extensive national publicity focused on what Kansas does with coal.
Of course, this morning could prove me a totally naive idiot. Oh well. It’s kind of like divorce proceedings when children are involved. Everyone needs to act right, because they will still have to cooperate in the end. Kansans are all going to have to cooperate on these energy issues at some point, including western Kansas’s need for baseload power in some form or another. If we get too ugly, that moment will only take longer to come, and the collateral damage will probably bear a very high price. This does not have to happen.
Enough of the rumors. I’m very tired of them. I’m also cranky this morning because someone pointed out that if I’m tired of this stuff now, imagine if the veto override does occur, and then I have to spend the next umpteen years of my life tracking the mess through various courts. I frankly about lost it.
WE BEGIN. Hit your refresh button every once in a while to check in. As always - don’t be surprised if nothing actually happens…
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
