Wichita Community Energy Forum and the “900 lb. lump of coal in the room”

April 29, 2008

by Eileen Horn

“I feel like I should send Sunflower one of those big ‘Thank You’ cookies,” said Rep. Nile Dillmore of Wichita KS. “This issue has generated more phone calls, letters and grassroots passion than any other in recent memory.” According to Dillmore, the numerous contacts he has received on the Holcomb power plant issue have really helped him stay in touch with his constituents.

Staying in touch with constituents was exactly the point of last night’s Community Energy Forum held at Wichita State University. The event, co-sponsored by the Climate and Energy Project, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club Southwind Chapter, and the WSU Elliot School of Communication, brought together legislators and constituents to have a balanced discussion on state energy policy. Panelists included Rep. Nile Dillmore, Rep. Dale Swensen, Rep. Jim Ward, and Rep. Josh Svaty.

Now, if you’ve been paying attention (or are as obsessed as we are at CEP), you’ll note that the four panelists all voted NO on SB 327 and SB 148, the bills to permit Sunflower to build 1400 MW in Holcomb.

As Pat Dooley, co- President of the League of Women Voters- Wichita Metro pointed out at the beginning of the forum, “The league of women voters wanted very much to have a balanced panel, and to have both pro and anti-Holcomb viewpoints represented. We invited many of the pro-Holcomb legislators, but they all denied the invitation.” The Wichita Eagle, which covered the event, noted this as well.

Despite the apparent lack of diversity on the panel, there was still plenty to discuss! In their introductory remarks, the legislators explained their reasons for voting against the proposed Holcomb plants:

For Rep. Svaty, the risks to ratepayers far outweigh the potential benefits of the plant, especially in light of the skyrocketing costs of new coal plant construction, and pending carbon legislation at the federal level. For Rep. Jim Ward, the CO2 emissions, water usage, and the fact that Colorado will get the energy while we get the pollution were central reasons for his NO vote. Nile Dillmore acknowledged that while KS will eventually need to build another coal plant for baseload, in his opinion this plant is not the one. Dillmore noted that we have time to consider a comprehensive energy plan for KS, one that includes renewables. And finally, Rep. Swensen cited several examples of China’s booming economy as evidence of a looming worldwide energy crisis that we should begin to prepare for. Swensen stated that government should “prime the pump” to allow consumers and industry to take advantage of new renewable energy technologies.

While they all had varying reasons for their opposition to the Holcomb legislation, the legislators all nodded approval when Rep. Ward noted that he was disappointed that this session didn’t provide the opportunity for a real energy debate about KS future. Instead, coal became the centerpiece of this session, and became politically polarizing and divisive. As Rep. Dillmore noted, the “900 lb. lump of coal was always in the room.”

The floor was then opened for a Q & A session. The questions from the 50 attendees ranged from the possibilities of net metering legislation, the impact of Holcomb on water supplies, mercury emissions from coal plants, the possibility of building another nuclear plant, and the potential “green jobs” that Wichita might be poised to deliver (with their expertise in building turbines of all sizes and shapes).

As I listened to the forum, I was immediately struck by a) how civil and respectful attendees were in asking their questions, and b) how candidly the legislators answered. This led to an open discussion, as legislators felt comfortable to express their opinions in this crowd, and the crowd seemed satisfied with their responses.

On my drive home from the forum though, I was struck by what may have been the most important outcome of the event: the attendees created a discussion about Kansas’ energy future that bypassed the 900 lb. lump of coal in the room! Through their questions about future policy on net metering, the possibility of nuclear plants, and the new “green” economy, Kansans clearly were ready to move past coal and onto a more diverse and exciting energy future.

In fact, it almost seemed like the forum attendees created just what Rep. Ward pointed out that the legislators had been unable to do: have an open debate about Kansas’ energy future.

- Eileen Horn

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
No Comments »

News Update: Kansas and coal - the rhetoric spikes

April 23, 2008

Sparks are flying in the wake of Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson’s comments at an Earth Day event yesterday. He spoke in regards to upcoming legislative wrap-up, or veto session, where legislators will consider veto overrides on two bills that would allow Sunflower Electric to build its proposed 1400 MW coal plant in Holcomb.

The plants are the largest complex currently proposed in the United States, and would emit more than 11 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Only 15% of the power would stay in Kansas, the rest would be sold to Colorado. The air pollution, water use issues, and CO2 emissions liable under future cap and trade scenarios would all still belong to Kansas. (Also see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas coal controversy).

Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed both Holcomb bills. Speaker of the House Melvin Neufeld, however, has promised for months that the House will deliver the plants to Sunflower Electric and its backer, Tri-State Generation, which would own 1200 MW of the project. However, the House couldn’t manage to do this during the regular session.

So, when Lt. Governor Parkinson made the following statements (by Sarah Kessinger, in the Hutch News):

“If Sunflower is out there telling people that all they need to do is get this veto overridden and the plants will be built, and if they believe that, they’re sadly mistaken,” Parkinson said.

He vowed the administration would continue fighting a permit for the plants near Holcomb, even if legislators override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes of bills on the issue.

“There are multiple options, and we’re looking at them all. But I don’t want to comment on anything. We haven’t committed to any of them,” Parkinson said, adding that “legal action is inevitable” from environmental groups.

Speaker Neufeld then released his own statement:

“Any agreement we reach would represent months of substantial bi-partisan consensus building. To ignore that work for the satisfaction of a fraction of Kansans and a politically calculated governor would be pretty regrettable,” he said.

“Eighty-three representatives and 32 senators serving all 105 Kansas counties voted to allow the expansion. The majority of Kansans and their representatives made it clear the time for political grandstanding by the governor is over.”

Quick fact check - if you count the noses of legislators who supported the proposals, then yes, you do have a majority of elected officials. However, plenty of evidence demonstrates that constituents across the state are way ahead of their legislators regarding the excessive burning of fossil fuels.

Polls show that Governor Sebelius, who has taken a very strong position against the plants, is more popular among voters than ever. These continued results support the findings of an independent statewide poll commissioned by CEP and released in January, which showed that a majority of Kansans agreed with the decision to deny air permits for the plants, with overall support rising to fully 70% in the Johnson County region. In western Kansas – the proposed location of the plants – only two in five citizens oppose the decision while 51% favor it.

At the time of the poll’s release, supporters of the plants dismissed the results as biased. The wording of the polling questions is (as it always has been) available for download. If you have any doubts at all whether the questions were phrased in a leading manner, you may read them and decide for yourself.

Back to the Hutch News story. Supporters of the plants also denied that the possibility of federal carbon regulation was a reason to delay the plants’ construction. According to Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller:

Miller said the company doubts that will happen and that the country’s “been going to pass a carbon tax for years.”

“When people understand the cost of something like that, they realize people can’t afford it,” he said. “If you are worried about global climate change and you think Kansas can make a difference, that’d be a policy you could advocate, but that’s not a policy we support.”

The comments contradict those of a Wall Street investment banker, who testified to Kansas legislators last month that energy rates would double or perhaps triple in the next decade. The Morgan Stanley official attributed rising costs to Washington’s expected cap on carbon emissions in response to climate change and to growing consumer demand for power and replacement of aging power plant and transmission infrastructure. An official with Edison Electric Institute, the national association of shareholder-owned power companies, gave similar testimony.

But legislative leaders, who represent parts of western Kansas, stick with Sunflower’s contention that rates will remain lower by building the plants.

“Lost in the governor’s rhetoric is the real fact my part of the state faces much higher energy costs and a future energy shortage,” said House Speaker Melvin Neufeld in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But the Kansas Corporation Commission’s latest rate map shows the highest rates for Kansans are in rural central and eastern Kansas. Southwest Kansas enjoys some of the lowest rates as well as some rates in the mid-range, according to the map based on 2006 data.

Not to gripe - but those same maps showed my little tiny northeastern KS rural electric co-op as having some of the highest rates in the state. Along with a good chunk of southeastern and south central Kansas… wait, I’ll just post the map again. Hang on.

This map comes via the Kansas Corporation Commission. It represents EIA (Energy Information Administration) data current as of January 2006. The highest rates in the state are in red.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in News Updates
Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Governor Sebelius Vetoes House Substitute for SB 148 (aka Holcomb II)

April 17, 2008

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

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in Policy Updates
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments »

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

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in News Updates
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

News Updates: Kansas rocks!! - plus the production tax credit for renewables, the current status of CO2 regs in the U.S., plus more

April 8, 2008

Kansas won the men’s basketball national championship. We are the champions!

Just had to say it. Now on to climate and energy related news.

Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008. Last week a bipartisan group of U.S. senators released a bill proposing to develop renewable energy and expand energy efficiency in buildings, homes and appliances. According to the GreenTech blog:

(The act) extends the investment tax credit for eight more years for businesses. Consumers would have the existing 30 percent federal tax credit on renewable energy projects, such as solar panels, extended another year and the $2,000 cap removed.

The bill doesn’t detail how the tax credits would be paid for, which is a crucial question.

Previous proposals attempted to pay for the renewed tax credit by rescinding existing tax breaks on oil companies. Those proposals were defeated in the Senate and were threatened by a White House veto at the end of last year.

For several months, executives in the solar and wind industries have been complaining that the lack of policy certainty is stalling the U.S. clean energy industry.

As many renewable energy advocates are aware, the instability of these production tax credits - they are often renewed from year to year, and the total amount spent on them doesn’t even come close to the amounts spent on subsidizing fossil fuels - has long hampered the renewable industry. According to Tax-news.com:

The legislation extends the placed-in-service deadline through 2009 for the Production Tax Credit to encourage electricity production using renewable energy resources such as geothermal, wind, biomass, hydropower facilities. With this change, these renewable energy plants will have valuable tax stability for 10 years, the bill’s sponsors argue.

To read a summary of the proposed legislation, click here (.pdf).

The current status of the U.S. regulating carbon dioxide. Yes. A little bit of a hot button for us here in Kansas, but in fact the debate extends far past the boundaries of our state (CSMonitor). Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels was subject to the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA had to regulate it.

The EPA staff is raring to go, but EPA administrator Stephen Johnson has not exactly hopped to it. Critics charge that he is stalling until Bush gets out of office - for a long time, the Bush administration and its supporters fought pretty hard against accepting the scientific findings regarding the risks of climate change. Supporters say that caution in developing carbon regulation is a good thing, especially since these regulations will cover far more than the vehicle tailpipe emissions that were originally at issue in the Supreme Court case.

When KDHE Secretary Bremby testified before Congress on this same topic, he essentially said that the longer the federal government takes on this question, the harder you make it on the states. Regulatory uncertainty on the federal level leads to regulatory uncertainty on the state level.

In turn, that directly affects Kansans’ businesses and everyday lives - and a lot has had to be put on hold until the federal government gives clear signals.

And speaking of the EPA - mercury regulations. In February, a three-judge appeals court struck down an EPA regulation that “allowed for a pollution trading system to reduce mercury emissions from power plants, instead of requiring each plant to install the best available mercury controls” (AP). The Bush administration has appealed this ruling. The Utility Air Regulatory Group, a group of electric utilities, has filed a separate appeal.

And last, a plea from the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth, for Governor Kathleen Sebelius to veto the second Holcomb bill. Reprinted straight from the KCStar online letters:

As a community of Catholic women, we had our beginnings 150 years ago in the state of Kansas. We continue strong commitments of service to the state and her people. As Kansas legislators ponder the decisions about the coal-fired plant, we wish to express our support for the decision of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to veto the legislation connected to building new coal-fired plants.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his Word Day of Peace message on Jan. 1, 2008, wrote of the responsibility of caring for the Earth: “The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs: … to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency.”

Kansas is blessed with an abundance of two renewable energy sources: wind and sun. We trust that the gifts within the minds and hearts of our Kansas communities will find the avenues to restructure our energy sources, provide for the needs of our communities, and protect the gift of Earth.

Sister Eileen Haynes
and the Social Justice Committee of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth
Easton, Kan.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in News Updates
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

News Updates: Tri-State thinks about nuclear, climate changes and big changes, and what the KS legislature got done

April 7, 2008

Tri-State turns to nuclear? Tri-State is the Colorado utility company backing Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW expansion at Holcomb. They would own 85% of the power. However, as we all know, that expansion has not been going as planned.

Recently, Tri-State started looking in entirely a different direction from coal - toward nuclear. According to the Denver Post, Tri-State’s Board of Directors voted to pursue exploring the option of a nuclear plant in southeastern Colorado. Quotable:

The company secured the site and necessary water rights for a plant that could either be coal-fired or nuclear. Tri-State would need a partner on a nuclear plant because of high construction costs. The staff was directed to pursue potential partners.

Right now, coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the company’s generation. Going nuclear could blunt some of the criticism about coal’s high carbon emissions, while likely opening up an entirely new battleground.

At Tri-State’s annual meeting at its headquarters in Westminster, board chairman Harold Thompson said the utility is dealing with rising energy costs and a tighter regulatory environment as it prepares for the future.

“We’re at a crossroads here, in more ways than one,” Thompson said.

Moment of common sense, here - or maybe total financial innocence, I don’t know - nuclear power is phenomenally expensive. I’ve heard numbers now from $4 billion to $14 billion. The costs of coal plant construction have recently increased 30% or more, and the original estimate for the Sunflower expansion was $3.6 billion. If those plants do get built, the costs could come in around $5 billion.

How could Tri-State (even with a partner for the nuclear) possibly afford nuclear and coal both?

Complete technological and economic revolution needed to head off the more severe effects of climate change. No problem! I read this NYTimes article then had to go out and walk around the block.

Summary: Politicians, economists, scientists, etc. All of these folks used to be pretty confident that a market-based approach - ie, putting caps on carbon dioxide emissions - will force the necessary changes in energy usage that can help head off the worst effects of global warming.

Naturally, new research seems to indicate that this optimism is a little misguided. In fact, global emissions are rising. Energy efficiency is falling. It is doubtful that the market can force the necessary changes in time. New low-carbon technologies are also desperately needed. Science and technology needs major infusions of research and development funds to make this happen.

Now, me here, not the NYT - there appears to be a recession going on in many parts of the country. There’s a war going on. Etc. Where are these extra funds to fight climate change going to come from?

Since this information stressed me a little, to relax I took all the relevant cliches I knew and then stacked them up in two opposing piles. In one pile - Gotta keep calm. Can’t lost your head in an emergency. Don’t act in haste, because you will repent at leisure. Etc.

In the other pile - well, I stuck a metaphor in there instead. Say there’s a group of guys, and they are facing a pack of crocodiles. They have a few firearms, some sticks, things that go boom, etc. They really need to grab some (if not all) of these items pretty soon, or the crocs are going to eat them for dinner.

Instead, the guys are just sitting there, arguing. And if one of them wants to hang out in the background and invent a new weapon, no problem, but he needs to be sure that the other members of the team will keep the crocs busy while he does.

Otherwise, there’s really not much of a point.

Lotta talk, not a lotta walk. Newspapers across the state review the Kansas legislature’s progress - election year progress, mind you - and find it pretty lacking. Sunflower Electric supporters managed to gum up the works pretty good (TCJournal). Moderates on both sides of the aisle found this problematic.

From the KC Star: “Coal has hijacked the session,” said Rep. Pat Colloton, a Leawood Republican. “It has pushed aside all the many things we should have been working on, from health care to immigration to highways. It has totally dominated the discussion.” From the Hutch News:

But overall, there is a weariness to the tone of those asked about the issue. Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita, said he’d heard about enough. “Everything we say has to be filtered through a lump of coal this session.”

He noted his district is strongly against the legislation that would enable the new plants. So he’s voted against them. But Dillmore said there are limited options for large-scale power production amid growing consumer demand. “Coal and nuclear, what else is there?” he said. “Unless someone has a very large squirrel, what are you going to do?”

CEP laughed itself silly over that last. We think he means putting a really big squirrel on a treadmill, kind of thing. (Obviously a joke.)

On a more serious note, of course he is correct: The world is in serious need of bridge fuels to get us through the next 20 years or so, until technologies of fossil fuel consumption can catch up to the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

For investor-owned utilities like Westar and KCPL, the big squirrel of choice is energy efficiency, and augmenting fossil fuels with wind power. For the power plant that would run the proposed national bioterrorism defense center in Kansas, their preferred squirrel is natural gas.

Across the nation, though, few are choosing the big squirrel of coal. According to the Innovest report on Sunflower, in 2007 more than 50 proposed coal-fired plants in 20 states were canceled or delayed.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in News Updates
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Legislative Update: Senate concurs on SB 148, the second Holcomb bill

April 4, 2008

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 

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in Policy Updates
Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

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

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008
Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Legislative Update: The Governor’s veto on the coal plants could be close to being overridden - and, how the House voted on the second Holcomb bill

April 4, 2008

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

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008, Policy Updates
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2 Comments »

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Live Blogging: keeping an eye peeled for coal drama from the House (and Senate)

April 3, 2008

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008
Tags: , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

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.

Phillipsburg, KS - April 17 - Solomon Valley Wind Conference
KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson, Chair of KS Wind Working Group

  • 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:
Tom Wind, via webinar
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
Event sponsors include: Phillips County Economic Development, Phillips County Farm Bureau, Rooks County Farm Bureau, Smith County Farm Bureau,Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas Rural Center, Prairie Horizon Agri-Energy, LLC, and others

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.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in News Updates
Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Live Blogging: House chambers as they consider SB 148, the second Holcomb bill

April 3, 2008

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 :) yeah,

(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…

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008
Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Live Blogging: Senate may consider their own version of the second Holcomb bill

April 2, 2008

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008
Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

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

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008, Policy Updates
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Live Blogging: Waiting and watching

April 1, 2008

Location: House chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal-fired plants of 1400 MW
Bill No.: an as yet unamended bill on General Orders today
Summary/ Action: As of 6:20 adjournment - NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED.

If you are a frequent reader of CEP’s live blogging feature, you might now be wondering - where in the world are all these new bills coming from???

This, apparently, is what happens at the end of the session. Interested parties start trying all sorts of ways to get their measures placed into other bills that have a chance of passing. Officially, this legislative session ends this Friday (April 4).

So the race is on, and Sunflower Electric appears to be a major competitor. Unfortunately, they weigh enough that when they throw themselves onto someone else’s little red wagon, they have enough mass to wreck it.

As we just saw happen with poor SB 471. This bill originally offered tax credit relief for the expenses of people participating in adoptions, or live organ donations. When an amendment benefiting Sunflower Electric was slid into their bill, though, it poisoned it. The House killed the bill on final action. Those folks - adoptive parents and organ donors - are just out of luck.

At any rate. We are here right now awaiting further “unexpected” amendments. The rumor right now is that the carbon tax that got defeated this morning in final action on SB 471 will come back around like a boomerang today, and appear in another later measure under General Orders.

If that does happen, I will record it below. Right now it is 10:42 and we are slogging thru a property tax relief bill for senior citizens in dangers of losing their homes.

11:05 we are going into recess :) of course. Until 3:00 p.m. (ouch!)

Then we’ll be back.

OK, I’m back anyway! There’s enough drama to post a little bit of it, while we wait and twiddle thumbs. Reminder: hit your refresh button to check for occasional updates.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Live Blogging: April Fools, a carbon tax proposal! — actually, not a joke

April 1, 2008

Location: House chambers, final action vote
Issue: Major KS utilities and a creative, interesting version of a carbon tax
Bill No.: SB 471, as amended last night by the House Committee of the Whole and passed 78-42
Summary/ Action: Measure failed on final action vote, 51 yea, 74 nay. Measure is lost. (Which means the people who would have benefited under the original measure, which offered tax credits for adoption and live organ donation, are just out of luck, because a large corporation decided to highjack their measure.)

******************

Before launching in to the record, CEP would like to note: This carbon tax is a fake carbon tax, in that it does not actually reduce CO2 emissions. Reducing emissions is the entire POINT of carbon regulation. This measure will make electricity more expensive, without making it more green.

It will also drastically affect ratepayers in northeastern Kansas, while subsidizing electricity generation in western Kansas.

Background

Last night on the House floor Representative Clay Aurand, a supporter of Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW coal-fired plants expansion in Holcomb, succeeded in amending SB 471 to include the first carbon tax in the nation.

SB 471 was formerly a pretty innocent little bill dealing with giving individuals tax credits for adoptions and live organ donation. Aurand’s amendment establishes a $37 per ton of CO2 excise tax levied on coal plant operators of 350 MW or more who emit over 110% over the state average of carbon dioxide emissions, as measured on a per MW hour basis.

The proceeds from this excise tax will be offered as a tax credit for those plants who emit less. Only one plant seems to qualify under these regulations, and that is Sunflower Electric. Ironically, the measure also specifically authorizes the Secretary of KDHE to regulate CO2 emissions. Likewise, its very existence admits that the Kansas legislature, as well as the executive branch, considers carbon dioxide emissions problematic.

This amendment primarily affects BPU, the electric provider for Wyandotte County - and also home to a legislative delegation that has proved extremely stubborn. Resisting all sorts of pressure, WyCo legislators have refused to switch their votes to help Sunflower supporters override the Governor’s veto of SB 327, the first Holcomb bill. The amendment also has implications for investor-owned utilities Westar and KCPL.

These three entities are affected because they have some of the older and dirtier coal-burning facilities in the state. The gun is aimed at BPU, but the other two are standing much too close to the target for comfort. If this carbon tax is levied on these utilities, the costs will be passed to their ratepayers. There are mitigation provisions in the amendment, but they are so vague I couldn’t make any sense of them.

Does the amendment to SB 471 have merit? In general, a carbon tax is a good thing, if it (1) actually reduces carbon dioxide emissions, and (2) is phased in gradually, in a revenue-neutral manner.

Carbon regulation - be it carbon tax, or cap and trade - will indeed increase the costs of electricity, which is problematic even for middle-income folks, let alone those on fixed or otherwise limited incomes. Revenue-neutral means to increase these prices gradually - and also, return some of the proceeds of the carbon tax to those most directly affected. According to the policy experts at the Carbon Tax Center:

Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the American people, with some small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users.

However, when you return the revenues of a carbon tax to just one utility - um. That’s not very fair. This is not really a carbon tax, as much as it is a money grab by a special interests group, at the expense of ratepayers not within their own service territory.

For media coverage of the proposed tax so far, see the TCJournal and the Salina Journal. EDIT: ha! And Kansas has already popped up on the Carbon Tax Center radar - see their blog entry. Quotable:

Major flaws in the the tax passed by the Kansas House include: its application to only one plant; its excessive initial level that does not provide consumers with time to adjust; and its failure to provide an upwards trajectory that would provide an appropriate price signal to energy consumers. Its use of revenues to provide an incentive to cleaner plants to reduce emissions further makes no sense. A carbon tax imposed on all emissions in the state would provide a far better incentive for all energy consumers in the state to reduce emissions; both relatively clean and relatively dirty generators would benefit by reducing emissions. There’s no need to waste the revenues on credits. Instead, the revenues should be returned to to the people who live in Kansas through offsetting tax reductions or equal rebates.

The Kansas carbon tax may be a yellow brick road to riches for certain generators or lobbyists, but it is not a yellow brick road to reductions in carbon emissions.

What’s the point of all this…? There are of course many theories. The two most likely candidates: (1) This measure is meant to punish Wyandotte County, and to scare Westar and KCPL into pressuring legislators to vote for Sunflower. And (2) This is a really confrontational way for Sunflower to send a message that they are ready to make a deal - if the financing can be worked out.

(And I am sure that if I walked out into the hall, I could hear at least three more.)

For the proceedings as they - proceed (sorry, my brain’s not in gear yet, late night) - please read more. Once things get started around 9:00 a.m.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Live blogging: Holcomb related amendment passed on House floor, into SB 471 (a bill on income tax credits for live organ donation and adoptions)

March 31, 2008

Location/ Time: House floor, Monday evening
Legislative body: House
Issue: proposed Holcomb coal plants
Bill No.: SB 471
Summary/ Action (will be filled out later): Amendment to add Holcomb issue to SB 471 passed; SB 471 passes . Next steps: Final action on SB 471 will be tomorrow.

I was taking notes by hand when the brouhaha started, so I will type the transcript up later. To summarize what happened: um… I think I just saw a bunch of Kansas legislators vote to implement the first carbon tax in the nation.

Keep in mind, I don’t have my hands on a copy of the amendment. I doubt many legislators do, actually - they all seemed clustered around only a few copies, in clumps up near the front of the room.

The scene: We kind of thought the night was over. We were about to pack up to go. There was only one bill or so left - SB 471, on tax credits for expenses incurred in live organ donation, and adoption (done separately, I have to assume). Then Rep. Aurand brought in an amendment that essentially said the following:

There will be a $37 per ton of CO2 excise tax levied on coal plant operators of 350 MW or more who emit over 110% over the state average of carbon dioxide emissions, measured on a per MW hour basis. The proceeds from this excise tax will be offered as a tax credit for those plants who emit less. There is a price per ton of carbon, but bill supporters swore up and down that this was not a carbon tax, because there were carbon mitigation provisions in the amendment that could offset the emissions from dirty plants. They also swore up and down that even though these credits could be traded, this had nothing to do with cap and trade, because there was no cap.

A pause. To collect myself. That was actually more like a dream sequence. I’m still not sure I really heard “$37 per ton of carbon” Take that with a grain of salt, until I somehow track down the amendment.

The amendment passed by 78-42, roughly the same margin as the original vote on Holcomb I, SB 327, which was vetoed by the governor.

Who does this amendment affect? Essentially, KCPL, Westar, BPU, and Sunflower. KCPL and Westar in particular will be affected, because they have older plants that emit more per MWh. Sunflower has newer plants that emit less per MWh - but if the proposed Holcomb plants will be by far the largest total emitters in the state, if they are built.

If this is green, it is green in an incredibly fuzzy math, tortured kind of way. Note, carbon dioxide emissions are not measured by total volume. You can emit as much carbon dioxide as you want, as long as your plants’ per MWh average from your plants is lower than that of another facility.

Let’s be clear - in particular, KCPL, Westar, and BPU RATEPAYERS will be affected, suddenly and drastically, by the legislature, without any cushioning by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), Citizen Utility Ratepayers Board, etc. Eastern Kansas ratepayers will be paying for western Kansas electric generation.

Is this punishment for KCPL and Westar for not supporting Sunflower’s bid to build the Holcomb plants? Is it a way for Sunflower to finance the costs of meeting the Governor’s compromise of a 660 MW plant? Could be both. And while there are probably ways to work out the money issue, this seems a punitive way to do it.

The provisions do not appear to provide permission to build the Holcomb plants. However, those could conceivably be amended on in conference committee.

I’ll type up my notes on the transcript of the debate tomorrow.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org

Posted by climateandenergy
Filed in CEP live blogging, Kansas Coal Controversy 2008, Policy Updates
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

News Update: coal money and climate change

March 31, 2008

Historic climate pact under negotiation. This week, representatives from 163 countries are discussing the first streps necessary to produce an upcoming international climate pact to take effect in 2009 (CSMonitor). Quotable:

“And unlike talks that led to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which applied only to developed countries, these talks must set some type of binding greenhouse-gas emissions objectives for developing countries as well.

More players are facing decisions that involve significant changes in long-established patterns of producing and using energy, of economic development, and of delivering economic and technological aid to the developing world.”

As this is going on, scientists have discovered that between 2000 and 2005, greenhouse gas emissions rose four times faster than they had during the previous 10 years.

What sort of emissions reductions are needed to head off catastrophic climate change? If implemented, an emissions objective arrived at an earlier UN conference in Bali would require industrial countries to “reduce emissions from 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.”

That represents a benchmark along the path to stabilizing global emissions so that by century’s end, global average temperature increases will be held to around 3.6 degrees F. Carbon dioxide, the key player in human-triggered warming, remains in the atmosphere for up to 200 years. Stabilization of atmospheric concentrations implies that emissions eventually must fall to virtually zero…

… “There’s a huge gap between what the scientists say is necessary” to hit the 2-degree mark “and what the political process can deliver,” Mr. Diringer says. “The challenge is to narrow that gap,” even if it isn’t slammed shut.

Kansas, coal, and climate change. The KCStar investigates Sunflower Electric’s connection to groups that have spent large sums to deny the existence or risks associated with climate change. They also report that:

… the effort to swing votes has turned into the most expensive lobbying fight in state history. Annual lobbying expenditures have topped $1 million for the first time. More than half of the $1.17 million in lobbying expenses reported to the state in 2007 came from energy companies and utilities.

Expansion opponents, including natural-gas-producing giant Chesapeake Energy, have kicked in more than $400,000. Proponents, led by Sunflower Electric Power Corp., which proposed the expansion, spent an additional $100,000, in addition to an unknown amount for advertisements that weren’t required to be reported to the state. Sunflower and its allies spent $127,000 more in January.

Humans contribute to climate change by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. When burned, these fuels release carbon dioxide long sequestered from the earth’s regular carbon cycle. When carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, it leads to global warming and climate change.

Some costs on nuclear. Although Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal plants at Holcomb have dominated energy news lately, Kansas has seen a nuclear power debate stirring this legislative session as well. During the conversations that have taken place, there has been at least one very large, missing ingredient - how much would a new nuclear power plant cost?

As reported on NPR, Florida Power and Light just got two plants approved - price tag, $24 billion. Progress Energy, with another approved application, estimates $14 billion.

Wind power. WSJournal’s Environmental Capital blog looks at international picture of wind industry. Verdict:

“Wind power is already the fastest-growing source of new electric power in much of the world, the U.S. included, where wind power accounted for one-quarter of new generation capacity installed last year. And that will continue unabated—provided the industry can finally solve the turbine-supply problems that have plagued it for the last few years.”

Problem: Looks like they yanked the image for the article off Wikipedia… and, um, I think those are pretty old turbines. Which if memory serves, have the towers that are contribute to increased bird deaths, in part because of the perching potential. I really don’t think that picture represents contemporary turbine design. Small but important point.

Green, huh? Governor Sebelius and the TCJournal go a round over whether the second Holcomb bill, SB 148, is greener than the first, SB 327. CEP already offered its own opinion on the green/ not green thing. We were pretty underwhelmed.

TCJ started it, last Friday (sorry, I don’t seem to be able to get to the link without a subscription). Essentially, they argued that SB 148 represented concessions by Sunflower.

The larger point - that this is a special interests piece of legislation targeted at one single company out of the entire Kansas energy industry - seemed not to con