Kansas lags other states in net metering
September 26, 2008
Reprinted in full from the LJWorld:
Kansas lags in energy conservation, protecting environment
State falls behind in process known as net metering
by Christine Metz
This is the year for talk about which states are red and which ones are blue.
But in the midst of an energy crisis and rising concerns over carbon emissions, some are focused on a different color: green.
And in the past year, Kansas has been shaded as a murky brown.
In 2007, Forbes magazine ranked Kansas No. 31 when it comes to protecting the environment.
Environment America, in a report on the nation’s clean energy policies, identified Kansas as one of 16 states where “efforts lag significantly behind those in … the rest of the country.”
In a state scorecard released by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Kansas was No. 34, receiving poor marks for how much utilities spend on conservation, tax incentives, appliance standards and transportation policies.
One area where Kansas falls behind others, alternative energy advocates say, is the lack of compensation — known as net metering — that homeowners receive for the alternative energy they produce and do not use. That extra energy gets sent back into the electric grid.
“For Kansas, the matter now is not forward thinking; we are just trying to get into the 20th century,” said Aron Cromwell, vice president and CEO of the Lawrence-based Cromwell Environmental.
Turning on the switch
According to the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Kansas is one of a half dozen states that don’t have a net metering law.
The way most net metering laws work is that when customers who generate their own power, such as solar, generate more power than they actually use, they can in essence run their meter backward. But often the return is just less than half the true cost of the electricity, or roughly about 3 cents per kilowatt hour compared with a retail rate of about 7 cents.
Advocates for a net metering law would like the alternative energy producers to be paid the retail rate or something closer to that 7 cent marker.
“We have nothing in the state of Kansas to help us out,” said Cromwell, who has installed photovoltaic and solar hot water panels in the region.
Net metering would encourage homeowners and particularly businesses to build larger solar power systems, he said.
Jim Ploger, manager of climate and energy programs for the Kansas Corporation Commission, said not having net metering discourages small wind and solar companies from selling their products here. Some vendors even ignore Kansas.
“The pay-out is so far out in the future, it’s not economically viable,” Ploger said.
More importantly, Ploger said, the very fact that Kansas doesn’t have a net metering law can be a detractor for big-scale renewable energy businesses (like wind farms and turbine manufacturers) looking to locate to the state.
“We’re not practicing what we preach. Net metering has no factor in commercial wind farms, but it is part of an image,” he said.
Kansas and solar energy are a nice fit. The state has decent potential for capturing the sun’s rays (not as strong as Arizona, but not as weak as New Hampshire). And, solar energy is often at its best when electric companies need it the most — on those 100-degree-plus days in August when air-conditioners are cranking.
Installing solar panels would help electric companies on those peak days.
“A few kilowatts here and few kilowatts there and pretty soon it starts to add up,” Ploger said.
A good idea?
Not everyone believes that net metering is such a good idea or that it’s fair. Among them is Dick Rohlfs, Westar Energy’s director of retail rates.
Rohlfs agrees that electric companies should pay small alternative energy producers more than just the fuel costs. The reimbursement should also cover the savings from incremental operation and maintenance costs and the energy that is lost to get the electricity from the plant into the system.
But the retail price isn’t a fair one either, he said.
Of Westar’s 670,000 customers, only 50 to 60 of them produce energy that can be sent back into the electric grid. And, only around five produce more energy than what they take from Westar in a given month.
When the wind stops blowing and the sun no longer shines, those customers rely on Westar for backup energy. And they expect the company to have generation equipment and transmission lines to provide them with electricity, he said.
But, if those alternative energy producers were reimbursed at retail rates, that capacity is a cost they wouldn’t be paying, Rohlfs said.
“We are there to serve them whenever they demand energy,” Rohlfs said.
And David Springe, consumer counsel for the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board, is afraid it’s a cost that will get passed along to everyone else who pays the electric bills. As the appointed representative for utility consumers, Springe sees net metering as a way to subsidize electricity for those who have the thousands of dollars to install solar panels.
Those who couldn’t afford them would be on the losing end, Springe said.
If there are going to be subsidies, Springe said he would prefer they go toward energy conservation efforts for low-income housing.
State Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, said there needs to be a middle ground.
“Yes we need to provide incentives to assist in meeting the total energy need. But we also need to recognize that a utility has the responsibility to be a provider of last resort. And they have costs associated with that responsibility,” Sloan said.
From proposal to law
At the last legislative session, a net metering law for solar energy was proposed as part of a packaged energy deal. Overshadowed by the political fireworks from the proposed coal-fired power plant in Holcomb, it received little attention.
It wasn’t the first time the matter was before state lawmakers. And Sloan suspects it will come back.
Cromwell is among those who would like the issue to return to the Capitol.
Cromwell testified before the Missouri Legislature, which passed a net metering law last year. He predicts that it will take more lobbying and funding before something similar is enacted in Kansas.
“It’s just the beginning. It’s just a small step,” Cromwell said. “But it’s sad if we fall behind Missouri in our level of progressiveness.”
From DOE/ EERE, via IREC (original image found here) - the most recent map of states in the US that have net metering policies. Kansas is one of the blank spots with no such policy.
Not all of them are good net metering policies, of course. Check out this report - Freeing the Grid: 2007 Edition (report prepared by the Network for New Energy Choices, IREC, et al) (.pdf).
There is a big difference between true net metering (such as the policy that just passed in Colorado this year) and other forms of net metering. The new Colorado law revised an old one from 2005.
Some of the things that make a difference - the size of the installation allowed (is it big enough for farm and business needs? or does it just serve small residential customers?), additional requirements by utilities such as external disconnect switches to be installed at customer expense, the rate of reimbursement to the customer-generator, etc.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Can Kansas drive 65? KS in the NYT, plus Pickens, net metering, presidential climate action plan
August 25, 2008
You can submit public comment on a proposed Kansas Energy Council recommendation to reduce the speed limit to 65 mph (LJWorld). If you would like to do so, go straight to the KEC website for instructions on how.
Energy story, New York Times, KS gets mentioned (NYT). Basically, candidates all over the US are suddenly paying attention to energy: “The fierce tactical positioning of candidates here and elsewhere — some call it pandering and waffling — is producing a convergence of sorts around the idea that more is better, that an expansion of energy production from all sources and places will somehow fix things, lower prices and restore stability to the economy.”
However - according to the article - it seems a lot more likely that no one really knows what to do.
It’s kind of like deciding whether to replace the timing belt on a very old car, I guess. Is it worth it? Or do you go out and invest in a new one? Just how busted is our energy system? Can these belts really be replaced?
For Pickens watchers - this article in U.S. News and World Report.
Editorial from Wichita Eagle blog: “Kansas should get smart on home wind.” The whole thing is a quotable:
At a recent western Kansas meeting to promote wind energy, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., remarked that he’s considering installing a small wind generator at his Topeka home.
“I want to do it,” he said. “But I don’t want to do it stupid.”
If Brownback wants a smart way to do home wind in Kansas, then he should support a net metering law, which allows residential wind users to sell their excess energy back to the utility and makes residential wind much more economically feasible.
Kansas is one of only six states without some kind of residential net metering for wind. And we’re supposed to be a leader in wind power.
Presidental Climate Action Plan released (CSMonitor). On the first day the next president takes office, whoever it is will already have a great deal of latitude (through executive orders) to take steps on confronting climate change.
FYI: If you are trying to contact one of us and not hearing anything, that’s probably because today is CEP’s official staff advance.
We were calling it a staff “retreat.” Then we realized - how does that make any sense, when the whole point is to go forward?
(Duh.)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Jay Leno’s garage (he’s a car and motorcycle nut) has 30 kW of solar power on the roof. Yes, Jay Leno has net metering. It cut his monthly electric bill from $3,000 per month to around $180. What is that, around 6% of his original bill? Nice.
Oh yes! and there are fancy cars in the video, too.
Speaking of cars I had a girl moment here, with the next video. Or maybe just a moment. The truth is, a lot of folks aren’t interested in going green unless they can keep to certain, um, performance stands. I guess you would say.
Many of these performance standards appear to revolve around their cars. Evidently if you can drive it faster and get to the finish line before anyone else, that’s good.
However, since many of the guys I asked to watch these clips said some version of “WOW!” I am posting them. Thus here is an electric car beating a Dodge Viper off the line in a short sprint. I’m not sure how affordable it is to power a car with thousands of laptop batteries but it did win the race.
To turn this into a slightly more educational episode, I will simply note that vehicle emissions (created by combustion of the fossil fuel, gasoline) are responsible for almost a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Finding a way to power the transportation network without fossil fuels is thus pretty important.
Videos courtesy of CEP intern Ben Morgan.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Live Blogging - notes from the Kansas Energy and Environment Policy (KEEP) Advisory Group, August meeting in Lawrence KS
August 6, 2008
Led by Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson and Chair Jack Pelton of Cessna, the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy (KEEP) Advisory Group held its second meeting on Tuesday, this time in Lawrence.
What KEEP is and how it works
Governor Sebelius has charged KEEP with coming up with a climate action plan for Kansas. The KEEP group is composed of a wide variety of interests and stakeholders, and allows room for public participation as well.
A climate action plan provides states a blueprint for reduce contributions to greenhouse gases. Ideally it also helps states prepare for upcoming carbon regulation on the federal level, and stimulates economic development in terms of promoting a transition to a renewable energy economy.
Twenty-six other states have these plans already. Nine others (including Kansas) are under way, and two additional states are revising existing plans.
The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) is facilitating the KS process. KEEP’s final report and policy recommendations will be due in 2010.
Basically, this is how the KEEP process works. It starts out with CCS providing well over 300 climate policy options that have been used in other states. Participants then add more options that seem to suit Kansas especially well. (Options can still be added as the process moves along.)
Then the group starts prioritizing. Those recommendations receive further study. Actual proposals are designed, so that cost-benefit studies, etc., can take place. Policy options are further winnowed down, and what’s left standing is further developed. The result is the final report.
The criteria for evaluating policies has four major components: (1) effectiveness in removing GHGs from the atmosphere, (2) cost/ benefit, savings, etc., (3) feasibility (political, economic, technological, etc.), (4) Co-benefits, also known as externalities - clean air, water, human health, energy security (you know, all those quality of life things that might not have clear dollar values, but turn out to be kind of important).
How the meeting went
The Lt. Gov. kicked things off with a message of calmness, reassurance, and deliberation about the KEEP process itself. House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, among others, has questioned its validity.
The Lt. Gov. simply noted the need for Kansans to reduce their carbon footprint, which is one of the largest per capita in the world. He said that there’s lots of ways for us to do that. Some will work and some won’t, but above all we want to make sure that our recommendations help prevent harm to ag and business.
He also mentioned that originally in KS we went for the cheapest reliable energy, which at that time was coal, but times are now changing and we need to look at other options.
And then it got started. The purpose of this meeting was to review the recent additions to the “catalogs,” or the giant, giant lists of policy options. KEEP is at the inclusion phase, it’s not excluding anything yet, so suggestions to knock things out were noted for later meetings but not acted on at this time.
What New York recently did on net metering
July 23, 2008
“You could send me to hell or to New York City, it’d be about the same to me…”
Come on, it’s a Hank Jr. lyric. Just a little Kansas joke.
But regardless, if you did go to New York, they would have net metering. Check it out (I think I originally received this info from Dan Nagengast of the KS Rural Center).
reprinted in full below
*********************
18 June 2008 - Governor David A. Paterson today announced an agreement with the Legislature on landmark energy legislation that will authorize increased development of renewable energy with a process called net metering. Net metering allows electricity customers with qualified renewable energy systems to sell excess electricity back to their local utility.
The bill will significantly expand the State’s net metering law and lead to greater investment by homeowners, farms and businesses in facilities that generate energy from clean renewable sources. By increasing market demand for renewable technologies, the bill will also attract renewable energy manufacturers and installers to New York State.
“I want to thank the Legislature for making this enhanced energy law a reality. In addition to changing the State’s dependency on traditional, fossil-fuel based energy sources this law will be a job creation vehicle, particularly in Upstate New York,” said Governor Paterson. “For instance, those businesses with large roof areas present enormous opportunities for hosting solar energy facilities. If those kinds of resources are fully realized, it could relieve significant stress from our already over-burdened utility grid and improve our energy independence.”
Governor Paterson has long advocated for and championed the cause of renewable energy and enhanced energy independence for New York State. Governor Paterson campaigned on a promise of an enhanced emphasis on alternative fuel sources in 2006, and more recently called for an expanded and enhanced net metering law in February of this year as one of 16 recommendations from his Renewable Energy Task Force.
The bill will significantly expand net metering in three areas of renewable energy – solar, wind and farm waste.
Solar Power
The bill will expand the State’s solar net metering program to apply to businesses, and increase the size of eligible solar PV systems to 25 kilowatts for residential customers and up to 2 megawatts or the customer’s peak load (whichever is less) for non-residential customers. The law will also increase the maximum amount of electricity that the utility would be required to buy back through net metering. Additionally, the law will provide the Long Island Power Authority with authorization to implement non-residential solar electric net metering pursuant to Public Service Law requirements.
Wind Power
The bill will also authorize net metering for wind technology for all utility customer classes, including non-residential classes. Previously, the law authorized such systems for residential and farm operations only. The law will also allow non-residential wind electric generators to net meter up to the lesser of their peak load or 2 megawatts, and increase the maximum size of wind facilities for farm operations from 125 kilowatts to 500 kilowatts. Caps on net-metering enrollment in utility service territories will also be increased.
Farm Waste
The size of a farm waste electric generation system that can be net metered will increase from 400 kilowatts to 500 kilowatts.
Previously, the Governor’s Renewable Energy Task Force had identified New York’s net metering law limitations as a barrier to broader use of distributed renewable energy generation.
Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno said: “I applaud Senator Maziarz and Senator Johnson for providing leadership in the Senate on this critically important issue. Net metering can advance many sources of alternative energy in New York State, promote economic development and help us save energy. At a time where New York’s families are struggling with rising energy costs, this is an opportunity to provide much-needed relief. I’d like to thank the Governor and the Assembly for partnering with us on this legislation.”
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said: “The expansion of net metering paves the way for greater independence and cost-savings for New York’s energy consumers. This legislation will encourage residents, businesses, schools and non-profits to reduce costs by producing power through non-polluting alternative sources such as solar and wind technologies. By signing this bill, Governor Paterson joins the Assembly in its commitment to reducing costs and creating cleaner energy for our consumers.”
Senate Minority Leader Malcolm A. Smith said: “Governor Paterson has long been an advocate for alternative energy sources and I am extremely pleased the Legislature has once again taken a step towards embracing them. The net metering law will attract business and employment opportunities to the state, as well as reducing household utility costs—providing the much needed relief to working families. There is an appreciated need to tap into as many alternative sources to produce energy, especially with soaring gas prices expected to hit record highs during the summer season.”
Senator George Maziarz, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee said: “Greater access to net metering will give consumers greater control over their own energy future. Net metering will lower energy bills, promote renewable energy sources, and help create green-collar jobs in New York. This is a significant step in the right direction for finding a way to meet our long-term energy needs.”
Assembly Energy Committee Chair Kevin Cahill said: “Together with conservation, net metering represents our best hope to reduce peak energy demand immediately. I am proud to have been able to work with the Governor and my colleagues in the Legislature to come to an agreement that will help protect the environment, spark economic growth and meet our energy needs.”
Senator Owen H. Johnson said: “New York’s current restrictive net metering law has been an impediment to the widespread use of renewable energy, but that’s about to change. The net metering legislation we’ve agreed upon will promote greater use of solar, wind and farm waste energy and will increase the proportion of renewable electricity consumers use. I commend Governor David Paterson for his leadership on this issue and Senator George Maziarz for his hard work and resolve in getting this important legislation passed this year.”
Assemblyman Steven Englebright said: “With rising energy prices and increasing concerns about the impact of fossil fuels on our climate, New York takes a big step today to address these serious challenges. A broader segment of energy consumers will now have greater incentive to produce the types of clean power that will help reduce utility costs without further damaging our environment.”
Assemblyman Thomas O’Mara said: “Serving as the Ranking Republican Member on the Assembly Energy Committee, I want to commend Governor Paterson for his leadership in supporting this legislation, as it will help reduce energy prices for Upstate families and employers, along with promoting the use of renewable energy sources that are cleaner, greener and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.”
by Eileen Horn
Okay, okay, full disclosure: 100 people came out for the annual BBQ in Mayetta, KS this past Saturday. But, with a population of 312, that’s a pretty decent turnout!
This year, Mayor Jonathan Wimer wanted a new focus for Mayetta’s annual BBQ: Energy.
As Mayor Wimer put it, “The point of the BBQ and Energy Expo is this: First, to help the people of Mayetta save money on their energy bills. Second, it’s to learn about energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses in Jackson county that they can support.” Mayor Wimer arranged presentations at City Hall for the morning, and then an “Energy Expo” with representatives from CEP, Westar Energy, Smalley Heating and Air, and Kansas Wind Power.
As CEP’s representative at the Expo, I got to talk to many Mayetta residents about their energy concerns. While many residents wanted the energy conservation tips I was handing out, the main questions I received were about wind energy - at all scales.
Mayetta is located on Hwy 75 North of Topeka, and many residents commented on the number of commercial wind turbines passing by town on their way to wind projects in Kansas and Nebraska. Residents were curious about the final destination of these blades and the number of wind projects Kansas currently has.
Also, residents were very interested in State Representative Rocky Fund’s presentation of federal and state incentives for small wind systems. Mayetta residents were visibly frustrated after the talk, as they learned that Kansas lacks a net metering policy that would allow owners of small wind turbines to sell excess energy back to their utility. Forty-three other states have net metering policies.
For me, the day’s highlights occurred during two unlikely conversations:
- The first was with a 65 year-old landowner and lifetime resident of Mayetta. This gentleman was frustrated with the current energy costs, and the lack of policies in Kansas to support landowners who want small wind energy systems. When I asked him why he was concerned about energy, I was expecting a response that matched my prejudgment of him: A response about economics, about energy independence, etc. What I got: “Well, because of global warming. Climate change is happening, and we have to do something about it.
- The second highlight came from a conversation with a 12 year-old boy asking about wind turbines. We talked for awhile about how they work, but then he seemed bored, and took off on his bike to chase some friends down the street. Later in the day, he passed with his family, and as his mom blew off my offer for some energy tips handouts, the boy paused and said, “Wait mom, you should really check this out. It’s actually pretty cool.”
I think they’re both on to something.
— Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from House Energy Committee - NREL briefing on net metering and Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
March 13, 2008
big rush this a.m.! So let’s get right down to it - Trudy Forsyth of the National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) is briefing the committee this morning on net metering. Her colleague, whose name I haven’t caught yet, is going to speak on Renewable Portfolio Standards.
Hit the refresh button every once in a while. Members of the committee include: Representatives Johnson, Flora, Mast, Sloan, Long, Moxley, Faust-Goudeau, Swanson, Proehl, Keuther (Ranking Minority), Holmes (Chair), Olson (Vice Chair), Svaty, McLachlan, Fund, Knox, Hawk, Light, Neighbor, Morrison, and Myers.
Room - pretty darn full (25 plus in audience). Lots of energy industry folks, to judge by the banter between gas folks and everyone else. The reps all get treats from Rep. Rocky Fund because his cell phone went off during proceedings yesterday. Whoops. He brought them tangerines and granola bars, very healthy!
Of course, this is also the committee where one of the reps once mentioned he didn’t believe in granola bars 
this is never boring.
Chairman Holmes brings the meeting to order.
Trudy Forsyth, NREL
Has worked for labs for 14 years, leads distributable wind turbines project. Small to mid-size turbines. Research and testing. Overview of wind energy.
Small wind turbines used since at least early 1980s. Especially good for farmers. Indsutrial uses for distributed turbines, schools, businesses, and residential. Wind industry began really in 1980. Smaller turbines, 50-100kW oirignally used in CA wind farms. Turbines gets bigger and bigger, to 1.5-2.5 megawatt (MW). Also rising interest in offshore wind, in NE U.S. Installed wind capacity in US, shows large wind number (which is different than small wind): 45% growth curve per year. Small wind has 25% growth curve. Phenomenal growth. In 2007, more than half states have some form of wind power installed.
Working at home today. Advantages: big giant monitor, ergonomic keyboard, comfortable chair, woodstove. Disadvantages: dish for internet. Which explains why the blog posts are coming a little slow today. Also watching an incredibly cute possum do its best to get to the bird feeder. (Ain’t gonna happen, sweetie.)
Pretty clearly the dogs have not yet caught sight of the possum. Or else I would no longer have functioning eardrums. Pretty clearly no other humans are around, either, because many folks are not big fans of possums. As long as he/she stays out of the feeder, though, I don’t have any particular problem.
Net metering. So cool, I just had to post it: The Colorado legislature just passed the Homegrown Renewable Energy Act, which allows homeowners, ranchers, etc., to receive a fair price for selling the excess energy they generate with wind and solar back to the grid (Rocky Mountain News).
Colorado already had good net metering statutes in place, but this legislation improves the financial benefits for home generators. The point of net metering is to offer incentives for homeowners to install renewable energy. The Colorado legislation is very different on many key points from the net metering for solar provisions currently included in the Holcomb/ energy bill to go before Kansas Governor Sebelius.
FYI, on Thursday March 13 at 9:15, the House Committee on Energy and Utilities is receiving a briefing on net metering and renewable portfolio standards from Trudy Forsyth of the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL).
Rural Development/ Energy Efficiency and Renewables. We’ve covered a lot here lately regarding the USDA’s RUS program suspending financing for coal-fired power plants for 2008 and probably 2009. However, the tap is still flowing for renewables and energy efficiency - $220.9 million in loan and grant applications are currently available within USDA’s Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program (press release). Quotable:
Loan guarantees and grants are available to agricultural producers and rural small businesses to purchase and install renewable energy systems or to make energy efficiency improvements.
Eligible applicants may seek loan guarantees to cover up to 50 percent of a project’s cost, not to exceed $10 million. Grants are available for up to 25 percent of a project’s cost, not to exceed $250,000 for energy efficiency improvements and $500,000 for renewable energy systems.
Special Interests. The Kansas battle over the Holcomb/ energy bill is increasingly earning the dubious honor of national media coverage. (Oh gee.) Most recently, a Houston Chronicle editor was apparently interested enough to pick up an AP story by John Hanna, detailing the recent Kansas controversy.
Lots of big energy producers in TX. The eyes of Texas are upon you.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Holcomb/ energy bill - more drama! and other legislative updates
February 29, 2008
Last we heard, I rashly made a prediction that - oh, the Holcomb/ energy bill will probably get out of conference committee today (Friday).
Not so fast, girlfriend! I take a day off from live blogging to get to other meetings, etc., and ka-bluie goes this particular conference committee. And now there’s not even a transcript…! I did consider making one up from what I have pieced together. Even though I could do a heck of a job, it wouldn’t really be wise in terms of my continued employment prospects.
So, we’ll do it the boring yet non-libelous way. The conferees had met earlier to look at some technical changes on language from staff. Then they met later to sign the report, after House and Senate had both adjourned. The Senate folks - Emler (R), Apple (R), and Lee (D) - signed. On the House side, Holmes (R) signed, but Olson (R) and Kuether (D) did not.
According to John Hanna’s account in the Wichita Eagle (AP), Kuether balked on the regulatory language restricting KDHE Secretary Bremby. Olson didn’t agree with language saying that utilities might at some point have to use the best available technology to capture CO2, if CO2 limits are ever set. He thinks such an action would damage the state’s economy.
All this is going on - not minutes after House Speaker Melvin Neufeld told a reporter that he had the votes in the House to override a potential veto of the bill by Gov. Sebelius (also see KC Primebuzz). Speculation has been rampant as to the vote trading going on. Leavenworth Democratic Representative Candy Ruff, who supports the plants was - blunt about it. As quoted in the Eagle story, she said “It’s going to take some more Democrats, and Democrats’ votes don’t come cheap.”
If your mind just shot off to where mine immediately did - what, they come expensive? Cringe. Maybe she didn’t mean it how it sounded. Although it didn’t get much better when she said the next: “I don’t think the Republicans have the votes to pull this off, and if they want some Democrats, they’re going to have to show us a little more respect.”
Um. Um. *headdesk* I try to stay as nonjudgmental as possible, folks, and usually I’m not too awful. And I don’t mean to sound naive, either - but I sort of thought that one’s constituents - mattered to how legislators voted. That’s not also a consideration here? Even a priority? Inner-House politics are important, and of course some level of this negotiating goes on in a political setting, but - but. If you’re more worried about respect and wheeling and dealing, where do constituents factor into a legislator’s calculations?
There’s plenty of great legislators on both sides of the aisle, who care do very much about their constituents and who do resist lots of pressures. Comments like this, though, make it very hard for voters to believe that. The Holcomb/ energy vote is already at extremely high risk for voters dismissing it (and remembering it during the next election cycle) as a horribly tainted special interests deal. That gives an entire legislature - the entire state government - an appalling black eye.
Anyway. End of editorial insert. Because, there’s more! While all this is going on, Westar and KDHE Secretary Bremby are signing a historical pact - Westar voluntarily agreed to regulate its carbon dioxide emissions (LJWorld). No targets have been set, they just agreed to inventory emissions as a first step. Also, new Attorney General Stephen Six states that his office will stand behind the opinion it issued under former AG Paul Morrison, which found that Secretary Bremby had the authority to take action to protect health and the environment (Harris News).
Back to the Holcomb/ energy bill. What happens now? Depends. This conference committee can take another run at it. Or, the House and Senate can appoint new committees, and then they meet. (The first conference committee has to come to a consensus. The second one just arm wrestles. Kidding. They go with a majority vote.) Does the second committee start all over? Dunno. We won’t know anything until Wednesday either way, because the legislators are on a short break due to reaching the halfway point in the session.
Only halfway. I know.
Want some unadulterated good news? Some Kansas utilities and environmental groups are working together to create positive change on climate and energy issues. This week the House passed HB 2632, a bill that according to its supplemental note, amends KS law so that the KCC can allow requesting utilities to “capitalize and add to their rate base investments in and expenditures for energy efficiency, conservation, and demand management programs,” pending KCC approval of such programs. (Obviously this only affects the utilities regulated by the KCC.)
What the heck does that mean. Well, if you know the lingo at all, this is a bit like limited decoupling. Huh? OK. Here’s how it works right now. Under state statutes, investor-owned utilities like KCPL and Westar can basically only charge rates and make profits for their shareholders by selling more and more energy. This connection between volume and profit is how their pricing system works.
However, in a world poised on the brink of carbon regulation and a whole new paradigm of energy efficiency and conservation - turns out that antiquated rate system doesn’t work so well anymore. We need to use less energy, not more, so we also need to revise these utilities’ rate structures so they receive compensation for their investments in energy efficiency, etc.
That, basically, is the policy mechanism known as decoupling. It means that you break the old links between volume and profit, and set up new ones between energy conservation and profit, without your utilities (a) going broke, and/ or (b) incurring lots of new costs for developing these new programs. Smart metering, programmable thermostats, etc. - that stuff’s not cheap.
I just simplified decoupling hugely, and this bill is not exactly it. However, it is a giant step in the right direction, compared to where we were. That’s why the Sierra Club and CEP testified in favor of it.
Note to net metering advocates: policies like this, where utilities are compensated for the costs they incur in encouraging energy efficiency (and perhaps even renewable energy) are part of the larger picture that can help net metering happen. If more energy consumers become energy producers by installing renewables in their homes and businesses, then they are helping utilities reduce demand.
I know. Low drama. Not sexy at all. But hey, still cool. Steady and boring and cooperative - that’s how lots of good changes can quietly happen.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from House Energy Committee
February 26, 2008
hi all. This morning at issue - I think - is a bill that would strip the KDHE Secretary of all of his authority I may be oversimplifying. But I believe that is what it is. I am just here in case they do anything on the net metering bill. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Again, I don’t think this will really turn into a scintillating transcript, so I will more take notes than transcribe.
But hey this might get interesting. One never knows. Either a whole lot of boring or a whole lot of eek! that tends to be how things go.
9:15 a.m.
Chairman Holmes calls meeting to order.
HB 2872 hearing continues from yesterday. Not material to CEP, so we will skip it. Telephone stuff and the KCC.
HB 2894 - on KDHE. No proponents, one neutral (KDHE), one opponent. In offered testimony, others submitted written.
Sunflower Electric Representative - they oppose the bill. The provision would apply standards that KDHE applied to Sunflower to all utilities. They don’t want anyone else to endure what they’ve been through, so they oppose the bill. Sunflower went through an extensive permit process, public hearings, provided lots of detailed studies on plant’s impact re air quality, met with KDHE staff numerous times, staff approved the permit which meant no health or environmental problems. In October, KDHE secretary decided that CO2 was a danger to health and environment. It was CO2 that was the problem, not coal, please note that was the problem. Now Bremby is gathering info on CO2 emissions on KS in general. What will he do with this info? He said he would seek voluntary reductions throughout KS. If those voluntary reductions do not occur, then permitting process wil be applied. This concerns us - what do we do? His standards are unclear. we don’t want them to apply to anyone else. Bremby talks about what they are doing in Washington DC< but we don’t know what that standard is. That would be troubling. This has sent a shock wave thru business community, all the uncertainty. Troublesome - you can get permit in state of KS, but at renewal, you could lose that permit. Not good for investors. Too much doubt. We oppose this bill. It should not be enacted into law.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning, and for the fine work this committee and its members do for the state of Kansas.
I am Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate & Energy Project (CEP) of The Land Institute. I testify today on behalf of Kansas House Bill 2881, regarding net metering for the state of Kansas.
Net metering offers Kansas farmers and ranchers greater energy independence and gives rural small businessmen a hedge against fluctuations in the price of energy.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), net metering programs “serve as an important incentive for consumer investment in renewable energy generation,” and represent a “low-cost, easily administered method” that benefits not only consumers but utilities, because consumer systems often offer support during times of peak load. Net metering is already offered in more than 35 states, including our neighbors, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Colorado and Iowa.[1]
Additionally, net metering serves other important purposes:
* By developing more diverse sources of power generation, net metering increases our entire nation’s energy security and energy independence. In his recent State of the Union address, President George Bush mentioned these criteria as the drivers for his own energy initiatives.[2]
* Effective net metering policies spur economic development. By opening up markets for manufacturers and installers of renewable energy, net metering creates new jobs. According to the American Solar Energy Society, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries “already generate 8.5 million jobs in the U.S., and with appropriate public policy, could grow to as many as 40 million jobs by 2030.” Kansas deserves its share of this booming industry.
* In addition, states with policies that encourage the use of renewable energy attract businesses to relocate and bring jobs to their state. As we have recently seen, Colorado, whose net metering standards are widely acknowledged as some of the most effective in the nation, also recently attracted the Vestas wind turbine manufacturing plant which brought the state 400 new jobs.
CEP live blogging from House Energy and Utilities Committee
February 25, 2008
Morning! Here we sit, awaiting the beginning of the testimony on Rep. Tom Holland’s net metering legislation, HB 2881. I believe this bill is also supported by Rep. Treaster of Reno County.
What’s different about this net metering legislation, versus the solar net metering still attached to the Holcomb bill? Answer: lots. So today should be interesting. I will also have electronic copies of some testimony to post later.
9:15 a.m.
Chairman Holmes calls the meeting to order. Pretty full room, all things considered - ie, net metering is really not in the least a sexy or fascinating issue. You have to really care about renewable energy in order to be here. (Or probably, to read a live blog on the topic )
For those who may not even know what net metering is, check out the main CEP website’s glossary entry on the topic. In general, net metering is an incentive for consumers to invest in renewables. It is a critical part of a comprehensive state energy policy that encourages development in renewable energy, as well as in encouraging manufacturers in that industry.
Conference committee announced - 531 North at 3:30 p.m. Warning - very small room.
clearing out energy news from 2007
December 31, 2007
For real energy news junkies, DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a great news site. You can sign up for their newsletter as well. This recent snippet, Report: States Falling Short on Interconnection and Net Metering, definitely caught my eye. Quotable:
A new report concludes that all 50 states are failing to provide easy access to the electrical grid for home-grown renewable energy systems, while only four states are doing their best to assure that the owners of such systems earn credit for power fed into the grid. Regarding “interconnection,” or the connection of customer-owned power systems to the grid, many states set an arbitrary maximum size of the system that can be connected to the grid, or they set a cap on the total combined capacity of the systems connected to the grid. In many states, utility customers must pay high fees for interconnection, while also having to meet unreasonable requirements for safety features, liability insurance, and approval paperwork. Regarding “net metering,” which provides a utility bill credit for customers who feed power into the grid, some states allow utilities to credit the power at a rate that’s lower than the retail rate, to limit the amount of credit earned, or to limit the credit that can be carried over from month to month. Net metering often excludes commercial and industrial partners and sometimes requires the installation of an extra meter. And of course, many states don’t have a policy for interconnection or net metering at all.
As a homeowner who would very much like to install wind and solar, the lack of net metering in Kansas drives me nuts. (We’re a family with limited wage earning power - one of us is a civil servant, and the other works for a nonprofit. I might eventually be able to afford a grid-tied system, but I’ll never be able to afford off-grid because of the cost of batteries. But when the utilities and state government make it difficult for me to connect…) If you’re interested in what other states do and don’t allow net metering et al, check out the fantastic DSIRE database.
As many of you know, the energy legislation just passed by Congress did not re-authorize the production tax credits for solar and wind installations (let alone implement a federal Renewable Energy Standard). This could obviously put a big hitch in the get-along of increasing renewable energy.
What to do, what to do… well, remember the Farm Bill? Which has been its own lovely saga this year not that we need to get into that here, but if you check out this Windustry analysis (and click on the .pdf from the 25×25 coalition) then you can see that there may be hope for rural America to have a second chance at renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits.
I need hardly say - that would be cool.
