“Comprehensive state energy plan.” A phrase many of us became very familiar with during the last legislative session - regardless, whatever that plan ends up looking like, it’s good to get many different voices involved in the conversation.
Recently the Salina Journal has been running different guest editorials on what the energy future might look like for Kansas. Here’s two.
Many of you will probably disagree with parts or all of the following. But you might find points you agree upon, too.
************************************
Prof. Ruth Douglas Miller
“Solar, wind on the horizon”
What does the future hold for energy use and energy sources in Kansas? Our state is well placed to produce a significant part of the nation’s renewable energy within the next 20 years.
The western third of the state will have several hundred wind farms of 200 to 400 megawatts each scattered roughly along a north-south line from near Goodland down to Spearville, a line that soon will be the route of a major high-voltage transmission line.
A similar amount of solar energy will be feasible within a 50-year time frame through large-scale solar plants. If they happen, they will concentrate in the southwestern quarter of the state.
More importantly, to lower carbon dioxide production, most towns now large enough to own their own local gas- or oil-fired electricity generation will own one to three medium- or large-sized wind turbines.
And many homes will have enough solar panels, or in rural areas a small wind turbine, to produce a third or more of their individual energy needs.
We won’t burn oil for electricity, but natural gas plants paired with wind and/or solar generation will be fueled from renewable sources. When the wind dies, the gas plants will take over; when the sun shines or the wind picks up, the gas plants will be turned off.
We will probably still import coal from Wyoming, but we’ll export more than enough wind and solar-generated power to balance the coal imports. If we are really serious about global warming, we will add another nuclear plant somewhere in the eastern third of the state.
Within 20 years, the bio-ethanol and bio-diesel craze will be recognized as a dead end. We cannot produce 20 percent of current 2007 gasoline demand in ethanol even if we figure out how to convert all available biomass in the country to ethanol.
And we cannot grow enough oil seed (soy, canola, sunflower or others) to meet 20 percent of current diesel demand, either.
By 2020 it will be clear we do not have land, fertilizer or especially water to make ethanol work. However, we will have realized that manure and garbage are excellent sources of methane while they are decomposing enough to use as fertilizer. So much of our natural gas, probably still needed for heat and to balance wind and solar electricity generation, will come from sources such as feedlots and municipal landfills.
What will we be doing for transportation? Driving a lot less, biking more, and driving small, light vehicles that are either hybrids or pure electric cars, whose batteries are charged from solar panels on roofs.
Instead of driving from Manhattan to Wichita for a day conference, I expect I will sit at my computer, call my Wichita, Topeka and Lawrence colleagues on the phone and join them in a vivid videoconference in which we’ll feel we’re in the same room with each other.
Kansas will be more of a desert, but we will know, watching wind turbines spin, that we’re doing our part to undo the damage of the previous century.
Ruth Douglas Miller is an associate professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at Kansas State University and a coordinator for the Kansas Wind for Schools program.
******************************
Stuart Lowry, KEPCo
“The clash of wants and needs”
The “climate crisis” is driving our energy debate. Recently Al Gore announced a goal that in 10 years, 100 percent of our nation’s electricity will be generated from renewable resources. For Mr. Gore and others who share his vision, this policy is necessary to save the planet and, therefore, cost is no object.
As the costs of such a policy become apparent, however, many will argue that we cannot afford it. Certainty about the scope of the climate crisis or low-cost energy solutions to solve that crisis would make energy policy work quite simple. If neither exists, developing sound energy policy will require reconciliation of what we need and what we can afford.
Energy efficiency — deriving the benefits of electricity while actually consuming less of it — will increase in the coming years as never before. Unfortunately, even the best energy efficiency programs will not lead us to the point of negative usage. We will still need electric supply, and that supply has to come from somewhere.
Renewable energy has an undeniable appeal to everyone — including electric utilities. At the risk of throwing cold water in the face of Mr. Gore’s dream, it is unlikely that renewable energy will provide all of our supply in the next 10 years — at least in the absence of a major technological breakthrough or a seismic shift in public policy.
We will see the use of more renewable energy, though. In Kansas, the renewable energy focus is primarily on wind energy. Electricity supply solely from wind, however, is like the wind itself: present some of the time and absent at others. Integrating wind resources into an electricity system while maintaining balance between electricity load and electric supply requires the continued use of traditional generation resources.
Experts in both the wind and utility industries believe that we can reasonably expect to integrate roughly 20 percent of our energy from wind in the future. Utilities in Kansas have made steps toward that goal. Wind power could be generated in Kansas and exported to regions that do not have renewable energy alternatives. The transmission lines and facilities needed to move bulk power, including wind energy, between regions will need to be more fully developed.
If less than 100 percent of our power is generated from renewable resources, the remainder will likely come from new versions of generation resources that build on established technologies — coal, nuclear and natural gas in combination.
Concern with carbon dioxide emissions and global climate change resulted in the current Kansas debate about the use of coal generation. If this concern drives our energy policy, it would predict a movement toward more nuclear energy, which does not have the emissions of coal plants. Proposals for more nuclear energy will likely bring equal, but different, objections from the same people that oppose the use of coal. Improvements will continue to be made in both coal and nuclear technologies. With coal, technological innovations to sequester or reduce carbon emissions will develop. Nuclear has a strong safety record and the industry will build on that success.
Any discussion of the energy future in Kansas should include consideration of the cost. Ascertaining the cost we are willing to bear requires that we discern our priorities. If we want more renewable energy, need to limit carbon dioxide emissions and want to maintain reliable service, we can do that.
If we want to provide the most reliable service at the lowest possible cost, we can do that.
The correct policy answer is found at the intersection of what we want and what we can afford.
Stuart Lowry is executive vice president of Kansas Electric Cooperatives and a member of the Kansas Energy Council and the governor’s Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Legislative Update: Speaker Neufeld announces there will be no veto override attempt at sine die on May 29
May 21, 2008
Kansas papers announced today that House Speaker Melvin Neufeld has decided not to call for a veto override of the third coal bill on May 29 at sine die, the ceremonial end of the 2008 legislative session.
(CEP will probably attend anyway, what the heck.)
Only skeleton reports in the papers so far. We will see if there are any quotables that appear in the coverage tomorrow morning.
I have been in meetings eternally and have only had a chance to scan my email, but the responses seems to be pretty evenly split three ways: “Whew” “I’m not sure I believe that” and “when do the court cases kick into gear?” Sometimes all in the same email.
Governor Sebelius’s response was very positive and encouraging:
“I am pleased that we can close this contentious chapter of our debate on energy policy, and begin to work collaboratively on a comprehensive plan that provides for the power needed to continue to grow our economy, while protecting our environment and maximizing our alternative energy potential.
“Yesterday, the first meeting of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group occurred, launching the dialogue to develop a strategy for the future. I will continue to reach out to energy producers, environmental groups, scientists, business leaders, health experts and Kansas citizens as we work with the Legislature to develop energy policy for Kansas. Also, I am hopeful that the legislature will move to quickly address the economic proposals that were unfortunately bundled with the coal plant proposal when they return in January, 2009.”
Also, I have received enough email requests for the following that I decided to go ahead and post it - some of the more important dates of the coals bills traveling through the 2008 session (this should also help you all navigate the live blogging archives a little easier).
I have left out bill numbers for now. Does anyone really want them? If so, I can deliver, just let me know. Unless otherwise indicated, the dates of passage represent the day of final action taken by the Kansas House.
February 4 - hearings begin in House and Senate
February 8 - hearings on the House side implode, and the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment is created for a possible end run (see baseload bill, below)
March 5 - first coal bill is passed
March 21 - Governor vetoes first coal bill
March 24 - very quick and dirty hearings on the second coal bill happen at lightspeed
April 1 - funky carbon tax proposal comes out of nowhere, crashes and burns in about 24 hours. Around same time, amendment to another bill threatens to take casino gambling away from Wyandotte County delegation.
April 4 - second coal bill is passed
April 17 - second coal bill is vetoed
May 1 - House attempts and fails to override the second coal bill
May 3 - the trailer bill starts to float around, as well as a House Concurrent Resolution to sue to the Governor and her administration over the plants (never ultimately goes anywhere)
May 7 - third coal bill is passed
May 16 - third coal bill is vetoed
May 29, sine die - it has just been announced that there will be no override attempt.
This list leaves out quite a bit of the subplots. The baseload bill, which attempted to set up the equivalent of a renewable portfolio standard for coal and nuclear while eliminating natural gas and ignoring wind power, was probably the most significant.
It is also significant that the energy efficiency bill originally sponsored by KCPL went down as part of the collateral damage - even to the point of getting struck out of the bill that allows utilities to recover the costs of developing nuclear through their rates.
I am still trying to figure out that one. Energy efficiency is easier and far, far cheaper than nuclear, but under law utilities can’t recover energy efficiency costs…? Yet under law, ratepayers could end up possibly getting stuck for the development costs of a nuclear plant that might never be built…?
Another thing I left out - the crash and burn of the net metering legislation sponsored by Representatives Treaster and Holland. The coal bills included net metering for solar, so net metering for solar AND wind did not stand a chance.
Pretty busy few months.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: China and wind, reprocessing fuel rods from nuclear plants, biofuels and the food crisis, etc.
April 29, 2008
China setting bonkers targets with wind. (Yes - bonkers is a technical term.) From the WSJ Env Capital blog, China is raising its wind power goal from 30 gigawatts to 100 gigawatts by 2020. How much is 100 gigawatts? The equivalent of 100 nuclear plants, or more generation capacity than in all of France.
What does this mean for Midwesterners? (1) For those purchasing wind turbines, you now will have even more international competition, and (2) for those producing wind turbines, you will have more markets.
Don’t forget the nukes. During this recent legislative session, even Kansas experienced a resurgence in the nuclear debate - one that would have gotten a lot more attention if it hadn’t had to compete with coal.
During the nuclear discussions that did occur, reprocessing spent fuel rods got a lot of attention. Good idea? Bad idea? Impossible? Too expensive to even contemplate? A gimme to terrorists who can use the resulting plutonium for dirty bombs? A great way to let future generations and technology solve the spent fuel and radioactive waste issue?
Opinions differed. Also from the WSJ Environmental Capital blog, more research on the topic.
Biofuels and the food crisis. A combination of factors has led to the current world food crisis - according to one measure, “market prices of cereals, dairy produce, meat, sugar and oils, was 57 percent higher in March 2008 than a year earlier” - and the recent explosion of corn-based biofuels is part of the problem (Reuters). Another part of the problem is higher fuel prices. Without fuel, farmers can’t farm as much acreage, so they grow less.
The situation: High demand - populations in the developing world are even growing. Limited supply - there’s less food to feed them. Result - food prices increase, and many people go hungry.
When people are hungry, they often riot. At the very least, they’re not very happy with their governments. Unhappy populations experience high incidences of civil unrest. Civil unrest contributes to international upheaval, even terrorism.
Biofuels originally promised to increase the energy security of the United States. Instead, they have become caught up in a cycle that is undermining it. How do alternative fuels disentangle themselves from this cycle? How much can we safely mix our sources of food and fuel?
TBD.
Anglican minister on climate change. Via NPR. Quotable: “It is not about, if we pray hard enough to God, he will end climate change. Yes, we should pray to God. We should also get off our backsides, get out there, and do something about it.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP proceedings summary (live blogging after the fact) on the House floor - SB 586, nuclear power incentives and energy efficiency
March 27, 2008
SUMMARY: This morning Eileen was awesome enough to fill in for MH and cover SB 586 (bill, supplemental note, and fiscal note) as it was brought to the House floor.
CEP has been covering the content of this bill in a couple of different formats. The original SB 586 was introduced by Sen. Roger Reitz, Republican from Manhattan. It authorized the KCC to allow utilities to adjust their rates to recover the costs of “prudent expenditures” incurred in the course of exploring the possibilities of developing nuclear power. Nuclear power has been a live issue this session, although not as much as coal, and CEP tracked it through KCC and House Select Committee on Energy and Environment proceedings, and also offered our own thoughts on the issue.
SB 586 passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Utilities, passed the Senate, and then was sent to the House Committee on Energy and Utilities. There it was amended to add the contents of - original HB 2632! the KCPL bill on energy efficiency!
If you are thinking that that bill shows up in more places, you are correct. I did not link the original bill because it was significantly amended in Senate Committee on Energy and Utilities. More on that later if I get to it. In essence, this language allows utilities to rate base the costs of developing and implementing energy efficiency programs to help their customers save energy.
In the proceedings below, SB 586 passed. There was, however, some interesting discussion.
Morning! A little news. Reminder: Today is the official fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
International wind scene. China boosts its wind production goal to 10% by 2010 (WSJournal). Ouch! My ears are now ringing from the screams of U.S. wind developers, who are in competition for these same precious turbines. China still relies mostly on imported turbines and components, as does the U.S. (That strikes me as a hole in the market. Holes in markets need to be filled. Right? RIGHT?) Quotable:
More worrying, even its booming domestic industry still completely relies on imports of key wind-turbine components, especially ball bearings. That means China’s appetite will just add pressure to already-stretched global supply chains, likely increasing turbine prices and thus capital costs for new wind farms everywhere.
Kansas and coal. Double whammy from the WSJ this a.m. They have joined the interested circles of out-of-state Kansas watchers. Sadly… you can’t read the article unless you have an online Wall Street Journal subscription! I hate hate hate that. Bless their hearts. I’m not even sure how long that link will be live, but the title of the article is “Kansan Stokes Energy Squabble With Coal Ruling,” and it is written by Stephen Power.
Scientific uncertainty and carbon. A word, here, before the news. An editorial word. Some folks seem to expect science to have all the answers. This drives me a little nuts. Whatever out there might have all the answers, I truly doubt that source is human in nature. Instead, I expect science to ask questions. And keep asking questions. And to be skeptical. If science didn’t leave room for debate, if it turned everything into fixed and certain dogma, I wouldn’t trust it. All I want is enough reliably gathered information for the rest of us to get a better understanding of potential risks that our actions (or inactions) might pose to the environment, and ultimately also our own survival.
So the following is cause for more questions, not panic or dismissal - two new studies suggest that the world might need to cut its emissions much further and faster than previously expected, in order to avert precipitous impact from climate change (Washington Post).
What’s a helpful way to sort out that information? On one hand, these studies involve very long time frames. That’s a lot of variables, and a lot of uncertainty. On the other hand, previous climate modeling has proven to be too conservative - actual observed climate variations (average temperature, sea ice melt, etc.) during the past few years have proven to be far more dramatic than the models projected back in 1996.
So. It’s all about risk assessment, management, and prevention. Which ultimately places the burden on you to decide. Not scientists. It’s about you - and your relationship with your policymakers.
Speaking of politicians and scientists - what the…? The EPA is already embroiled in a staff v. leadership controversy over regulating carbon dioxide emissions from transportation sources. Now Rep. Waxman - remember him? After he questioned RUS funding for coal-fired power plants in rural areas with taxpayer money, the program was suspended for 2008 and 2009 - he is now investigating White House involvement in scuttling CAFE standards two years ago (Detroit News). CAFE standards (short for Corporate Average Fuel Economy) measure fuel economy, or miles per gallon, for automobiles and light trucks. They were originally implemented during the oil embargo crises of the 1970s. The measurement represents the average fuel economy of a manufacturers’ entire fleet of vehicles, although many large vehicles such as SUVs are exempt.
Also, US Fish and Wildlife is catching major flak for delaying - for whatever reasons - the listing of the polar bear as an endangered species (Blomberg).
Wolf Creek. The Wolf Creek nuclear power plant (1,166 megawatts generating capacity) is currently shut down for about a month, apparently for a routine refueling (Reuters). According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the refueling process is a procedure where the plant removes “uranium-bearing fuel elements that have been used at commercial nuclear reactors and that are no longer producing enough energy to sustain a nuclear reaction. Once the spent fuel is removed from the reactor the fission process has stopped, but the spent fuel assemblies still generate significant amounts of radiation and heat.” The NRC notes that “periodically, about one-third of the nuclear fuel in an operating reactor needs to be unloaded and replaced with fresh fuel.”
I think something like only 5% of the uranium is used, 95% is still left, just not in a state that the plants can use to generate electricity. The remaining fuel is then stored in cooling pools of water on site, although some sites do use a new form of dry storage.
Believe it or not. Last - and I can’t believe I am actually going to say this - here is a really fascinating article about the carbon footprint of cement (CSMonitor). Quotable: “Roughly 5 to 10 percent of global CO2 emissions are related to the manufacture and transportation of cement, a major ingredient of concrete.”
(Glad I didn’t know that, before my husband redid the pad in front of the garage…)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future - Day 5 of working what was once HB 2949
March 18, 2008
Yep! Did that get your attention? As well it might. The bill formerly known as HB 2949 is - apparently - today to be reincarnated as a resolution, HCR 5038 (.pdf), Kansas Energy Plan. The hearing phase is considered concluded - see Day I and Day 2 (which were briefings), and Day 3 and Day 4 (which were hearings).
The Select Committee will be working the resolution today, which means adding amendments, etc. Reminder: this is the bill that proposed to establish an energy plan for Kansas by focusing on baseload power needs and encouraging coal and nuclear and minimizing natural gas.
EDIT: wait! there might be one person testifying today. Which means this too is a hearing.
What’s the difference between a bill and a resolution? I only know the major point - a bill can go on to become a law, and a law is a binding mandate (supposedly. Or else why bother?). A resolution is a more general statement that is not binding under law.
I think the resolution has to pass the committee and then get voted on by the House as a whole, but I don’t know what happens next. The HCR designation stands for House Concurrent Resolution, which seems to imply that the Senate too would get a whack at it. I also don’t think that HB 2949 is dead-dead - it doesn’t sound like it will be worked in its current version, but it could serve as a vehicle for some other legislation that may fail to get through the process in another format.
EDIT: Guess what! Since it switched from a bill to a resolution - this means that the hearings start over. All the previous four days, zippo. We start over with hearings on the resolution, and one person is submitting testimony - Tom Thompson of Sierra Club! Who is on top of it. CEP (me) said - uh, what? We start over? Didn’t know that…. oops… Doesn’t look like anyone other than Tom submitted, however. A few other voices say, um, er - it was open for new testimony? Missed that!
We await the committee. Members of the committee include: Representatives Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham. Proceedings begin at 1:30. Hit your refresh button later on and check in.
We begin.
Chairman Myers - because of frustration with regulatory uncertainty and looming carbon costs, and difficulty with financing utility expansion - there was general ipinion in testimony for utilities that this bill should not be put in statute. In order to comply, I had it put into a resolution. The revisers switched it to resolution form, but it is missing the KCC amendment from last week about changing from gigawatts to megawatts, and the (MH misses it). Myers asks for motion to make rsolution cocur with previous House bill. Olson moves, Rardin seconds, Flora supports it in discussion, all aye, no nay, motion carries.
CEP live blogging from House Energy Committee - Edison Electric and JP Morgan presentations
March 18, 2008
Good morning. Today the House and Senate Committees on Energy and Utilities are meeting jointly in the Old Supreme Courtroom on the third floor of the Capitol.
The occasion is two pretty cool presentations. The first is by electric industry group Edison Electric Institute - they have both an industry side website, and a public portal. The latter is kind of an idiot’s guide to electricity, which Lord knows many of us need, but I also prefer the issue briefs they give on the industry side.
The other presentation is by investment bank JP Morgan. Not only is that the bank that just got a serious deal (I think) when they bought Bear Stearns, but more germane to the Energy committees of the KS legislature (maybe!), JP Morgan is also one of the Carbon Principles signatories, a deal also endorsed by Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. This agreement essentially said that since carbon regulation is coming, the power companies who come to them for financing for new plants need to have a plan to deal with greeenhouse gas emissions.
EDIT - Hey, guess what. The second presenter is from Morgan Stanley, not JP Morgan. Unlike what was announced earlier…? The audience debates in low tones.
We await the committee(s). Hit refresh on your browser to check back in when need be. Kick-off is at 9:15 or so. Members of the House committee include: Representatives Johnson, Flora, Mast, Sloan, Long, Moxley, Faust-Goudeau, Swanson, Proehl, Keuther (Ranking Minority), Holmes (Chair), Olson (Vice Chair), Svaty, McLachlan, Fund, Knox, Hawk, Light, Neighbor, Morrison, and Myers.
I might be wrong about the Senate Committee being invited… am I? Could be. Thought I read it somewhere, but maybe no. If I’m in the ballpark,
Everyone is here early!!! We start early. Joint meeting starts at 9:30, apparently. First, they will consider SB 586, the Senate side nuclear power bill. A little bonus here.
CEP live blogging from House Energy and Utilities Committee, Day 4 of testimony on HB 2949
March 12, 2008
Is this the fourth day of HSCEEF hearings on HB 2949? I believe so. First day was Chairman Myers briefing the committee on the bill that he introduced (Day 1); second day was Paul Genoa of NEI briefing committee on potential of nuclear energy (Day 2); third day was yesterday where six participants testified, including CEP and Kansas Natural Resources Council (KNRC) (Day 3); and today we have several more to testify, including Sierra Club. A reminder: This bill, titled the Kansas Energy Plan Act, proposes to decide the future of Kansas energy for the next twenty years by focusing on baseload as represented by nuclear and coal energy.
Yesterday we had brilliant turn-out by constituents at the hearing - the room and hallway was overflowing. Folks: Your presence was definitely, definitely noted. People are still talking about it. Thank you.
What was also interesting about yesterday is that (1) no clear champions of the bill emerged, and (2) environmental organizations, utilities, and the KCC all urged great caution and a careful, long-term planning process when it came to the future of Kansas energy. FYI: this is kind of like cats, dogs, and gerbils all traveling to the vet together in one animal carrier and having no drama occur.
I’m sorry. It’s only Wednesday and my metaphors have already run dry.
Originally, additional HSCEEF meetings were scheduled on Thursday and Friday as well. I received an email late yesterday afternoon, however, saying those had been canceled. The committee will now meet on Monday, March 17 at 1:30 p.m. in 784 Docking.
OK. Here we go. We await the committee. Members of the committee include: Rardin, Faust-Goudeau, Light, Olson, Myers, Flora, Watkins, Proehl, and Whitham.
Hit your refresh button occasionally to check in - the hearing starts at 1:30 p.m. From the list I have now, we will hear the following testimony (in unknown order): Colin Hansen (KS Municipal Utilities), Joe Spease (Pristine Power), Tom Thompson (Sierra Club), Ray Dean, Empire Electric, Larry Berg (Midwest Energy). Repeatedly, I am hearing that there were people who wanted to testify, but who were told there wasn’t time or room on the docket.
We have some of the committee. Close to a quorum. Nice spring day out. I think most of us walked over aboveground, instead of thru the tunnel between the Capitol and Docking. No quorum, pretty decent audience (on normal days, this means 10-20 people. Big days are 20-25. Small days are under 10). We wait.
Chairman Myers notes that he does not normally start meetings late, but he doesn’t have a quorum. Joking, he asks for volunteers. Laughter. Tom Thompson notes there are no hands. Laughter.
We wait. Chatter. Talk. Idle conversation. It gets idler. And idler.
Sigh.
Chairman Myers gives up on his quorum and starts anyway.
Wes Ashton, Aquila
As proponent. Here on behalf of Aquila and ONEOK (I think). Again, congrats to committee for attempting state policy for elecricity generation in KS. A good direction. We are in favor of this bill for state policy. However, there is ome small tweak - in section 5, where you detail specifics for generation and targets for 2028 etc. You eliminate natural gas. We think natural gas should stay in there. You say “negigible” use of natural gas. This will cause challenges for utlities.
We have heard lots - that there is not one answer or fix for KS energy problems. We need to keep options on the table. Why take gas off table so soon? Natural gas has been part of KS policy for decades, and it rises and falls. As prices stand today, natural gas costs more than coal. However, that might not be true in the future, especiually with supply fluctuations, etc. Keep gas on the table. Do not limit options for long-term policy. Our legislature, state, citizens, KCC, etc., will work together in future to determine best baseload options.
CEP testimony before the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, HB 2949
March 11, 2008
by Nancy Jackson, Executive Director
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon, and for the good work you all do for the state of Kansas.
I am Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate & Energy Project (CEP) of The Land Institute. I testify today regarding Kansas House Bill 2949, the Kansas Energy Plan Act.
The issues you consider today are crucial and complex. Electricity has become central to our economy and way of life. We use more of it each year and our infrastructure for both generation and transmission is aging and was, in any case, designed for a different time. It is time to make decisions for a new century.
Today, we recognize that the way we produce and consume electricity affects our air, our water, our climate, and for all those reasons, our ability – and our childrens’ ability – to lead healthy, productive lives in Kansas over the years to come. At the same time, in an uncertain world, we face growing concerns about energy security and independence. For all these reasons and, in Kansas, to encourage rural economic development, interest in distributed generation and renewable resources is growing.
The bill before you today states early its purpose, to “develop a balanced energy approach, a plan which allows for continued development of all energy sources but is not driven by special interests or energy crises.” It provides “encouragement” for renewable energy, as well as for policies to increase transmission and promote market-driven solutions, and focuses on a “market-driven approach.” All of these are goals that CEP applauds.
The bulk of 2949, however, attends to base load generation – the sources of energy that utilities depend upon to meet the majority of their consistent demand, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The difficulty, in 2008, is that in a fluid global market, economics can be tricky to predict and the notion of base load itself is being reconsidered.
Just this week, for example, we learned that Peabody Coal shipped more coal to China in the first six weeks of this year than in all of 2007. Last week, Merrill Lynch announced its forecast that coal prices would jump by 200% this calendar year. As nuclear generation enjoys a likely renaissance, we can expect similar jumps in uranium. In a global marketplace with rapidly developing economies, competition for finite resources is and will continue to be stiff. Determining in 2008 what will be economic in 2028 is challenging to say the least.
Add to economic uncertainty the reconsideration of base load. As we speak, the Southwest Power Pool and the Midwest Independent System Operator are jointly conducting a study on the integration of large amounts of wind onto the grid and how that may affect historical understandings of base load and reliability. Just as we would not expect nuclear to conform to the profile of coal, or coal to natural gas, wind is a unique resource. It provides energy, but not “capacity” in the way we developed that term to describe other resources. If the country places a high priority on getting energy from wind – and indeed President Bush, the Department of Energy, and Governor Sebelius all agree that we should be getting 20% of our energy from wind by 2030 – then it makes sense to find new ways to talk about new resources.
All of this – not to mention pressing environmental concerns including air, water, and climate pollution and their costs, which are not mentioned in this bill – makes it difficult to project with any accuracy the most economic, reliable, and socially beneficial mix of generation for 2030 and beyond.
The suggested mix of generation reflected in Sec 5 (b)(3) – the bill’s directive to the corporation commission regarding base load analysis and planning – appears to double our nuclear generation (to 40%), reduce our coal generation (to 60%), and all but eliminate natural gas for base load by 2028. Which is to say: 2949 essentially directs that another nuclear plant be built in Kansas.
Passing such a law at this time seems premature. Another nuclear plant may ultimately prove to be a good option for Kansas, but surely that decision would result from careful consideration of a comprehensive energy plan for the state – one that considers base load, intermediate load, peaking power, the unique contributions of renewables, and the potential contribution of energy efficiency in addition to developing market forces, environmental concerns, and the desire and ability of Kansas utilities to participate.
In sum, CEP supports a comprehensive planning effort. In recognition of the complexity of the task, we trust that the committee will take a careful, considered approach and postpone determining fuel mix for future generation until more information is available.
— Nancy Jackson, Executive Director of the Climate and Energy Project
CEP live blogging from House Energy and Utilities Committee
March 10, 2008
Morning! More nuclear. This time from the House Energy Committee. Today we are listening to a briefing by Dr. Kenneth Shultis from K-State’s Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. Home-grown.
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.
Nuclear! This is all so interesting. I’m starting to seriously think about doing some interviews on the topic. Heck, obviously there is rising interest. CEP is supposed to take notice of that stuff.
We await the committee.
We still await the committee. Lots of idle chat. Most of it revolves around - WHEN will the Governor veto the energy bill? No shortage of theories. I have received a request to live blog that moment 
gotta say, I don’t see that happening. But it would be an interesting moment to record as CEP presses ever onward in our ceaseless quest for an open and accessible democratic process, in particular as regards climate and energy issues! (cue Eye of the Tiger music)
Getting a lot closer to a quorum.
Gavel. Meeting called to order. Holmes introduces Dr. Shultis.
Shultis testimony
Lots of electric demand, big challenge for society, and not a lot of baseload has been constructed lately. Insatiable demand of society will take a mix of solutions, including energy efficiency, wind, solar, and probably nuclear. All of these energies have advantages and disadvantages. Just going to present some facts.
In US - 104 nuclear power plants in 34 states that provide 20% of nation;s energy. For baseload power, your options are pretty much nuclear and fossil fuels. Wind and solar somewhat weather dependent. Nuclear a lot, lot safer than it used to be, less moving parts, and thus less expensive to build.
New nuke apps rising. lots of requests in pipeline. Many in planning stage. US nuclear power has 40 year record of safety. Nuke plants are very expensive to build, but cheap to operate, opposite of fossil fuel plants. Also has high capacity factor, 90%. Coal was 71%.
Hi, all. Welcome to the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future, where they are considering HB 2949. This bill proposes to establish the framework for a broad, long-term Kansas Energy Plan by focusing on baseload and dispatchable power issues in electrical generation. In particular, as introduced (and amended) it would mandate (or encourage) coal and nuclear, eliminate natural gas, and not particularly address wind, solar, or any other renewables. EDIT: although the committee has not had a whack at it yet.
(FYI - we are missing the vote in the Senate on whether to approve the Holcomb bill. But there’s not a whole lot of suspense there. We will catch that via the grapevine later.) EDIT: I am in the Senate now - I don’t think we DID miss it. They are in recess. I will hang out.)
Today the committee is being briefed by Paul Genoa of the Nuclear Energy Institute, who is going to to speak on the costs of constructing nuclear power plants. Genoa also gave a presentation last week at the KCC’s nuclear power roundtable (where CEP live blogged). Next week there will be hearings on the bill on Tuesday, Wednesday, and possibly Thursday, but the bill might be worked on Thursday.
The committee members today: Chairman Don Myers, Ranking Minority Vaughn Flora, and Representatives Watkins, Light, Whitham, Proehl, and Rardin. Lots of schoolkids here today
MH - this powerpoint presentation looks as if it is the same one the Genoa delivered last week. For those of you who read thru that live blog account, I am going to clip that in here, then modify and add info that I missed the last time around. I am sticking thru the presentation, round two, because I am interested in hearing questions from the representatives. Hit your refresh button as we go along. Also refer to the nuclear power comment I made after the KCC roundtable, where we also heard a lot more about nuclear waste than we will hear today.
I am also cracking up and trying not to. A very funny lobbyist is making jokes behind me, and telling everyone that every good Republican surely know how to pronounce “nuclear” - “new-cule-ee-er.”
Paul Genoa, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction. Finding a middle ground between high expectations and total pessimism.
2007. Operating performance. Great year for nuclear fleet - 104 plants in US, about 10% of installed capacity in US, and generates 20% of electricity because of high capacity factor. Record output - 807 billion kilowatt hours in 2007. 5,222 MW of power uprates approved, 912 MW of uprates pending, 1,751 MW of uprates expected. What is an uprate? MH (still) has no idea. $16.80 per MWh production. Approx. 90% capacity factor. Wait. Let’s google “uprates nuclear power”. Okay, here, from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). An uprate is where they increase the maximum power level at which a commercial nuclear power plant may operate, typically by where “more highly enriched uranium fuel and/or more fresh fuel is used. This enables the reactor to produce more thermal energy and therefore more steam, driving a turbine generator to produce electricity.” The plant equipment must be upgraded to make this happen.
License renewals continue, and plant restarts (facilities that were closed) ongoing. 48 plant license renewals granted, which helps upgrade operations and infrastructure. 15 renewal apps under review.
a thought - and news updates
March 4, 2008
The thought first (before I lose it): Upon reviewing my notes on recent energy presentations/ legislative initiatives in Kansas, it occurred to me - wow, we’ve seen a fair amount of the Nuclear Energy Institute folks in KS during the past year.
Last week Paul Genoa spoke at the KCC Rountable on Nuclear Energy (where CEP live blogged). Earlier this year, another NEI representative spoke at a presentation to the KEC. This week on Thursday at 1:30 in Docking 784, Genoa will offer a briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy and Environment in the Future (HSCEEF) on HB 2949.
HB 2949, however, affects a much broader swath of the energy industry in Kansas than nuclear. It drastically, significantly affects natural gas providers and probably holds big implications for wind development - and thus it will also very much impact the utilities and grid operations folks who have the actual technical expertise necessary to manage our electricity supply in a safe, secure, and economic fashion.
If a nuclear industry organization like NEI is to be extended the courtesy of briefing the HSCEEF on legislation relevant to nuclear power, hopefully this means we will also see briefings from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), as well as natural gas industry organization, on this same legislation.
Right?
At any rate, such invitations would probably help NEI look a little less exposed. I imagine they’d rather not appear in that light. If nuclear is to be seriously considered in Kansas, I expect that any nuclear supporter would much prefer that consideration to take place in as fair, even-handed, and publicly accessible fashion as possible, where the foundation for the state’s energy future is built upon the principles of fuel diversity as well as mainstream science.
With all due respect to Representative Myers who chairs the committee and who will brief them on the legislation this Wednesday (prior to Paul Genoa), his take on global warming is not mainstream. As the Kansas media has covered numerous times.
Now the news. Brett Favre is going to retire. This is very sad. Wait! Climate and energy news. Wrong blog.
Coal. As reported by Sarah Kessinger, regulatory certainty on CO2 seems to be settling down a bit in Kansas, as the carbon regulation debate in Washington D.C. evolves and KDHE and Westar finalize their CO2 reduction deal(Hutch News). As reported by Karen Dillon, more details on company officials deciding to indefinitely postpone the coal-fired plant planned for Carroll County, MO (KC Star) (now can we call it the “Carroll County Accident“? I’ve been waiting to use that one). Warning, that link takes you to cowboylyrics.com. CSMonitor also gives the latest factoids on the recent “waning of the coal boom.”
Energy dependency. Bet you think I am going to put something here about the U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Nope (although of course that is a problem). Rather, the LATimes investigates how the U.S. dependence on corn could cause major economic suffering were a drought across the Midwest to seriously knock back the corn crop. Yeah. Eek. Food and fuel prices could skyrocket. Quotable:
After a torrid 2007, corn prices have risen an additional 20% this year because of global demand for livestock feed, sweeteners and ethanol. The rush by American farmers to forgo other grains to plant cash-producing corn, along with weather problems, has squeezed wheat supplies, pushing the price of that grain up 21%. Soy has risen 25% this year.
Analysts are already simulating what would happen if a drought hit the corn belt. Bruce Babcock, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, estimates that corn could reach $8 a bushel from $5.46 now.
It could happen as soon as this summer.
During industrialization, our food and fuel economies have always been tied (even often invisible ties that most people didn’t think about until more recently, like the fossil fuel inputs necessary to grow food, make fertilizers and pesticides, etc.). With the rise of biofuels, though, these parts of our lives are now ever more intertwined.
Nuclear. Even while the U.S. has not yet dealt with how to handle its own nuclear waste, the country could still become a repository for global imports of radioactive nuclear waste. The issue is right now before Congress, as to whether a private company called Energy Solutions can import 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from Italy and “dispose” of it in Utah. Drama is ensuing (CSMonitor).
Creation care. Christians giving up carbon for Lent!! (Boston.com) How cool is that. Also, creation care activists and environmentalists join forces in fighting mountain removal methods of coal mining in Tennessee (Knoxville Metro Pulse).
Probably live blogging tomorrow. Yay. I think my fingers are now fairly well rested.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging, week of March 3-7
March 3, 2008
Hi all. The legislature is on “turn-around” right now, so we are enjoying a bit of a breather. Actually, we’re not - CEP is moving offices, which I would not describe as relaxing. But we are on a slight breather re the live blogging.
So far, the live blogging plan for the week, once the Kansas Legislature is back in session:
Wednesday - House Select Committee on Energy and Environment for the Future (HSCEEF) will “brief” regarding HB 2949, the pro-nuclear and anti-natural gas bill which was introduced thru a blessed committee last week - 784 Docking, at 1:30 p.m.
Thursday -
House Energy and Utilities Committee, meeting at 9:15 in 783 Docking, agenda TBA.(EDIT: Meeting canceled.) HSCEEF, second briefing on nuclear power/ HB 2949, and costs of new nuclear power plants - 784 Docking, 1:30 p.m.Friday - this will depend on what bills are introduced onto the House or Senate floor, which we won’t really know until the week gets underway. And/or it will depend on when the Holcomb/ energy bill makes a comeback into conference committee.
Next week - the schedule is up in the air, except for one sure thing - several organizations from all around KS have decided to get together for a Clean Energy Day at the Capitol on Tuesday, March 11. CEP has also decided to participate.
On the federal level, there is apparently a possibility of some interesting legislation being introduced from Representative Waxman’s committee (Government Oversight and Reform) next week. Waxman initiated the investigation of the RUS program of the USDA, which is the agency that helps rural electric cooperatives such as Sunflower Electric finance coal-fired power plants.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
newz updatez
March 3, 2008
Just felt like a “z” this morning. Not an “s”. No reazon.
Wind power. Did the wind stop blowing in Texas and lead to a recent major power failure for interruptible users (usually big users who agree to have their power cut off in times of need)… or did baseload providers fall down on the job? (Houston Chronicle). Quotable: “the state’s grid operators say a problem they could normally handle was complicated when a number of traditional power plant operators failed to provide the amount of electricity to the grid as promised.”
It appears several power providers didn’t perform as expected, according to a spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s quasi-public grid operator, but names won’t be revealed at this point.
Coal and Kansas. (Agh.) Sunflower Electric responds very strongly to Westar’s announcement that Westar will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put off construction of new coal plants as long as possible (press release, pulled off PrimeNewsWire). Southeast KS tries to figure out if the technology is there yet for them to mine their “dirty” coal resource (Pittsburgh Morning Sun). Not that “clean coal” exists, in terms of a technology free of significant environmental impacts.
Duane Schrag of the Salina Journal steps back and looks at the big energy picture in Kansas. Amongst the drama, sometimes it helps to just calmly take stock. He notes that immediately following the denial of the Holcomb permit, there were lots of predictions about the negative impact this would have on transmission and wind development, as well as baseload resources in Kansas. His findings were that, since the denial:
ITC Great Plains has said it plans to build transmission lines to Spearville, with or without the Holcomb plant expansion.
Wind farm development continues. In recent weeks a study was requested for a 600 megawatt wind farm in Finney County.
The Kansas Corporation Commission posted a statewide map of the average retail price of electricity in 2006. Western Kansas — in particular, the western third — enjoys some of the lowest rates in the state.
Westar Energy, the state’s largest utility and one that uses coal-fired generation for nearly 80 percent of its power, published a comprehensive energy plan explaining why it is delaying for as long as possible the construction of new coal-fueled generation.
Research. Xcel Energy is experimenting with battery back-ups for wind power, so as wind power keeps increasing in the energy mix, the natural ebb and flow of wind can be more easily mitigated (Finance-commerce.com). Topeka-based Mother Earth News (super-cool resource for homesteaders and gardeners) offers an update on the public and scientific discussion of global warming. I can summarize: (1) is it still going on? Yep. And (2) are human actions, such as burning fossil fuels, still a part of the issue? Yep, yep. And finally, an article for those paying attention to the evolution (hee hee) of the creation care movement.
Editorials. For serious, KC Star encourages KCPL to develop wind power, as they had already committed to do in their agreement with Sierra Club (the one that allowed them to construct a new coal-fired power plant), although they put off the investment in 2008 due to other financial commitments. (For more details on the Sierra Club deal, check out slide 7 of the powerpoint presentation that KCPL representative Paul Snider gave at the CEP Take Charge forums). KCPL said you betcha.
KCStar also urged caution on adding nuclear power to the state’s fuel mix, pointing out that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what to do with the waste, as well as the true costs of building new nuclear plants.
For funny, Richard Crowson of the Wichita Eagle asked readers to help come up with a caption for his following image:
Although I don’t mean to imply that respiratory problems are funny. I just enjoy it when people take on issues in creative and interesting ways. Here’s a selection of the runner-up captions -
Jason Griffin: “Where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are…are…oh, forget it.”
Bill Hess: “It’s to the stars through greenhouse gases!”
Karen Wallace: “Is this what they mean by a state coal-ition???”*
Burt Parry: “Add aspirator per coal plant.”
Kim Dunakey: “Rough road to the stars my foot. Just line the right pockets and the road becomes an 8-lane expressway.”
* my favorite
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Nuclear power
February 29, 2008
Nuclear power. The KCC roundtable on Thursday was quite interesting, and I am sorry I couldn’t stay for the roundtable itself where the commissioners spoke. Just listening to the information, here were some of my general thoughts:
First a really general thought, about technology. All technologies have benefits and burdens. All technologies impact the environment. All technologies have shortcomings, to the extent that they are not one size fits all solutions. What works in one place might not work in another. All of these evaluations of a technology should ideally be assessed in terms of their entire life cycle.
When it comes to energy technologies, “life cycle” means looking at a technology from the origin of its fuel source (including the costs of mining or land use), materials and energy used in construction of the energy source or the processing facility(ies), operations costs (including decommissioning), manufacturing of components, waste generated in all these processes, and general impact on the environment. Above and beyond that are the climate, air, water, soil, cultural, economic, and global security costs.
Yes, I know. Let’s just head back to our caves, that would be so much easier.
But seriously. You can put nuclear energy in this larger context and have one heck of a freewheeling discussion, certainly. The emails I received while I was there on the site blogging definitely testify to this. What I would comment, in a more focused manner,on the materials presented yesterday (at the limited part of the event I was able to attend) is:
Nuclear energy has learned from events like Three Mile Island. I was very impressed by the on-site safety precautions and improvements in the industry from that angle. If you think of any energy industry as having several links in its chain, they are on their way to getting a very good handle on that link.
Much less under control, however, are the links immediately before and after. The link before - where does the fuel come from? Who controls it? Who processes it? Exactly how much is there of it? How does this affect national security? wasn’t much addressed, but I alluded to some of the issues when I also linked to this CFR article on uranium.
The big link - the missing link, ha - of course is what to do with the waste. For a variety of reasons, managing nuclear waste on a long-term basis is not happening. Likewise, even reprocessing technology is iffy, because the main technology (ie, that used by France) separates out the plutonium. Plutonium go boom. Internationally speaking, plutonium scary.
So, nuclear waste - big problem. On many levels. Not just safety, but also public perceptions.
Are the effects of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere (as a result of burning fossil fuels) also scary? Yep. They are.
Everyone have a great weekend!
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP live blogging from KCC Nuclear Power Roundtable
February 28, 2008
Morning, all. Welcome to the KCC Nuclear Power Roundtable, an informational session on recent changes in the nuclear energy industry. This is Maril Hazlett, and I can be here for a few hours this morning, although the session does go all day. CEP’s goal in attending this session is simply to take notes (as always, don’t expect a word perfect transcript) and to make the information accessible to members of the public interested in climate and energy issues. The presenters will also be taped, and the presentations will be available on the KCC website.
FYI, David Klepper of KCStar has a story on nuclear this morning - click here.
Some cool speakers are set up for this morning - Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) will kick off the morning with a talk titled : “Changes in Nuclear Technology and the Nuclear Industry.” That will be followed by Brian O’Connell, Director of the Nuclear Waste Program Office of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).
Then there will be a break, hopefully with snacks. Hopefully. After that, Dave Matthews - no, not that one! not the musician who’s very into organic produce - but the Dave Matthews who is Director of New Reactor Licensing, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will speak on the “New Nuclear Plant Licensing Program.”
8:45 a.m.
Larry Holloway begins with introduction - no new baseload built in KS since 1985. As many folks know. Introduces Paul Genoa, of NEI - check above for the website link as to who they are. Somewhat like a trade association, but they represent 100 % of nuclear industry in U.S., with a lot of tech experience.
Paul Genoa, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction. Finding a middle ground between high expectations and total pessimism.
2007. Operating performance. Great year for nuclear fleet - 104 plants in US, about 10% of installed capacity in US, and generates 20% of electricity because of high capacity factor. Record output - 807 billion kilowatt hours in 2007. 5,222 MW of power uprates approved, 912 MW of uprates pending, 1,751 MW of uprates expected. What is an uprate? MH has no idea. $16.80 per MWh production.
License renewals continue, and plant restarts (facilities that were closed) ongoing. 48 plant licesnse renewals granted, which helps upgrade operations and infrastructure. 15 renewal apps under review.
News update
February 27, 2008
Working from home in rural Jefferson County at the moment. Sun is shining. Birds are singing. Ice on the lake is popping and spalling in weird underwater echoes as the sun hits the east side, while the west side is still cool and in shadow. Dogs are outside barking hysterically at my poor neighbor.
If I can figure out/ find out when the next conference committee meeting is on the Holcomb/ energy bill is today, we may have live blogging from Topeka later. If not, tomorrow holds a special treat - the KCC has decided to host a round table on nuclear power !!! (.pdf) I guess we weren’t having enough fun with coal. The event goes all day, so don’t expect live blogging, but I will take notes and post them later. Seriously, I am excited - very interesting speakers lined up.
For now, the news.
Cargill has canceled a proposed $200 million ethanol plant outside of Topeka due to the high price of corn (TCJournal). Christian denominations gathered for a “creation care summit,” a term popularized by evangelical Rev. Richard Cizik (Christian Post). Cizik spoke at the event, calling global warming “an offense against God,” and saying that “America needs our biblical outrage. We as a nation will face a judgment from God if we don’t do this.”
The wind industry is facing a shortage of qualified workers due to the enormous increase in demand (Seattle Times). Go, Cloud County Community College, and other Kansas community colleges who are developing wind technician training programs! The country needs you. Kansas needs you, too, to help spur rural economic development opportunities.
The following is not news to any of us, probably, but the USA Today has caught on that wind development is contingent on construction of new transmission lines, and that the grid in windy areas of the country is horribly congested. Why do I mention it, then…? Because I have a crazy fringe theory. The story supports my belief that the transmission issues in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc., are going to draw more and more national attention as pressure mounts to develop renewables. There is also a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (I think that’s the date) that allows the federal government eminent domain to build transmission in corridors of “national interest.”
My fringe theory: Either we develop more transmission, fast, or within a decade or so we could face the federal government perhaps deciding to do it for us.
But I could also be crazy.
NPR produced a harrowing story about the history of a yellow fever outbreak in Memphis in 1878. Yellow fever is one of the many diseases spread by mosquitoes. Long spells of hot weather provide a longer breeding season for these insects. Such spells are one of the many risks posed by climate change, which mainstream scientists agree is affected by human actions, such as burning fossil fuels.
Editorial. Randy Schofield of the Wichita Eagle whacks the pro-Holcomb folks on one hand for misrepresenting “regulatory uncertainty” (the Holcomb plant is the only air quality permit KDHE has ever denied, and regulatory uncertainty about greenhouse gases and carbon regulation on the national scene created that unique situation). On the other hand, he points out that in the aftermath of the decision, Governor Sebelius and Sec. Bremby haven’t been open enough about how they are developing GHG regulations. (Don’t get mad at me, I just offer a synopsis). Quotable:
Granted, there are legitimate concerns — we share them — about where state and federal carbon regulation is heading.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Bremby have been far too quiet about how the Holcomb decision fits into larger efforts to reshape the state’s energy policy in light of looming federal carbon regulation and growing uncertainty about the economic viability of coal plants.
They need to move this dialogue forward more aggressively and show business leaders and lawmakers where they’re heading.
All the same, there’s no cause for panic. Bremby has made clear that his decision should be seen as limited and narrowly crafted to the energy sector.
One permit denial out of thousands does not add up to regulatory anarchy.
A guest editorial in the KCStar points out that all of the Kansas’ electricity picture is affected by the decision to put a coal plant, in the face of future carbon regulation structures such as cap and trade. Quotable:
If southwest Kansas goes with coal, then the rest of the state will have to make up the difference by assuming the burden and cost of developing new resources…. With (Sunflower Electric’s) coal plants employing newer technology, Kansas would be forced to achieve reductions at other utility plants, such as Westar, Kansas City Power & Light and BPU.
The necessary emission reductions may not be feasible on older plants, forcing them to invest in expensive alternative solutions. Our exposure is substantial because these utilities rely heavily on coal.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
fact checks from Holcomb hearings, part II
February 6, 2008
More fact checks - questions that are popping up in the course of the hearings.
Q: What is the average cost of a ton of carbon - or, what will it probably be? The $3 per ton mentioned in the bill seems a little low.
A: Under a scheme of carbon regulation - either a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system - there will be a price put on a ton of carbon. It is unknown what that will be in the U.S., but most analysts use the European rate of roughly $30 per ton. The Lieberman-Warner plan currently before Congress would price CO2 emissions at $20 per ton by 2015.
Q: I’m confused. Is carbon dioxide (or other greenhouse gases) regulated as a pollutant or not?
A: A 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA declared that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants: “Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant,’ we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases…” [Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007]. (EDIT: It has been recommended that I note that this ruling dealt with emissions from vehicles and transportation, not from electrical emission. Duly noted!) The Congress has several bills before it that propose regulating greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, but has not yet passed any of them.
Q: What is the current balance of electricity generation in Kansas?
A: According to DOE’s Energy Information Administration office, the current fuel mix for electricity production in Kansas is 75% coal, 20% nuclear, 4% natural gas, and the rest is wind or other renewables. Coal and nuclear - 95% - provide baseload for Kansas.
CEP would like to note - this is not exactly a balanced energy portfolio. Adding more coal generation would unbalance us even more. When the prices of fossil fuels rise, due to upcoming carbon regulation, we do not have much fuel diversity to cushion us against this rise in prices. Also, the coal burned for new generation at the proposed Holcomb plants would come from out of state, rendering us vulnerable to interruptions in supply.
Over the next decade or so, as we build bridges toward a more fully renewable energy economy, what would a balanced, achievable energy mix for Kansas look like? CEP thinks it might look something like this:
50% coal
20% nuclear
20% wind
5% natural gas
5% other renewables (biomass, solar, hydro)
Q: This algae reactor thing. I just don’t understand it.
A: Sunflower has proposed using an algae reactor as part of a bioenergy center at Holcomb that would help mitigate the plant’s CO2 emissions. According to our buddy and researcher Ken Lassman, who consulted this .pdf from the manufacturer, greenfuelonline.com, development of the algae reactor technology is broken down into 3 phases:
1 Feasibility Assessment Unit (FAU)
2 Engineering Scale Unit (ESU)
3 Commercial installation
Several FAUs have been completed by these folks across the nation, including Sunflower. These pilot studies have shown the potential for growing algae and removing carbon in the process. Only one ESU has been done in the US: APS Red Hawk Power Plant in Arizona– and according to Sierra Club, this installation did run into problems and had to be temporarily closed. No ESU has been done at Sunflower, and would need to be done to demonstrate its commercial viability, identify the algae strains that would work there, etc. NO Commercial installations have been made anywhere.
Bottom line: a promising technology that is not yet mature.
********
That’s all I can do today! I cry uncle. More tomorrow - we especially have a lot to share with you all about the connections between energy and economic development.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
