Experts from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) come through Kansas on a Wind Belt Tour
October 14, 2008
This week, CEP is one of the sponsors for the AWEA wind belt tour, where experts from the American Wind Energy Association meet with economic development officials, local government representatives, and politicians across the state.
Reprinted in full from the Hutch News:
Group to Reno officials: Pursue wind possibilities
By Edie Ross - eross@hutchnews.com
American Wind Energy Association representatives were in town Monday to speak with local wind and economic development leaders about Reno County’s role in developing wind energy in Kansas.
The organization came through Hutchinson between stops on their Kansas Wind Belt tour, in which they discuss the future of wind energy development in Kansas and how counties can take advantage of and encourage growth in the wind energy industry.
“You have all of this green money going over your head every day, and you have the ability to reach up and grab it,” said Steve Gaw, of The Wind Coalition, a nonprofit association formed to encourage the development of wind energy resources in the south central United States. “It’s up to you whether you take advantage of the opportunity that is there.”
Wind proponents warned local leaders that the demand for wind energy was only growing and encouraged them to show their support for the industry by telling state and national leaders that Kansans want to be a leader in wind generation.
“Wind energy development is happening in some states and not in others. One reason it is happening in some states is because there is a clear message that there is a desire for that development to occur,” Gaw said. “It’s up to Kansans: Is this something you all want to happen, and if so, making that clear message is significant. It’s a message that needs to come from policymakers, economic development and county officials, and needs to be made to elected officials.
20 percent scenario
The presentation included information on the U.S. Department of Energy’s report outlining the potential of wind providing 20 percent of America’s energy by 2030.
The report outlined, among other things, costs and benefits and impacts of the 20 percent wind scenario.
Generally, meeting the 20 percent goal by 2030 would cost the nation about 50 cents per month per household for a grand total of $43 billion - which is a 2 percent greater investment than if the nation created no new wind from current levels.
Benefits would be the reduction of natural gas and coal consumption and a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and in water consumption.
It also would create more than 500,000 jobs in the next two decades.
The second part of the presentation focused on that benefit.
Job creation
To meet the 20 percent scenario will mean the need for 7,000 to 10,000 more turbines annually. That translates to 21,000 to 30,000 blades and tower sections each year.
The manufacturing and installation of the wind towers will have direct, indirect and induced economic impacts.
Job creation will boom in the construction and manufacturing industries. Businesses such as banks that finance the construction and equipment suppliers will also benefit from wind development, and likely will need to hire more employees to handle it.
Finally, places like grocery stores, retail stores and the like will feel an impact from the spending of people directly and indirectly supported by the wind development projects and might need to hire more workers to keep up.
The Department of Energy’s report assumes that 1,000 to 5,000 manufacturing jobs will need to be supported by Kansas to reach the 20 percent wind energy goal by 2030.
However, Kansas could easily increase that number if it made a greater push for wind energy development, said Liz Salerno of the AWEA.
“Kansas geographically is in a good position to benefit from wind energy development,” she said.
Live Blogging - Notes from the Kansas Energy Council, presentation by Yale environmental economist on cap and trade
September 4, 2008
On Wednesday the Kansas Energy Council sponsored a presentation on cap and trade by Dr. Robert Repetto. Repetto is an environmental economist recently retired from Yale University, who currently works for the UN Foundation. He holds degrees from Harvard University and the London School of Economics.
In his coverage of the event, reporter David Klepper for the KC Star captured the presentation’s main message: “Addressing the carbon emissions blamed for climate change won’t be easy, but there’s no reason it should cripple the economy.” Quotable:
(Repetto) told the Kansas Energy Council that cooperation, political courage and a good grasp of economics will be essential if the state and nation are to enact measures to reduce carbon emissions. But he said such measures could actually benefit the economy by spurring innovation while reducing the risks of climate havoc. And he said the costs passed on to consumers and businesses are likely to be smaller than if the nation does nothing at all….
… He offered this ray of hope: Society has wrestled with big changes in energy before. And some companies and governments will actually find themselves better off.
But the cost of doing nothing? “Just having a policy of waiting and hoping, I don’t think is adequate to the challenge,” he said.
**************************
For additional detail on the presentation, see below, and keep reading (and reading. and reading). For the Cliff’s Notes, just read the next bit:
The big takeaway messages:
1 - To prepare for a federal cap and trade system, Kansas needs to reduce its vulnerabilities (ie, the amount of electricity we generate from coal) and maximize its assets (energy efficiency potential, renewable energy resources, and soil carbon sequestration thru agriculture - also methane capture, biomass, etc.)
2 - Energy transitions have happened many times in the past 100 years - from water power to steam power, from steam to electric, etc. There was always disruption, and there will always be winners and losers. However, in the transition to a clean energy economy, Kansas can be a winner. We are situated much better than many states, if we just plan ahead.
3 - Even with assuming the worst case scenarios, economic models of the financial impacts of cap and trade show that the U.S. economy will still grow at least .5% per year over the next 20 years. In the best case, cap and trade will help the U.S. economy grow faster, due to stimulating new technology development. Carbon regulation can be designed to not have negative economic impacts.
4 - Don’t forget what lies beyond cap and trade (or even before. or around it, for that matter). Not every emissions reduction strategy fits under the cap and trade scheme. There are many other ways to reduce emissions - even improving transmission infrastructure is one example.
BACKGROUND: Dr. Repetto began with a quick re-cap of why cap and trade is even on the table. Cap and trade is one scheme of carbon regulation (a carbon tax is another option). Carbon regulation is an issue because of climate concerns, and the desire to manage and prevent the risks associated with climate change.
The U.S. is considering carbon regulation in part because we (and 191 other countries) have signed the United Nations framework treaty on climate change. This says that by 2012, these nations will come up with a treaty to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon regulation (of whatever version) has to walk a crucial line: (1) the economy must keep growing, while (2) emissions must decrease. Major improvements in efficiency must occur, as well as a shift away from dependence on fossil fuels.
Repetto favors market-friendly approaches, where incentives encourage businesses to become more efficient in their operations, to develop new technologies, etc. Studies show that this approach could mean tremendous cost savings, up to 1-2% of GDP per year.
Dan Nagengast on wind, coal, and business in Kansas
September 2, 2008
Reprinted in full from Hutch News, originally published August 30, 2008.
Pursuit of coal derailing wind development
By Dan Nagengast
Much has been made of the “chilling effect” on Kansas commerce because of Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby’s denial of a permit for Sunflower Electric Cooperative’s 1400-megawatt coal plants in southwest Kansas.
Indeed, Amy Blakenbiller, president and CEO of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, has used precisely those words to describe what the decision has done to the business and manufacturing community.
This has been echoed by energy committee leadership in the Kansas Legislature, many of whom hail from western Kansas.
Now, that same leadership seems to be making preparations for the next legislative session as a redux of the last. Rep. Melvin Neufeld appointed four pro-coal legislators as members of a Joint Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy.
Though the rest of the world is making accommodation to a sea change in energy policy, Kansas leaders seemed prepared to brazen onward with a policy that is being left behind.
Climate change and energy shortfalls affect us all, clearly posing a threat to business as usual. But the issue also offers an incredible economic development opportunity for our state, and for rural and western Kansas in particular. Focusing solely on coal-plant development not only pretends ignorance of the threat but also equally ignores the opportunity.
The threat
While western Kansas legislators claim their energy rates are too high, the region, by no means, has the highest energy costs in the state. Still, it is claimed that unless the plants are built, costs will rise.
Well yes, and if they are built, costs may rise even more. New coal generation is no longer cheap, with many, many plants across the country being cancelled because of cost.
According to Spark, a publication of Public Utilities fortnightly magazine, power plant and fuel costs have risen 300 percent recently. Not that long ago coal plants could be capitalized for $800 to $1,000 per kilowatt. New plant capital costs are now coming in between $2,300 and $3,700 per kilowatt.
At the high end, this puts the cost of the Holcomb plants over $5 billion. Combined with a 300 percent increase in fuel costs, Holcomb energy will not be a cheap power supply for western Kansas.
And of course, this assumes that Kansas will somehow be magically exempt from the cost to all new plants to come into compliance with carbon sequestration requirements. No other utility or state in the country is operating on such an assumption, and ignoring it in western Kansas won’t make it go away. Then there is the question of whether Colorado utilities will even purchase energy from the plants. Much was made of the plants as “exporters” of energy to other states, with power lines heading west to the Front Range.
First of all, these “exports” would be based on an import - mountain state coal. But there is an even shakier assumption embedded in this scenario. My own state representative, Ann Mah, was curious about whether this energy was really needed by population growth areas like the Front Range. So she called the Colorado governor’s energy director who informed her that the state supported Secretary Bremby’s veto of the Holcomb permits and preferred not to purchase energy from the proposed Holcomb plants.
Kansas is clearly failing to respond to the threats of high energy costs and global warming.
The opportunity
What about the fabulous opportunity for the Kansas economy that our abundant wind resource represents? Our state is pursuing that, right?
The Kansas wind resource is ranked third in the country. States with lesser resources and better policies, such as Iowa and Minnesota, drool at what our wind resource would mean for their states.
They have enacted policies that get more wind into the grid; support schools, farmers’ cooperatives and landowner’s projects; and actively research ways to take advantage of wind beyond what can be used by the grid. And their rural economy is prospering because of this, as it should.
The rest of the world recognizes our resource, even if some of our statewide leaders don’t. The U. S. Department of Energy plans for Kansas to supply at least 7,000 megawatts of wind to the grid, on line in the next 20 years or so.
There is activity akin to a gold rush going on in western Kansas. There are developers and lease hunters scouring every county there, but also in Oklahoma, New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle.
There is an amazing amount of pressure on farmers and landowners, county commissioners and public officials, economic development professionals and other service providers as they try to deal with this.
They could use some help and some policy direction. But we have almost no policies that would encourage development or require utilities to begin accepting large amounts of wind energy. The momentum here could stall out or move to those clearly more hospitable states.
Kansas stands alone among major wind resource states in that respect, with no renewable (energy) portfolio standard and no net metering law.
Meanwhile, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce says it will be supporting “pro- business lawmakers” during the next election cycle.
“Pro-business” apparently means legislators who have proven they are singularly pro-fossil fuel energy, despite all the business and societal indicators against it.
How our state Chamber can ignore Kansas’ most significant economic opportunity and attraction for foreign investment in a lifetime is incomprehensible.
There are other opportunities being lost. Turbine and component manufacturers are locating in surrounding states with better policies, though not necessarily better wind. Taxes, on an entirely new, highly profitable enterprise, could be structured to bring in more tax revenue to local schools and county government.
Policies could be enacted that encourage more local ownership of turbines, bringing a six- to 10-fold greater impact on regional economies than the same turbines if owned by investors in Spain or Germany. Siting standards could be developed that would ease the conflict between landowning neighbors and not put such a burden on county commissioners.
Finally, the state could assist with financing local ownership through credits, bond funds or other creative financing. Our lack of policies like this send developers, and large federal granting opportunities that buy down the cost of turbines, to other states that want the business. Our tax dollars leave to support economic development elsewhere, but our policies ensure that none of it comes back.
Wind energy development could benefit virtually every county in the western three-quarters of the state, with new revenues, a new tax base and new jobs. It could provide a reason for young people to stick around. It could revitalize our small places. And what’s more, it could make Kansas a hero of the new green economy.
I agree, it is time to quit chilling business in Kansas, but let’s look at which way the finger should be pointing.
Dan Nagengast is executive director of the Kansas Rural Center.
News update: back from vacation! lots of catching up ahead.
August 18, 2008
Huge thanks to Nancy, Eileen, Christina, and Ben who blogsat while MH was away.
Drought has returned to the High Plains (with a vengeance) (NASA Earth Observatory). Click that link for lots of supercool maps and other visuals. Like this one (hopefully it will post).
Soil moisture is decreasing. There is hardpan in some places, leading to dust in others. All reminiscent of the Dust Bowl.
Wisconsin just finished its version of the Kansas KEEP climate action plan process. To read their final report click here. From the highlights - near, mid, and long range greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals:
GHG emissions in Wisconsin increased 1.2% per year from 1990 through 2003 and are projected to continue rising by 1% per year absent any policy changes. To reverse this trend and achieve Wisconsin’s proportionate share of the reductions required to minimize the impacts of global warming, the Task Force recommends three aggressive but achievable goals for Wisconsin:
A return to 2005 emission levels no later than 2014
A 22% reduction from 2005 levels (approximately equal to 1990 levels) by 2022
A 75 % reduction from 2005 levels by 2050.
Wind power financing. Minneapolis-based Midwest Wind Finance (MWF), which finances community wind farms, is moving into financing for developers (NAWindpower).
Also, Dan Nagengast of the Kansas Rural Center has posted a wind financing handout (.pdf).
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Research Summary: “Economic Impact of Climate Change on Kansas”
August 13, 2008
Summary: From the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) - the economic costs of climate change could run into the billions of dollars, based on case studies of eight states.
For Kansas, losses could exceed $1 billion - in large part due to the impact of warmer temperatures and reduced water supply on agriculture.
In the U.S., state decisionmakers are critical players in climate and energy policy. The costs of climate change will also fall heavily on state and local governments. Such costs are frequently left out of climate change discussions on the federal level.
Title: “Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Kansas”
Original Publication Date: July 2008
File: For .pdf of executive summary, click here. For .pdf of full report, click here.
Major Findings:
- Kansas faces significant costs of inaction on climate change - over $1 billion total, and thousands of jobs.
- According to currently existing climate models, over the next thirty years Kansas faces a two to six degree Celsius rise in temperature
- Precipitation models show that eastern Kansas is growing wetter (10-20% wetter over the past century), and western Kansas is growing drier.
- Much of the national climate discussion focuses on the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and ignores the costs of NOT reducing them.
- The costs of dealing with climate change will fall heavily on state and local goverments, placing huge stresses on their budgets.
The economic results from these changes (all of the figures are in 2007 dollars):
Increasingly scarce water resources (and rising conflict over irrigation and water rights), increased damage from flooding, poorer water quality due to run-off of fertilizers, etc.
- Flooding currently causes $33 million of damage in KS per year. Since 1900, half of the state’s major floods have occurred in the past 27 years. Economic damages have increased due to developments in flood plains.
- Dry land is susceptible to flash flooding. Western KS will become increasingly drier.
- By 2032 increased flooding could cost Kansas agriculture $150 million per year, with an additional $87 million per year in other economic sectors (such as manufacturing and transportation) and over 700 jobs per year.
AGRICULTURE
Crop losses due to extreme weather and invasive species, negative impact on health of livestock, descreasing crop yields for wheat, sorghum, and hay.
- Currently Kansas loses about $871 million per year due to invasive species, or 8% of total market value.
- By 2017, a one percent increase in the persistence of invasive species per year would cause $58 million in damages and a loss of over 400 jobs.
- High summer temperatures will shift crop production northwards, forcing farmers to change crops, irrigation patterns, and planting times.
- In western Kansas, drier growing seasons will require increased irrigation, further straining groundwater resources and increasing operations costs.
- Livestock production will be affected by higher temperatures as well. Increased carbon dioxide levels could improve rangeland productivity in the short term.
- In 2006 the total value of agricultural crops in KS was $3.3 billion. Wheat, sorghum, and hay was 70% of that total. For a nine degree Fahrenheit temperature rise and one percent precipitation decrease (possible for western KS by 2035 under current climate models), the total crop value would decrease by 11% or $290.4 million. Nearly 1,400 jobs would be lost.
HEALTH
Increasing air pollution and ozone leading to increased asthma and respiratory infections, increased disease vectors from insect and rodent populations.
- Direct and indirect costs of asthma treatment already costs Overland Park and Kansas City, KS over $13 million annually.
- Rising temperatures make many diseases more easily transmissible. The transmission season of Dengue fever could increase.
- Increased rainfall (such as is projected for northeastern KS) could lead to increased rodent populations, and disease vectors such as bubonic plague, hantavirus, and leptospirosis.
- No increased risk of malaria transmission was found, and warming may decrease some tick-carried diseases.
EXTREME WEATHER
Increase in the intensity of storms due to increased summer temperatures and a build-up of heat in the atmosphere, and increases in storm damage.
- Over the next ten years, if tornado damage increased by one percent per year, the loss to agriculture would be $2 million and to the building sector, $11 million.
- Hail already causes $46 million per year in property and crop damage in KS.
- The construction sector could benefit from rebuilding efforts, but then this limited work force is not available to build new infrastructure for economic growth.
- Storms also cause loss of life, damage to homes and businesses and infrastructure, costs (some which go beyond dollar values) and are not estimated here.
- The insurance sector will see losses, but will adjust those through raising rates. Paying higher rates will reduce homeowners’ disposable incomes.
TOURISM AND RECREATION
- In 2001, KS fishing and hunting brought in $541 million.
Background:
GENERAL
- Economic impacts of climate change spread across resources and sectors, including water, energy, transportation, public health, and public service, with ripples effects on jobs, wages, and tax revenues - not all of these costs are accounted for in this particular study.
- There are also non-monetary costs not estimated here.
- There is no definitive cost of inaction - climate models are always changing and improving, and new economic models need to be developed to get a better understanding of all the impacts.
- Models are meant to help estimate, manage, and avoid risk. They are projections, not predictions.
- Costs of climate change will be unevenly distributed across the country.
- These costs also do not address the economic impact of sudden and abrupt climate change. Climate models estimate changes that are gradual over time.
- Negative climate impacts will outweigh the benefits for most sectors providing essential goods and services.
- The general impact of climate change on agriculture is still being studied, but it will likely be uncertain. There may be initial economic gains from altered growing conditions, but these will be lost as temperatures continue to rise.
- The effects will be felt regionally - droughts, water shortages, excess precipitation, pests and diseases.
- Electricity demand will probably increase in summer due to increased temperatures
- Electricity may become harder to deliver, due to extreme weather events taking out the grid
- Water supply networks may become compromised
Other related reports:
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP: Talk about a great economic development tool for showing renewable manufacturers and businesses that rural NE is open for their business.
Reprinted in full from cattlenetwork.com. CEP added the emphases in bold.
LINCOLN, Neb. — Rural Nebraskans overwhelmingly support aggressive pursuit of renewable forms of energy to resolve the energy crisis, according to the Nebraska Rural Poll. Yet Nebraska is one of 18 states with no standards to require such development.
A majority of respondents to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln poll also reported they believe Americans should reduce their energy consumption, with many saying they already have taken steps to do so.
Rural Nebraskans’ embrace of renewable forms of energy and lifestyle changes may be all the more telling, poll organizers note, since the survey was taken from March, when gas prices averaged about $3.20 per gallon, through May, when they were at $3.75. Now they’re at about $4.
Surveys were mailed to about 6,200 randomly selected households in Nebraska’s 84 rural counties. Results are based on 2,496 responses.
Members of the UNL team that conducts the poll, now in its 13th year, were struck by rural Nebraskans’ strong support for renewable forms of energy – and how out of touch state policy seems to be with that sentiment.
Ninety-one percent agreed or strongly agreed that more should be done to develop such alternative energy sources as ethanol, biodiesel, wind and solar.
“Rural Nebraskans think we ought to be trying everything. We ought to be blending everything together to come up with a reasonable package” to address energy needs, said Randy Cantrell, a rural sociologist with the university’s Rural Initiative and Center for Applied Rural Innovation.
Twenty-eight states have a renewable portfolio standard, which requires electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Four others have goals in place. Nebraska has neither.
“Nebraska’s own Senator George Norris, who championed the Rural Electrification Act more than 80 years ago, would roll over in his grave at this, because we are not adapting,” said agricultural economist Bruce Johnson.
“It’s a total incongruity,” he added. “Here’s over 90 percent of rural Nebraskans saying we really need to move toward renewable energy and it’s a safe bet that metro-Nebraskans feel the same way. But where are the elected leaders of the state who have hardly begun to move on this?”
One example of obvious, but so far unrealized, growth potential in alternative energy is wind.
“Given that Nebraska is ranked sixth nationally in wind-power potential, this state should be front and center on wind energy development, not just on ethanol production which has sort of fallen into Nebraska’s lap,” Johnson said.
Support for specific forms of alternative energy was strong, as respondents were asked to predict the importance of energy sources for the next generation. Eighty-nine percent said they expected both wind and solar to be important forms of energy. Other energy sources and percentages of those that said they’d be important, included: ethanol from corn, 79 percent; ethanol from other sources, 81 percent; nuclear power, 74 percent; and hydrogen, 66 percent. Even methane – 80 million metric tons of which is produced by livestock each year – is expected to be an important energy source in the future by 55 percent of respondents.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they expect oil to continue to be an important source.
Elsewhere in the poll, 77 percent of respondents agreed that Americans need to change their lifestyles to reduce energy consumption; only 10 percent disagreed.
“That’s a huge statement,” Johnson said, especially since it may be more difficult in rural America than elsewhere to make certain lifestyle changes.
As of March, when the poll was taken, poll respondents indicated they already had made some changes in the following ways: cut down luxury household spending, 94 percent; reduce heat or air conditioning use in home, 91 percent; cut amount of driving, 91 percent; attempt to use household appliances more efficiently, 89 percent; cut necessary household spending, 88 percent; acquire more goods and services locally, 80 percent; and shorten or postpone vacation plans, 75 percent.
One finding in the survey might offer a bright spot to some communities, Johnson said. “We may see some revival of rural main streets,” as rural Nebraskans look to buy goods and services closer to home.
Despite the hunger for new energy sources, rural Nebraskans indicated there are some limits. Fifty-seven percent agreed or strongly agreed that the environment should be protected even if that limits energy supplies.
“They’re saying, ‘as important as energy is, we shouldn’t sacrifice the environment,’” Johnson said.
Overall, Johnson said, the poll’s findings may reflect the emergence of a “whole new social movement.” Put another way by Cantrell, energy conservation and development of alternative energy sources, once stereotyped by some as a fringe cause, is becoming a “mom and apple pie issue.”
The development also reflects “the tendency of human beings to wait until there is a crisis” to act, Cantrell added.
The Rural Poll is the largest annual poll of rural Nebraskans’ perceptions on quality of life and policy issues. This year’s response rate was about 40 percent. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percent. Complete results are available online at Nebraska Rural Poll.
The university’s Center for Applied Rural Innovation conducts the poll in cooperation with the Rural Initiative with funding from the Partnership for Rural Nebraska and UNL Extension and the Agricultural Research Division in the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Do YOU Qualify? New energy grant could help jump start rural Kansas in renewable energy and energy efficiency
July 8, 2008
As the Governor’s office announced last week, the Kansas Energy Office of the KCC has been awarded a $50,000 grant from the National Governors Association as part of the Clean Energy States Grant Program. From the press release:
“Kansas is a leader in helping America secure a clean energy future,” said Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Co-Chair of the NGA Center’s Securing a Clean Energy Future Initiative. “From our rapidly expanding wind energy industry, to our new efficiency partnerships with utilities, to our first-in-the-nation ethanol plant, the fuel for the future is right here in the Heartland.”
As Ray Hammarlund, director of energy programs at the KCC, explained to CEP, the grant money will be used to help rural Kansas entities apply for existing federal funds to implement renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The focus will be applying for CREBS and 9006 grants.
CREBs stands for Clean and Renewable Energy Bonds - basically interest-free loans for financing qualified energy projects. They are funded by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, through the federal Production Tax Credit for wind and solar. Rural electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, and government entities (including tribal councils) are eligible. (If the PTC is not renewed these funds are in jeopardy.)
9006 rural development funds come through the Farm Bill. They provide grants and loans to agricultural producers and rural small business for assistance with renewable energy systems and energy efficiency improvements. Rural areas with populations of 50,000 or less (and that’s most of KS, except for about six or seven counties, right?) are eligible.
The one-time funds are a first step in Hammarlund’s larger plan - to make such applications a long-term part of the Kansas Energy Office.
“These are established federal funds,” he says. “Kansas is not claiming its share. We can’t let that happen.”
Other neighboring states have filed far more applications, and reaped much larger awards per grant.
“Last year Kansas filed 12 applications for a total of $232,000,” Hammarlund says. “Nebraska filed 102 applications for $12 million. Iowa filed 55 applications and was awarded $17 million. Kansas absolutely needs to get in on these programs.”
Part of the grant funds will go to hiring a person to be a go-between Kansas applicants and the federal funding entities. The job will also include analyzing other states’ successful applications, and strategizing how the grant and loan funds can be tailored to Kansas’s own energy situation. Hammarlund is already interviewing candidates for the job.
“Our office has so many great partners who are helping this program off the ground - Department of Commerce, Small Business, K-State Research and Extension - there’s so many,” Hammarlund said. “The key will be getting this expertise centralized, with one person dedicated to tracking it and then helping Kansas applicants take advantage of the fantastic resources that this state already has in terms of energy.”
What does a successful application look like? While Hammarlund wants to wait on some of the analysis before he fully answers this question, he does have a pretty good idea already. Community wind projects are a definite possibility. Solar projects might be right for some communities. Energy efficiency is also important.
“Energy efficiency - saving energy - is always low-hanging fruit,” Hammarlund said. “Some of the smaller areas don’t have as many resources to make these programs happen. Getting grants or loans could really jump start their programs.”
Interested in knowing more, or being one of the communities that applies for these grants? Call the KCC at 785-271-3100 and ask for Ray Hammarlund.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Update: Follow-up on wind forum in Kingman, KS
April 2, 2008
Sounds like the Kingman wind forum - sponsored by Kansas Rural Center, the Sumner County Economic Development Commission, Sunflower Resource Conservation and Development, and others - went pretty darn well. Two more forums have been scheduled - Colby, KS on April 14, and Phillipsburg, KS on April 17. CEP is hoping to make the Phillipsburg event.
Over one hundred people attended the Kingman forum. Lincoln County Commissioner Steve Errebo spoke about the recently completed wind farm in his county, and talked in detail about the commission’s successful organization and recruitment efforts to land the wind farm, including working with the KEO, procuring wind data, and outreach to developers.
Kimberly Gencur-Svaty spoke for ITC Great Plains and explained transmission line issues (for CEP’s interview with Kimberly, click here). By remote from his home, Tom Wind spoke on community wind and gave a powerpoint presentation - ain’t technology grand? - and stressed favorable public policies are crucial to making community wind financing work out. (For Dan Nagengast’s interview with CEP on community wind, click here.)
One of the event’s major highlights during the afternoon, though, was Mike Irvin of Kansas Farm Bureau Legal Foundation, and his presentation on wind leasing agreements. According to KRC Executive Director Dan Nagengast’s notes:
It became clear that there is a substantive difference between leases presented by developers who are actually putting a project together that they will own, and what was termed “Lease Hounds” by participants. These latter are going door-to-door in good wind resource areas, seeking to tie up contiguous land into packages to be sold to legitimate developers. The latter were disparaged by the attorneys who were present, and participants were strongly warned against signing them as the terms are unfavorable, and can actually negatively impact owner’s rights. Questions were many, and continued in the wrap up session.
If you’d like to read a little bit online about wind leasing and issues with some of the contracts offered, see SWKROA’s .pdf handout, Guidelines for Landowners in Negotiating Wind Energy Leases.
Dan Nagengast has generously allowed CEP to post his handouts from the event. (Yay Dan.) Download them here - How to Get Started on Wind, and Wind Leasing Information for Landowners.
REMEMBER: TALK TO A LAWYER BEFORE YOU SIGN ANYTHING. NOTHING - NO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, NOTHING - CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO LEGAL CONSULTATION.
Also - don’t be afraid to sit on it a bit, and to evaluate your options. Your rights to lease or otherwise develop wind on your land will likely only increase in value. You don’t have to rush.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Live Blogging: Waiting and watching
April 1, 2008
Location: House chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal-fired plants of 1400 MW
Bill No.: an as yet unamended bill on General Orders today
Summary/ Action: As of 6:20 adjournment - NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED.
If you are a frequent reader of CEP’s live blogging feature, you might now be wondering - where in the world are all these new bills coming from???
This, apparently, is what happens at the end of the session. Interested parties start trying all sorts of ways to get their measures placed into other bills that have a chance of passing. Officially, this legislative session ends this Friday (April 4).
So the race is on, and Sunflower Electric appears to be a major competitor. Unfortunately, they weigh enough that when they throw themselves onto someone else’s little red wagon, they have enough mass to wreck it.
As we just saw happen with poor SB 471. This bill originally offered tax credit relief for the expenses of people participating in adoptions, or live organ donations. When an amendment benefiting Sunflower Electric was slid into their bill, though, it poisoned it. The House killed the bill on final action. Those folks - adoptive parents and organ donors - are just out of luck.
At any rate. We are here right now awaiting further “unexpected” amendments. The rumor right now is that the carbon tax that got defeated this morning in final action on SB 471 will come back around like a boomerang today, and appear in another later measure under General Orders.
If that does happen, I will record it below. Right now it is 10:42 and we are slogging thru a property tax relief bill for senior citizens in dangers of losing their homes.
11:05 we are going into recess 
of course. Until 3:00 p.m. (ouch!)
Then we’ll be back.
OK, I’m back anyway! There’s enough drama to post a little bit of it, while we wait and twiddle thumbs. Reminder: hit your refresh button to check for occasional updates.
Happy St. Patrick’s Day. And, more importantly - now is the time for all good, basketball-loving Kansans to fill out their NCAA brackets. KU and K-State could meet in the Elite Eight!!! And congrats to Baylor for making it in. Six Big 12 teams in. How cool is that.
Water and Energy. Without water, it’s hard to generate many kinds of energy (coal, nuclear, ethanol production, oil drilling, gas refining, etc.). While the energy debate is raging, though, few are yet thinking about its impact on increasingly scarce water resources (Detroit Free Press). I recommend clicking the link and reading the whole article, but, a quotable:
Unfortunately, water supplies are shrinking even as energy demands increase.
“Climate concerns and declines in groundwater levels suggest that less fresh water, not more, may be available in the future,” according to “Energy Demands on Water Resources,” a U.S. Energy Department report published last year.
“Available surface water supplies have not increased in 20 years, and groundwater tables and supplies are dropping at an alarming rate,” the report says. “Some regions have seen groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years.”
That report can apparently be found here. Haven’t read it yet myself, but plan to. Interested to see what it says about the Ogalalla. I have had a few folks email me about T. Boone Pickens’s plan to pipe some of that diminishing resource to the thirsty cities of Texas (Bloomberg).
Renewable energy renews Iowa. The Iowa State Director of USDA Rural Development speaks out about how renewable energy and energy efficiency are critical to rural economic development in his state (High Plains Journal - which is out of Dodge City, actually, for those who don’t know). They are currently accepting grant applications from Iowans. Quotable:
At USDA Rural Development we make it a priority to serve the growing renewable energy and energy efficiency industries in our state and across the nation. Guaranteed loans and grants are available from USDA Rural Development to help with renewable energy production, as well as to assist businesses in becoming more energy efficient. Our agency is currently accepting applications for 2008 funding.
During the past five years, nearly 230 projects in Iowa have received $37 million in two general categories. The first helps rural small businesses or agricultural producers finance the installation of wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal units, and anaerobic digesters, or construct biodiesel and ethanol plants.
The other category funds energy efficiency projects, such as installing new electric motors that are more efficient in equipment, replacing inefficient lighting, adding insulation, and improving electrical or heating and cooling systems.
Along with on-farm uses, businesses such as restaurants, grocery stores, bakeries, greenhouses, cold storage businesses, ethanol plants, and manufacturing facilities looking to make energy-efficient upgrades may be eligible to receive assistance from this program.
I’m embarrassed that I don’t know this (or where to find it), but someone out there probably does - what are the equivalent funds and projects for KS USDA rural development funds?
CO2 and soil fertility. This is an interesting story, and you’ll have to read it carefully - but evidently carbon dioxide (CO2) does not necessarily always increase plant fertility (NASA Earth Observatory News Service). Anyone who has followed climate change debates in the Kansas legislature has probably heard this assertion. Researchers expected that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would “increase plant growth, increase plant biomass and ultimately beef up the organic matter in the soil – but it didn’t.” Instead, increased CO2 in the atmosphere sped up the decay of organic matter in the soil. This is a problem because accelerated decay degrades soil quality, contributes to erosion, and lessens the soil’s ability to sequester carbon - which is the principle behind carbon credits earned for certain agricultural practices. Quotable:
“Most models or projections of the future assume the carbon dioxide fertilization effect would be a good thing for agriculture and the world’s food supply and have a benefit to soil organic matter, but more and more we are finding things are a little more complicated. What our study shows is that in this system, rising carbon dioxide levels are not contributing to soil health after all.
Hmmm. The proposed biodefense plant for Kansas needs its own power source. It plans to use natural gas (TCJournal).
Presidential climate plans. Climate policy expert Joe Romm has just written an excellent comparison of Obama and Clinton’s plans for dealing with climate change (Salon.com). I’ll look around and try to find something comparable on McCain’s… well, the New Republic just failed me, and that’s my usual source. Let’s keep our eyes open.
Back in the saddle again. I had to leave Kansas over the weekend. It was awful! Kidding, kidding. It was actually fine, Boise is a very nice city. Still, I prefer home.
— Maril Hazlett, 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
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.
nice quote
January 7, 2008
I am adding this quote to the CEP website, but thought I would post it here as well. From an email to CEP Executive Director Nancy Jackson, by K-State Professor of Agricultural Economics, Barry Flinchbaugh (and we have permission to quote):
I found the poll quite interesting. To reach 25X25 which Congress
and the President have now declared our goal in the energy bill every source
of renewables must be pursued. In Kansas that is obviously wind and
cellulose. We have an abundant supply of both. Science and capital
investment will make it work.
Folks might be interested in taking a closer look at the 25×25 initiative. (Also, he is referring to the recent CEP poll.)
— Maril Hazlett
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.
