Reactions to OAH ruling on Sunflower/ KDHE
December 12, 2008
Reprinted from Harris News:
Sunflower case could be headed for high court
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — A hearing officer has cleared the way for the state’s highest court to rule on whether two coal-fired power plants should be built in southwest Kansas.
The Kansas Office of Administrative Hearings upheld on Wednesday a state regulator’s denial of the air-quality permits sought by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. for its Holcomb expansion project.
Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby blocked the plants in October 2007 over concerns that their carbon dioxide emissions would exacerbate global warming.
In a news release issued Thursday, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment said the decision affirmed that Bremby had acted within his authority in nixing the twin 700 megawatt generators.
“The matter will ultimately be decided by the Kansas Supreme Court,” agency officials said in the release.
The parties in the case do have 15 days to request that Bremby review the hearing’s officer ruling, which would effectively have the secretary revisiting his own decision.
Sunflower Electric officials said they hoped Wednesday’s administrative ruling would allow their stalled legal challenge of Bremby’s decision to quickly come before high court justices.
The rural electric cooperative has filed lawsuits in both the state and federal court systems hoping to overturn Bremby’s ruling, as well as its challenge through the state’s internal process for reviewing the application of administrative regulations.
Sunflower claims that the secretary overstepped his authority in denying the permits because there are no state or federal rules limiting CO2.
Bremby relied on a legal opinion from the state attorney general’s office saying he could deny permits for the plants over health or environmental concerns, even in the absence of federal regulations.
Speedy resolution?
In April, the Supreme Court suspended its review of the Sunflower lawsuit, saying the cooperative must exhaust its legal remedies in district court and through the administrative hearing process first.
“Hopefully, with the decision of the OAH in place, the Supreme Court will now lift the stay an take up the case in an expeditious manner,” utility officials said in a written statement. “Every day the project is delayed, Kansans are denied thousands of jobs, affordable energy rates are jeopardized, and future energy reliability is threatened.”
Carol Green, the clerk of the Kansas Supreme Court, said it’s unclear when justices might revisit Sunflower case.
Sunflower filed a motion to lift the high court’s stay in October but the court has yet to rule on that request. Green said the court could await filings related to the hearing officer’s decision before moving forward.
While ruling in Bremby’s favor Thursday, the state’s hearing officer wrote that he couldn’t overturn KDHE’s decision unless the agency’s interpretations of its own regulations were “clearly erroneous or inconsistent.”
“The Presiding Officer in an administrative action is not in a position to substitute their opinion for that of the agency,” hearing officer Tracy Diel wrote. “That is the realm of the appellate courts.”
But Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Sierra Club, said the decision still put Kansans “a step closer to avoiding the harm that would result from Sunflower’s massive, polluting coal-plant expansion.”
Environmentalists oppose the plants because they’re concerned about the 11 millions tons of CO2 the plant would emit. Scientists have found that greenhouse gas is most responsible for global warming.
“The Kansas Supreme Court will have the final word, and we plan to ask the court to reach the same conclusion as the administrative officer,” said Nick Persampieri, an Earthjustice attorney who represents the Sierra Club.
Sunflower’s case would come to the state Supreme Court after a protracted battle over the plants during last spring’s legislative session.
Lawmakers who supported the project failed to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes of bills that would have forced Bremby to allow the plants.
Proponents consider the $3.6 billion project to be crucial for economic development in Kansas. Critics have worried about the plants’ greenhouse gas emissions and the fact they would be sending about 85 percent of the power they produce outside the state.
Sunflower wants to sell power from the plants to two out-of-state utilities, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative in Texas.
Clarification - the administrative decision on Sunflower and KDHE that came down yesterday
December 12, 2008
I holler uncle. No more emails! If you are willing to take a limited and lacking explanation of the yesterday’s decision, here it is. Summary - I’m going to go into a long and probably boring procedural explanation and then I’m not going to give a clear answer. (So maybe you can just stop reading here.)
First of all, what just happened? Which of the four or five court cases got decided?
Answer: this is the administrative appeal.
Next question: what in the world is that?
Here’s the deal. Recall a year ago this fall - KDHE Secretary Bremby denied the air permit for the Sunflower Electric proposed plant at Holcomb. KDHE is an administrative agency. When an administrative agency makes a decision that a company or applicant doesn’t like, that company can appeal it.
This procedure is known as administrative law, which is basically a quasi-judicial proceeding. That’s a fancy way of saying it’s like a real court but not exactly - those decisions in turn can then be appealed to regular court system.
The point of keeping administrative law separate from regular judicial proceedings is to keep our court systems unclogged (okay, less clogged) because there are just so dang many of these decisions and if they all went through the regular courts nothing would ever get done. As I understand the theory. (For example, according to the Wichita Eagle at the end of October, during the nearly six years of the Sebelius administration, 3,131 air-quality permits had been issued and only one had been denied. More than 570 permits were issued after the Sunflower decision.)
The route for Sunflower to appeal the KDHE decision was to take it to the Office of Administrative Hearings. In turn, that office decided in favor of KDHE. Sunflower can now appeal that decision to the Kansas Supreme Court. Sierra Club also intervened in the administrative appeal.
Okay, I just scanned the opinion. Here is probably what is an important sentence:
“An administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulations will ‘not be disturbed, unless the interpretation is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Reifschneider at 569. KDHE argues that their interpretations, which have been implemented are consistent with the statutes and rules and regulations under which they operate. The Presiding Officer in an administrative action is not in a position to substitute their opinion for that of the agency. That is the realm of the appellate courts.”
If you want to read yesterday’s decision while you do so, we have it filed online in the CEP Library. Just go to the Library page under Learn More. Or click here.
The other court cases - the subplots, or maybe main plots, to consider alongside this decision - well, of course I have lost track on the court cases. There are a couple ? in state court, and there was just one filed in federal court.
New legislation on the coal plants is also anticipated this session.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Press Release: Office of Administrative Appeals upholds KDHE ruling on Sunflower air permit
December 11, 2008
Reprinted in full from KDHE press release (sent via email):
Office of Administrative Hearings Upholds KDHE Secretary’s Denial
of the Sunflower Electric Air Quality Permit Application
The Kansas Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) today issued an order that upheld the Secretary of Health and Environment’s decision to deny the Sunflower Electric Cooperative application for an air quality permit based on the authority provided to the Secretary under Kansas statutes, rules and regulations.
The OAH decision affirms that the Secretary’s decision was proper and within his authority. The matter will ultimately be decided by the Kansas Supreme Court.
We do not anticipate making any further comments on the ruling.
More on the (third?) Sunflower suit
November 19, 2008
I say third suit because I think -I think - there is also at least one ongoing suit in state court, as well as one in the state administrative appeals system (which could end up in state court). But I have truly lost track so don’t take it from me.
The following was filed in federal district court in KCK on Monday (again - I think). Sunflower’s legal claim is that the denial of the air permit violated their civil rights. Reprinted in full from the LJWorld:
Sunflower Electric sues state leaders
Company claims Sebelius and others just wanted to advance their careers
Topeka — Claiming its civil rights have been violated, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. wants a federal court to overturn decisions by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and clear the way for construction of two coal-powered electric plants in southwest Kansas.
In a lawsuit filed in Kansas City, Kan., Hays-based Sunflower Electric accused Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson and Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby of trying to advance their political aspirations by rejecting Sunflower’s permits for the coal-burning plants near its existing facility in Holcomb.
The officials want to “further their individual political fortunes by catering to the environmental lobby that opposes the Holcomb Expansion Project and to increase their chances of being elected or appointed to some state or national office, all at the expense of Sunflower’s constitutional rights and the rule of law in Kansas,” Sunflower’s lawsuit claims.
Sunflower is seeking a court order that would prohibit the Sebelius administration from blocking the $3.6 billion project. No hearing date has been set before U.S. District Court Judge Eric Melgren.
The company claims Sebelius’ rejection of the plants based on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming was “nothing more than a pretext” and violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection.
“Indeed, since defendants denied Sunflower a permit, they have granted hundreds of permits to other CO2 emitters and continue to allow pre-existing similarly situated CO2 emitters to operate freely,” the lawsuit states.
Sebelius said she hadn’t seen the lawsuit, and declined to comment on it. She was headed to Beverly Hills, Calif., to co-chair a meeting of worldwide officials on global warming. The meeting was set up by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Sebelius has opposed the plants, citing the project’s annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, and the fact that the project would mostly serve out-of-state customers.
Sunflower has already been fighting to gain the permits through an administrative appeals process, the state court system and the Legislature.
During the last legislative session, lawmakers approved bills requiring construction of the plants, but Sebelius vetoed the measures and supporters of the plants came up just short of gaining the necessary two-thirds majorities to overturn the governor.
In the lawsuit, Sunflower warned that if it doesn’t obtain the permits to construct the plants soon “the cost of construction may well increase to the point that the project cannot be financed at all.”
If there were no project, Sunflower argued, its customers would suffer.
“In denying the air permit, the administration has discriminated against 400,000 Kansans and over 1.5 million citizens from other states who will be forced to pay the price of this decision for decades to come through higher electric rates,” Earl Watkins, Sunflower’s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. “We believe we have an obligation to act on behalf of the people we serve and to correct this wrong.”
Bruce Niles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, defended Sebelius’ actions.
“It is clear that with this lawsuit, the coal industry hopes to take away states’ rights to take action on global warming,” Niles said. “The writing is on the wall. Clean energy is where the future of America is, and that clean energy can be the engine of our economic and climate recovery. States should be free to pursue that clean energy future, and not be bullied for doing so.”
In a sworn statement, Watkins said the company has already spent $1.4 million in fees to lawyers and consultants to prepare for the permits and $1.1 million in legal fees and expenses to appeal the denial of the permits.
Sunflower said it filed the lawsuit in Kansas City, Kan., because that was more convenient for its law firm, which is based in Kansas City, Mo.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Press Release from Sierra Club and Earthjustice: New brief filed in KDHE/ Sunflower Electric case
October 28, 2008
Reprinted in full from press release:
EARTHJUSTICE * SIERRA CLUB
For Immediate Release: October 28, 2008
Contacts
Bob Eye, Attorney, Sierra Club, 785.267.6115
Nick Persampieri, Attorney, Earthjustice 303.358.5284
Stephanie Cole, Sierra Club, 913.906.9332
Conservation Groups Challenge Sunflower in Hearing Over Coal Plant Denial
Topeka , KS – A year after the Kansas Department of Health and Environment denied a permit to Sunflower Electric for a massive coal plant expansion, Earthjustice and Sierra Club are renewing their defense of the landmark decision.
Today, the groups filed supporting briefs with the Kansas Office of Administrative Hearings, which is conducting a hearing to determine if KDHE should make final its denial of the plant expansion’s air quality permit. Sunflower requested the hearing.
Last October, KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby blocked issuance of the permit to prevent immense outputs of carbon dioxide – a large contributor to global warming. The Legislature passed multiple bills that would have overturned the permit denial, but all were vetoed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
“Sunflower’s proposed expansion is economically and environmentally hazardous to Kansans. In return for a few permanent jobs, the plant will produce millions of tons of air pollutants each year. By contrast, Kansas can enjoy a robust, clean economy by turning to its abundant wind energy resources. Coal just doesn’t make sense,” said Nick Persampieri, attorney for Earthjustice, which is representing Sierra Club.
Earthjustice and Sierra Club point to overwhelming evidence that link carbon dioxide emissions to global warming. Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has warned the only way to curb the dangerous threats of global warming is to reduce coal burning until carbon dioxide emissions can be controlled.
Kansas is well-positioned to take advantage of its vast wind resources. With continued reliance on coal and progression of climate change, Kansas will experience temperature increases. These changes will increase the state’s need for water and Western Kansas will become warmer and drier with decreased soil moisture, according to Dr. Johannes Feddema of the University of Kansas and a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“With our economy, health, and environmental future on the line, it is imperative that Kansas make good use of its wind energy potential. If we continue to doubt and debate science, we risk losing economic opportunities to states with far less wind resources,” said Stephanie Cole of the Sierra Club.
In its brief, Earthjustice illustrates the risks associated with coal-fired power plants. “It’s recognized that carbon dioxide will be regulated in the near future. With this knowledge, it is irresponsible to subject Kansas ratepayers to unnecessary rate spikes when there are safer alternatives,” said Persampieri.
Both the Sierra Club and Earthjustice are campaigning nationwide against polluting coal-fired power generation.
The Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign is working to ensure coal is mined responsibly, burned cleanly, and does not increase global warming levels. Across the country the campaign is fighting to stop the construction of new coal plants and direct the proposed investments into energy efficiency, renewable resources, and other clean alternatives. Earthjustice is fighting any expansion of coal-fired power generation and is challenging destructive coal-mining practices, such as mountain-top removal in Appalachia .
###
Coal in the Kansas elections - is it a factor? (short answer - some places yes, others no)
September 18, 2008
Because I was working on two entries at once, I almost messed up this blog headline with the headline from the previous entry. That would have been bad. It’s probably too early to be trying to put reliable information on the internet, before the coffee has sunk in.
Reprinted in full from Harris News -
Coal plants could be key issue in some races
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — As the battle shifts to a handful of political campaigns, the debate over whether to build new coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas could start heating up yet again.
Several incumbent lawmakers on each side of the divide find themselves being pressed to defend their positions by challengers who see the plants as a key election issue.
The two westernmost House Democrats to oppose legislation authorizing the plants face opposition from Republicans who criticize their votes on the matter.
At the same time, two powerful central Kansas GOP lawmakers who backed bills allowing the plants must now fend off challenges from environmentally minded Democrats.
The debate over the issue is expected to be prominent in several eastern Kansas races, as well, meaning the Nov. 4 general election could either shore up support for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ opposition to the plants or give supporters the votes they need to override her vetoes in the future.
Yet some observers remain unconvinced that the plant issue — which consumed much of the 2008 Legislature’s time — will have all that much sway with voters this fall.
“I would be very surprised if it decides very many races,” said Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, a plant supporter.
Bill Griffith, energy chairman for the Kansas Sierra Club, he thought the plants would likely be a factor in just a handful of mostly eastern Kansas races.
“I think it will be in voters’ mind in specific districts,” said Griffith, whose group opposed the plants.
But the issue is certainly a hot one for several challengers in central Kansas, particularly in and around Salina, where an environmental research group, The Land Institute, is based.
Emler’s strong support for legislation allowing the plants motivated for Cynthia Nelson, a retired educator who lives in Lincoln, to challenge the two-term senator in the Nov. 4 general election.
The chairman of the Senate Utilities Committee, Emler played a key role this past session in helping shape legislation this past session that would have allowed Hays-based Sunflower Electric to add two new generators to its existing Holcomb plant.
However, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed those measures and lawmakers failed to override them by margins that amounted to just a handful of votes. As result, her administration’s decision to reject air-quality permits for the plants stood.
Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby initially blocked the plants last year over concerns that their carbon dioxide emissions would contribute to global warming, a decision that remains under legal challenge.
Nelson said she was upset the Emler would support the development of more coal-power in Kansas. Coal already produces about three-quarters of the state’s power and she said she’d rather see the state more fully utilize its potential to produce wind energy.
“I felt like I needed to stand up and not just talk about it, not just be angry about it, but try to make a difference for Kansas,” Nelson said.
But Emler counters that there’s tremendous support for Sunflower’s plants in his district, not to mention the western half of the state, and says his vote was about upholding the “rule of law.”
He said he supports wind energy at every opportunity but didn’t think it was right for an unelected bureaucrat — Bremby — to make a sweeping policy decision in regards to CO2 without input from the Legislature.
“I don’t see the vote being extremely detrimental to me, ” Emler said of his support for bills allowing the plants to be built.
Raising the issue
Emler isn’t the only central Kansas lawmaker facing opposition because of his votes on the coal plants.
Abner Perney, a Salina city commissioner, said he’s challenging two-term incumbent Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, largely over his support for the project.
“Obviously, it is the main area of disagreement with our entire existing Salina area designation,” Perney said.
Perney said he’s upset that Brungardt — along with Reps. Charlie Roth and Deena Horst, both Salina Republicans — showed consistent support for legislation that he characterizes as favoring “dirty old coal.”
“By implication, they’ve not taken any action to try to support the No. 1 growing industry in the world, which is wind power and its related fields,” Perney said. “That’s where we need to be, because Kansas is really No. 1 in wind power potential.”
Brungardt, who represents the 24th District, voted in favor of most bills that would permit the plants. But he voted against a final measure that packaged the coal plant bill will several other economic development measures.
For a related story, click here.
He said that while he understands the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants, there’s also an increased demand for electricity in Kansas that’s most affordability met by coal right now.
“You have to work a little bit with what you’ve got,” Brungardt said.
Brungardt also said he doesn’t think that the plants will even be the most prominent issue in his district, citing even more interest in health care affordability, education, job creation and economic development.
The westernmost lawmaker to vote against coal-plant legislation, Rep. Josh Svaty, D-Ellsworth, also said he doesn’t hear all that much about the plants when he goes door-to-door in his district.
But the rural Salina County Republican challenging him, Dave Smith, said he believes that voters in the district are clearly upset with Svaty’s stance.
“It was a pretty major one,” Smith said. “That along with the generally liberal positions that he’s taken. This one is really significant, I believe, to the voters in our district.”
Representing the district?
Smith said one of the reasons the issue is important is that energy issues are foremost on people’s minds right now. He said it doesn’t make sense to prevent Sunflower’s central and western Kansas customers access to what he considers a cheap source of power.
But Svaty, the 108th District representative, said that he doesn’t oppose Sunflower and wants the nonprofit cooperative to able to provide power to its customers. He said he opposed the lengthy legislation because it was written to benefit a single company while reducing regulatory oversight of it.
“Usually when I have time to explain it people, they’re very understanding,” Svaty said.
Joe Siewert, the Pretty Prairie Republican challenging Rep. Mark Treaster, D-Pretty Prairie, said people in his district are seeing increases in auto and heating fuel prices and worry about similar jumps for electricity.
He said in talking with voters he’s found at least 10-to-1 support in favor of Sunflower’s coal plants and disappointment with Treaster’s votes against bill allowing the plants.
“I think that was one of their major concerns — that he didn’t represent them,” Siewert said.
But Treaster said he felt caught in the middle when lawmakers and the governor couldn’t reach a deal that would allow the plants to be built and also spur further development of renewable energy in Kansas.
“I would say I was very disappointed that a compromise wasn’t reached,” Treaster said.
Better position?
Elsewhere in the state, Griffith said there are indications that the plants could emerge as an issue in eastern Kansas legislative races, particularly in Lawrence, Manhattan and Johnson County.
Lawrence residents were some of the most vocal in expressing opposition to Sunflower’s plant last year when the state conducted public hearings on whether the project should receive air-quality permits.
One district where the issue could emerge most prominently is the 3rd District Senate race between incumbent Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, and Rep. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City.
Pine, first elected four years ago, represents an area that includes the part of Lawrence, eastern Douglas County, Jefferson County and part of Leavenworth County. Holland presently represents parts of Douglas and Franklin County.
Holland, who opposed legislation authorizing the plants in the House, could not be reached for comment. But Pine said he was concerned about the amount of opposition to the plants that had emerged from Lawrence.
But he said he also believed that the state needed to utilize all of its energy options to produce power and that supporting the coal plants represented the best decision he could make.
“Sure, I’m concerned about that. There’s no question about that,” Pine said of the Lawrence opposition. “I think I feel strongly enough that I believe it’s the right thing to do.”
When all is said and done, though, Griffith of the Sierra Club said he doubts that there’s much potential for this year’s election to substantially change how the Senate might vote on coal-plant legislation.
This past session, that chamber’s members voted overwhelmingly in favor of bills allowing the plants. However, in the House, which narrowly failed to override Sebelius’ vetoes, Griffith said he expected the governor to gain supporters in this fall’s elections.
As a result, unless some major compromise is reached in the future, Griffith said he thinks Sebelius will be more likely to win on the coal-plant issue, should it re-emerge next session.
“It’s going to be, I think, harder for the other side next year,” Griffith said. “I think the governor will be in a better position to sustain a veto.”
News Updates: Kansas coal controversy in the courts
July 21, 2008
The math isn’t tough - we started out with six lawsuits, went down to four, then up one.
Total Sunflower Electric-related lawsuits in the courts, as of today (I think):
Five.
Here (again, I think) is how it happened. Reminder: The suits all essentially challenge KDHE’s 2007 decision to deny Sunflower an air permit for a 1,400 megawatt coal-fired electrical generation plant.
The 1,400 megawatt plant would have emitted more than eleven million tons of carbon dioxide per year, or more than twice as much CO2 as emitted from all the cars in Kansas. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and a major greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
Last week, a district court judge in Finney County dismissed the two suits that Sunflower and its allies had filed there, due to lack of jurisdiction. A 2006 state law says that a challenge to the denial of an air-quality permit must go through the state Court of Appeals, and bypass district courts. Sunflower did not contest the dismissal of its suits.
All of the plaintiffs involved (it appears) - Sunflower, Tri-State Generation (the Colorado utility that is its partner in the venture), Finney County Commission, and the Garden City Area Chamber of Commerce - are still part of the suits before the Court of Appeals.
Sierra Club is also planning to intervene in the appellate court lawsuits. These suits will most likely be resolved by the Kansas Supreme Court.
That’s the two down. Now, the one up - Sierra Club has successfully brought suit against the RUS, the USDA program that uses taxpayer dollars to finance the building of coal plants. A federal district court judge just refused the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case.
The RUS had already indefinitely suspended funding for future projects, and it is not directly funding the new proposed Sunflower plants. However, since Sunflower still owes the RUS about $342 million for the first Holcomb plant (built in the 1980s), RUS was required to give its approval to the new project before Sunflower could seek financing (Salina Journal).
If the RUS revokes its approval, then this will probably change the financing picture for Sunflower Electric. (To my knowledge, Sunflower is not at this point directly engaged in Sierra Club v. RUS.)
*************************
None of these legal challenges will likely be resolved by the next legislative session, which begins in early 2009. All of the seats in the Kansas House and Senate are currently up for re-election In November.
Energy will play a major part in some of these races, but in others maybe not. Some of the most significant Sunflower supporters are also running unopposed.
The Sunflower plants will likely return to the legislature in the next session. They will compete with a crowded slate of issues - a great deal of state business was put on hold during the last session, while energy was devoted to the coal legislation instead.
Likewise, the state faces a fairly brutal budget situation for next year (although still better than many states in the nation).
*************************
Quick review - the Kansas coal controversy has ended up back in the courts because supporters of Sunflower Electric lost their battle in the legislature, failing to come up with the necessary votes to override vetoes of three separate coal bills.
The issue ended up in the legislature because Sunflower did not want to wait on the outcome of the legal challenges it had filed against KDHE’s decision.
Other related factors: In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby cited this decision as the basis for denying the Sunflower air permit.
The Supreme Court also instructed the EPA to begin a rules and regulations process. However, the EPA has basically punted on this until the next presidential administration. This has left carbon regulation at the federal level in limbo for now. Both presidential candidates support some form of carbon regulation.
Just recently, a Georgia state court also invalidated an air permit for 1,200-megawatt coal-fired power plant because its developers had not considered carbon dioxide emissions. The court decision also cited Mass v. EPA.
In the meantime, coal plant construction costs continue to rise (as do construction costs for all forms of energy production, due to the current commodities bubble).
For example, KCPL’s new Iatan 2 power plant will cost almost $2 billion, a 15 percent increase from two years ago and 47 percent higher than the original $1.3 billion price tag. Costs increases are similar across the industry (Red Orbit).
Sunflower Electric’s original estimate for its plants was $3.2 billion. That cost has not been recently updated.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Via Climateer, a new video out from Earthjustice (the legal arm of the Sierra Club). It features Governor Sebelius’s recent speech at the Earthjustice event out in CO, where she discusses the recent Kansas coal controversy.
The original post is from New Energy News, which also has some comments from Iberdola wind project manager Krista Gordon. Krista is currently working on two new projects in KS right now, in Ellis and Trego counties (just west of the Lincoln County wind farm on I-70). Iberdola already runs Pete Ferrell’s Elk River wind farm (150 MW) down in Butler County.
At this point, the Ellis County project (200 megawatts) appears to be moving forward. The County Commission just voted 5-2 to approve it (Hays Daily News.)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Yesterday House Speaker Melvin Neufeld announced that supporters of the 1,400 MW proposed expansion of the Sunflower Electric coal plants would not try for an override of the third vetoed coal bill on May 29, the last official day of the 2008 legislative session.
General reaction - mildly anticlimactic. To some extent, this seems to be because the energy (ha!) from the coal controversy has already refocused on the upcoming elections.
Everyone is looking ahead to who will be participating in the next round of the legislative conversation on energy policy. Filing deadlines for the Kansas primaries are June 10. There is no question at all that throughout the state, a comprehensive energy policy will be a key issue come November.
This morning I had promised to follow up with a selection of quotables from the news coverage. The following comes from the Hutch News, KCStar, and the Dodge Globe.
“Scheduling conflicts of a number of House and Senate members and circumstances beyond our control make it impossible to attempt an override of the Economic Stimulus bill” (the third coal bill). House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, voted for all three coal bills
“Sunflower is thankful for the efforts of the business, agriculture and labor organizations that supported the energy legislation that enables the development of sound energy policy and returns regulatory certainty to Kansas… The Legislature sent a clear message that current law does not allow the Secretary to use his emergency powers in the air permitting process. Since we firmly believe that the KDHE secretary’s decision was flawed, Sunflower will continue to pursue legal and administrative remedies.” - Earl Watkins, Sunflower Electric
“I fully expect Sunflower to come back next session.” Senator David Wysong, who “consistently voted against the project” and “said he received more ‘thank-yous’ from his northeast Johnson County constituents on the coal-fired plant issue than on any issue he’s voted on.”
“It will be a campaign issue in the eastern part of the state, primarily in the Johnson, Wyandotte and Leavenworth areas. Candidates in those areas are going to have to explain why they supported or opposed the proposal.” Senator John Vratil, voted for the first and second coal bills, voted against the third
“I am pleased that we can close this contentious chapter of our debate on energy and begin to work collaboratively on a comprehensive plan that provides the power needed to continue to grow our economy, while protecting our environment and maximizing our alternative energy potential.” Governor Sebelius, supporter of compromise proposal closer to 700 MW with mitigation and offsets
“I think what would be good news for the people of Kansas would be if Sunflower and the executive branch could sit down and start talking about real alternatives for meeting the baseload energy needs for western Kansas.” Representative Tom Holland, voted against all three coal bills
“I think the courts will probably rule in Sunflower’s favor, but the delay it will cause will cost consumers because the prices are going up on construction.” Senator Jay Emler, voted for all three coal bills
All well and good. Senators, representatives, the Governor, a CEO - great quotes. However, I was also interested to know what citizens thought.
— 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
Three strikes, you’re out? Or - a set up for close encounters with the third kind? (Meaning another veto override attempt. Which would only be the second attempt, actually, they let the first coal bill die and only tried to override the second. But they attempted the override on the second before they let the first expire.)
It all got complicated.
Hopefully, all those details will someday be just footnotes in some obsessively researched legislative history. Today, what matters is the big picture - on Friday afternoon, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the third coal bill (ENS). As she was widely quoted in Kansas papers:
“Rather than working toward a compromise solution, legislative leaders recklessly chose to jeopardize important initiatives for businesses and communities across our state by combining them with energy legislation I have previously vetoed twice.”
Will there be an override attempt on sine die, May 29? Even though they lost votes on this third bill, Sunflower supporters in the Senate could probably pull off an override attempt. There’s never been a lot of suspense there. The question remains the House. 84 votes are needed for override. This last bill, they received 76.
The third bill even tried a new tactic - packaging the measure with economic development initiatives. It was not successful. Sebelius’s veto message blasted the attempt as unconstitutional. Under the Kansas constitution, bills are limited to one subject.
Sebelius and other opponents of the 1,400 megawatt (MW) proposal claim that the legislation mixes environmental regulation and economic development. Supporters say the measure is purely economic development. The veto message pretty clearly told the other economic interests (who got shot down along with the coal plants) to just hang in there, help was coming. Next session.
Guess what else might be coming next session!! More coal legislation! It’s still unclear to me why the legislature needs to be involved in this process when there are ongoing court cases, and when the details of air permits and coal plant proposals are traditionally negotiated between administrative agencies and utilities and in response to federal interpretations (or in this case, the lack thereof) of the Clean Air Act - but according to House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, in 2009 Sunflower supporters will try again (TCJournal).
“I’m hoping we continue the conversation and try to gain approval of this next year,” he said. He said getting other utilities in the state to purchase a portion of the power from the Holcomb facility could generate some extra support. Some critics have focused on the fact that only 200 of the plant’s 1,400 megawatts are earmarked for Kansas, while the remaining energy will flow to Colorado and Texas.
Moving right along.
Subplot: Hyperion. Did KDHE Secretary Bremby’s decision to deny the air permit to Sunflower Electric set up a climate of regulatory uncertainty in Kansas that then lost the state the economic development opportunity of an oil refinery, to be built by Hyperion? (Their proposal was to emit 17 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The proposed Sunflower plants would emit 11 million tons per year.)
Check out James Carlson’s article in the TCJournal and see what you think. The headline, “Possibility or Politics?” pretty much sums up as much as we will ever definitively know.
Then when you’re done, check out KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby’s response to House Speaker Melvin Neufeld in the Wichita Eagle. Did the decision create regulatory uncertainty? Bremby: Oh heck no.
“To be clear: There is no ‘regulatory uncertainty’ in Kansas. KDHE has continued to issue timely air-quality permits. Since the denial of the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. permit for a proposed coal-fired plant near Holcomb, KDHE has issued more than 300 air-quality construction and operating permits. Since January 2003, the agency has issued more than 3,000 air-quality permits. Under this administration, the only air-quality permit denied has been the Sunflower permit.”
Bremby also told his side of the Hyperion story.
“Kansas remains open for business. I am confident that Hyperion officials will recognize the tremendous natural assets and highly trained work force Kansas has to offer. Regardless of the outcome of the proposed Hyperion Energy Center, and despite comments to the contrary, the Sunflower denial will not be the determining factor.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Transmission strategies, Westar makes environmental improvements, Kansans scold legislature, and more
May 12, 2008
Texas started it. We all know the drill. We want more renewable energy brought online. Can’t do that, though, without better transmission lines.
The solution in Texas - within ERCOT, the grid manager for 75% of the state - was to develop Competititive Renewable Energy Zones, or CREZs. The state legislature designated CREZs as priority areas for transmission development. Then wind developers felt they had the security to start planning wind farms.
Now Western Governors Association is borrowing the idea and calling them WREZs. (And no, I can’t guess how to pronounce that acronym). Big difference, though, this means thinking about transmission regionally, not just in terms of a state.
The Midwestern Governors Association Greenhouse Gas Accord has called for something similar
Westar rates could rise due to environmental improvements. Westar is applying to the Kansas Corporation Commission for approval to increase rates to cover the environmental improvements it is making at Jeffrey Energy Center, one of the dirtiest coal-fired units in the nation.
Other improvements will be to the La Cygne, Gordon Evans and Murray Gill plants. The average customer bill will increase from 91 cents to $1.82 per month (Wichita Eagle).
Brownback and the coal plant proposals. According to a staffer, former presidential candidate and Senator Sam Brownback has been working with Sunflower Electric to get the coal plants approved (Pratt Tribune).
Ohio passes a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). According to Pew Climate:
The law mandates that by 2025, at least 25 percent of all electricity sold in the state come from alternative energy resources. At least half of the standard, or 12.5 percent of electricity sold, must be generated by renewable sources such as wind, solar (which must account for at least 0.5 percent of electricity use by 2025), hydropower, geothermal, or biomass. At least half of this renewable energy must be generated in-state.
In addition to renewables, the additional 12.5 percent of the overall 25 percent standard can also be met through alternative energy resources like third-generation nuclear power plants, fuel cells, energy-efficiency programs, and clean coal technology that can control or prevent carbon dioxide emissions.
The bill also creates a renewable energy credit (REC) tracking system, which allows utilities to buy, sell, and trade credits to comply with the renewable energy and solar energy requirements. Additionally, electric utilities will be required to achieve energy savings of 22.5 percent by the end of 2025 through energy efficiency programs. Utilities must also implement programs to reduce peak energy demand one percent beginning in 2009, and an additional .75 percent per year through 2018.
With the enactment of this new legislation, Ohio becomes the 27th state to establish a renewable electricity standard.
Will they remember in November…? Editorial pages across the state are much less than pleased with the Kansas legislature right now. In common, many of them are irked with how much air time the coal plants took up, compared to issues like immigration and health care. (See Manhattan Mercury for one example.)
Big oops! As reported by DeSmogBlog. Climate change denier Dennis Avery and Heartland Institute member had published a list titled “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming.”
However, as Kevin Grandia reports, he “emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery’s conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.”
Legislative Update: Put sine die on your calendars! And start thanking legislators for their service
May 8, 2008
Mark it down! Make plans to attend in person, or tune in online - Sine die, the ceremonial end of the 2008 legislative session, is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, May 29.
We’ll all watch the papers, but it is definitely possible that both chambers could attempt a veto override vote, should the third coal bill, HB 2412, be vetoed by the Governor.
What can you still do? I am getting a lot of these emails - I would say that now is a great, great time to start thanking legislators (see the votes and contact info below).
Thank them. Whatever your position on the issue. And wherever you are from. I know that there are a couple of crowd favorites out there (Rep. Kuether comes to mind. Long may her pig metaphors live on). If that person does not represent you, you can still write them a thank you note for their service.
If you like how they voted on the most recent coal plant legislation (there have been at least eight votes, I think), tell them so. If your opinion differs, mention it in a constructive and positive manner.
Give people the benefit of the doubt. One way or another, this vote was hard for every single legislator out there. These energy issues are incredibly complex, and they all did their best to wrap their heads - and their hearts - around it.
Have you been writing your legislator this whole time, yet you have never heard back? I know of at least two legislators (who shall not be named publicly, because I am nice) who have consistently not responded to their constituents on the issue of the coal plants.
My advice: Send a copy of your correspondence to your local paper, along with a 250-300 word letter to the editor. Mention that you have not heard back from said legislator.
Long road ahead. When it comes putting together an energy economy for the 21st century, Kansans have a long way to go together. TOGETHER. For some of you, the experience may feel a lot like running a three-legged race tied tight to someone you’re not that crazy about.
So it goes. Veto or no veto, issues will still remain. If there is not a veto override, Sunflower Electric will still pursue its air permit in the courts, as is their legal right. If there is an override, then other groups have expressed their willingness to sue to see that the plants do not go forward. Either way, western Kansas will still need a new source of reliable baseload power.
Kansas still needs a comprehensive energy plan. (CEP would like to see that plan involve renewable energy and energy efficiency.)
A lot of people are going to have lots of meetings between now and the 2009 legislative session. They will try to hash out the details, and there will inevitably be times that the discussions will go a whole lot better than others.
CEP will do its best to be there.
We thank you for reading.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
HOW THEY VOTED ON HB 2412, THE THIRD COAL BILL
To find your representative and their contact info, go to www.congress.org and enter your zip code. If you don’t see your rep on the following list, then they either passed or were not present for this most recent coal vote. Which shouldn’t stop you from writing 
HOUSE VOTES:
NO VOTES on 2412 (the third coal bill): Ballard, Burroughs, Carlin, Colloton, Crow, Davis, Dillmoe, Faust-Goudeau, Flaharty, Flora, Frownfelter, Garcia, Goyle, Hawk, Henderson, Henry, Holland, Horst, Huntingdon, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Mah, McCray-Millr, McLchalan, Menghinit, Metsker, Morrison J, Neighbor, Owens, Pottorff, Quigley Rardin, Roth, Ruiz, Sawyer, Spalding, Storm, Svaty, Swencson, Tetze, Treaster, Trimmer, Ward, Winn, Wolf K, Worley
YES VOTES on 2412: Aurand, Beamer, Bethell, Bowers, Brown, Brunk,Burgess, Carlson, Colyer, Craft, Crum, Dahl, Donohoe, Faber, Feuerborn, Fund, Gatewood, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Grant Hayzlett, Hill, Hodge, Holmes C, Holmes M, Huebert, Humerickhouse, JOhnson, Kelsey Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Knox, Landwehr, Light, Lukert, Mast, masterson, McKInney, McLeland, Merrick, Morrison Jim, Moxley, Neuefld, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Palmer, Patton, Pauls, Peck, Peterson, Phelps, Powell, Powers, Proehl, Rhoades, Ruff, Schroeder, Schwartz, Shutlz, Siegfried, Sloan, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Watkins, Wetta, Whitham, Wilk, Williams, Wolf B, Yoder
SENATE VOTES:
NO VOTES ON 2412: Betts, Brungardt, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Kelly, Schodorf, Vratil, Wysong, Reitz
YES VOTES ON 2412: Allen, Barnett, Barone, Brownlee, Donovan, Gilstrap, Goodwin, Lee, Lynn, Huelskamp, Jordan, Journey, Teichman, Umbarger, Schmidt, Schmidt, Wagle, Wilson, McGinn, Morris, Ostmeyer, Peterson, Pine, Pyle
They did it! They did it. I fell asleep at home while listening online, so I missed it - but according to Sierra Club lobbyist Tom Thompson, the KS legislature adjourned right before 10:00 p.m. last night.
From the climate and energy perspective, what next? Well - we are waiting to see how the Governor reacts when two bills reach her desk - (1) HB 2412, the third coal bill, which she is expected to veto, and (2) SB 586 the bill allowing utilities to begin early in recovering from ratepayers the costs of developing nuclear energy.
The timing could look like this - the Governor has ten days to veto a bill. That ten days starts counting from the moment that bill hits her desk.
Since this is the end of session, both chambers would have to attempt to override the veto at sine die, the official end of session on May 29.
Sampling of the news coverage: My favorite turn of phrase, this from the Wichita Eagle - the new coal bill is basically “veto bait.” The Eagle also tallied the vote switches:
Rep. Benjamin Hodge, R-Overland Park, who had opposed overriding the governor on coal, switched sides Wednesday and voted for HB 2412. But four representatives who had been “yes” votes switched to “no” — Tom Hawk, D-Manhattan; Tim Owens, R-Overland Park; and Deena Horst and Charles Roth, both R-Salina.
Owens, a lawyer who teaches college government classes, said he would have supported all the component parts of HB 2412 individually. But he said he thinks bundling them together violates the one-bill, one-subject rule in the state Constitution.
“Had my students been sitting here, they would have been ashamed of me if I voted any other way, because of what I teach,” said Owens, a former House Rules Committee chairman who carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket.
Will there be a veto override attempt at sine die? Wait - will there be a veto? Speaker Neufeld thinks there might not be (LJWorld).
House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, said he believes Sebelius will allow the measure to become law without her signature. Asked if he would attempt to override a Sebelius veto on the session’s ceremonial last day May 29, Neufeld said he wouldn’t speculate.
“I’m not going to speculate on an override because I don’t believe we need to go there,” Neufeld said.
This morning, Sebelius said that letting the measure become law without her signature was “off the table” (TCJournal). She also criticized legislative leadership’s handling of energy policy this session.
The governor also said the Legislature’s decision to merge a series of economic development initiatives with the latest coal bill appears to be unconstitutional, creating additional incentive to pick up a veto pen.
“At the end of the day, I think it’s one more bad choice that was made to sacrifice legitimate economic proposals,” she said. “The session had way too much ultimatum and not enough collaboration.”
Regardless of what happens, Kansans on both sides of the issue have a severe case of coal fatigue. Also quoted in the Eagle:
Wichita-area Democrats said it’s time for the House Republican leadership to stop holding vote after vote on coal.
“They’re beating down a dead horse,” said Rep. Delia Garcia, D-Wichita. “Hopefully they’ll get the message and stop acting like adolescents.”
The KCStar editorial board was overall unimpressed with the time (and taxpayer money) that legislators wasted this last week, at least part of it on the third (and last!) coal bill.
EDIT: And I just found another quotable, this from a different article by the TCJournal. (Parental Advisory: Rep. Lane says a bad word. Or what many people might consider an iffy word. But it’s very descriptive.)
Rep. Harold Lane, D-Topeka, said the bundling of bills was an effort to push opponents of the coal bill from Johnson County and Shawnee County to vote for the measure. Lane voted against the bill Wednesday.
“I’m not whoring my vote,” he said.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Location: Kansas Capitol, Topeka KS, House Chambers
Time: House and Senate convene at 10:00 a.m.
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation, and the role of the KDHE Secretary in protecting Kansans’ health and environment
Bills/ Legislative Action:
- Yesterday the Senate passed the third coal bill (for a summary and how they voted, click here.) The vote was 24-10. Three senators changed their votes on the plants due to what they felt was the unconstitutionality of how the provision is currently packaged.
- The House needs to vote on the budget and the third coal bill. The Senate is pretty much waiting on the House.
- If you have only recently come to this policy debate, check out CEP’s FAQ’s on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
- Please hit your refresh button during the day to check for updates. - 99.9% of this entry is hidden below the surface - be sure to hit the “read the rest of this entry” link (when it appears) to see the full, er, glory
Summary/ Action: 1:06 - the House has approved the third coal bill 76-48, not a veto-proof margin. A veto override in the House takes 84 votes. Opposition to the coal plants picked up at least two votes, but votes shuffled on both sides of the issue.
2:33 - House and Senate have both overwhelmingly passed SB 586, which would primarily allow utilities to recover costs of developing nuclear power.
**********************************
I was brushing my teeth this morning when it hit me - despite the fact that I’ve been covering this for days, this piece of information only then really sunk in -
We have a third coal bill.
See you at 10:00!
***********************************
One of the little joys of my day is the House chaplain’s prayer. Here was yesterday’s:
Dear Lord
We need your help!
Time is dragging, thoughts are lagging
People are nagging and attitudes are sagging
It really is time to wrap everything up
But issues remain that we cannot duck
Give us wisdom, give us strength
before our patience goes on the brink
Keep us kind, courteous, and polite
And please help us “GIT-R DONE” by tonight!
In Christ’s name I pray, Amen.
I don’t think Chaplain Brubaker can top herself with that today - but maybe!
******************************
10:03 Prayed, pledged, gaveled in, not necessarily in that order. Taking attendance. Messages from Senate - they just added Senator Francisco to any conference committee on SB 586. Sounds like the Senate has recessed until 2:00.
10:05 Now the House is doing announcements, oh dear. (Usually a prequel to a recess.) Ah, they are all going into caucus to discuss/ choreograph their responses to the budget. The House is recessed until 11:00.
That was quick.
****************************
Have I ever mentioned that they do not allow coffee (or any drinks at all) into the House Gallery?
********************************
11:16 still waiting.
11:26 Gaveled in 2412 the third coal bill is up. woo hoo.
Rep. Wilk of taxation committee is introducing the report on the bill, the economic stimulus bill of 2008. Original 2412 held the IMPACT bill (job development), now also holds SB 693 the Gardner intermodal hub, the apportionment provision of income taxes (Hills, possibly other companies), the telecom sales tax rebate, and the vetoed 148 plus the trailer, 2802.
Remember on the vote - the third coal plant bill is expected to pass. The question is whether it will pass by a veto-proof margin (as the Governor is expected to veto it for the third time).
Last night, the Senate voted to pass the new coal bill, packaged as an economic development package.
On this coal vote, though - one senator counted it as the eighth - the alignment of Senate votes has changed. 24 voted for it, compared to the 33 that have consistently voted for the coal plants in the past. 10 voted against it, compared to the 7 in earlier votes. Six did not vote.
The three senators who changed to vote AGAINST the coal plants - Hayley, Reitz and Vratil - did so on the same basis: They thought the bundling of the coal bill plus the economic development initiatives was unconstitutional under the KS constitution (check article 2, section 16).
Senate Minority Leader Hensley filed an official protest against the bill, also on those grounds. Senator Francisco joined him.
Senate votes for the new coal bill (unofficial tally, check the count later):
YES: Allen, Barnett, Barone, Brownlee, Donovan, Gilstrap, Goodwin, Lee, Lynn, Huelskamp, Jordan, Journey, Teichman, Umbarger, Schmidt, Schmidt, Wagle, Wilson, McGinn, Morris, Ostmeyer, Peterson, Pine, Pyle
NO: Betts, Brungardt, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Kelly, Schodorf, Vratil, Wysong, Reitz
What happened in the House? As far as the new coal bill, nothing. What did happen was that the nuclear bill, SB 586, was apparently resurrected to the point of going into conference committee.
If you followed along with the live blogging yesterday, you may have noted that Senator Reitz (sponsor of the nuclear bill) switched his vote from pro-coal plant to anti. He also spoke strongly about how upset he was that there had been no action on his bill.
The nuclear bill, again, would allow utilities to pass on to ratepayers the reasonable and prudent costs of developing nuclear power (no one quite knows what those would be - nuclear is mega-expensive). However, it also had language on energy efficiency and decoupling in there (the KCPL bill). KCPL testified as neutral on the coal bill. Their language got dumped in committee.
Other language got added - I can’t remember if I have mentioned this before, but there has been talk of establishing an interim session (when legislators meet, during the off season) Joint Committee on Energy and Environment (joint, meaning members from both chambers).
That provision had passed the Senate, but had gotten held up in the House (SB 692, I think). Now this language seems to be in the nuclear bill, but with a caveat that if 2412, the third coal bill, goes through (recall, it has a giant commission on science and technology and energy in there) then the Joint Committee doesn’t go into effect.
If 2412 doesn’t pass, and the nuclear bill does, then we will evidently have a joint committee.
Whoa. Followers of Kansas energy politics are probably saying WHY DO WE NEED MORE COMMITTEES ON ENERGY POLICY? Aren’t there enough already…?
Possible answer - look at who those committees answer to. The Governor. They are all under the executive branch. However, the new Joint Committee (and/or the Commission) would be legislative.
I have no predictions for what will happen today.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Location: Kansas Capitol, Topeka KS, House Chambers
Time: House convenes at 11:00 a.m. Senate goes on at 2:00, but doubtful how many senators are planning to show up.
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation, and the role of the KDHE Secretary in protecting Kansans’ health and environment
Bills/ Legislative Action:
- Yesterday everyone went to their separate corners to contemplate next moves. Legislatively nothing happened, but there were words exchanged in the papers. For a summary, click here.
- Two things need to be resolved today - (1) the budget, and (2) HB 2412, a huge “economic development” bill that also contains the coal plants. (Same was true yesterday, but nothing happened.)
- Senate President Steve Morris is now on record as saying that the Senate will not vote on House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 5042 (.pdf) - which would have allowed the legislature to sue the Governor over the coal plants.
- If you have only recently come to this policy debate, check out CEP’s FAQ’s on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
- Please hit your refresh button during the day to check for updates. - 99.9% of this entry is hidden below the surface - be sure to hit the “read the rest of this entry” link (when it appears) to see the full, er, glory
Summary/ Action: The Senate passed the new coal bill. The House waited forever and didn’t move on it.
***************************
Somehow today I don’t think any introductory babble is needed. Check in around 11:00, folks!
****************************
11:02 gavel crack prayed and pledged here we go. Please please please. Funny thing - the House chaplain is getting punchy. She just delivered the prayer in rhyming couplets and ended with a plea to “GIT-R-DONE!” by tonight. A la Larry the Cable Guy. With just a touch of iambic pentameter. Yep. It’s Kansas.
BTW spectators in the House Gallery are joking and taking bets about how soon the first recess will be.
11:07 That would be now. We are recessed till 2:30 p.m. A shout of nays went up but they weren’t counted. I briefly saw that one pro-coal vote was excused, before they blanked the voting board (it all happened pretty quick).
FYI - It looks like the nuclear bill, SB 586, could be back. This is a provision that allows utilities to recover for the costs of developing nuclear power. This means those costs can get passed on to your electric bill. Ratepayers bear the costs, rather than the shareholders bear the risk - ie, of investigating nuclear yet not moving forward with the project.
Legislative Update: Coal debate stalled on the floor, but still going strong in the press
May 6, 2008
As those who suffered through the live blogging (or lack thereof) yesterday already know, the ongoing Kansas coal debate is stalled in terms of tangible legislative action.
Instead, yesterday opponents and proponents of Sunflower Electric’s two proposed 700 MW coal plants took it to the papers. That got a lot more interesting.
To recap - we have three issues on the table. (1) The legislature is stalled over the omnibus budget, (2) House Speaker Neufeld and Majority Leader Merrick had introduced a concurrent resolution (HCR 5042) for the legislature to sue the Governor and KDHE regarding separation of powers concerns (since it’s concurrent, BOTH chambers must approve), and (3) the third coal bill, which is now packaged as an economic development initiative.
Yesterday nothing happened - after Saturday night’s blow-up, the Senate had left the building and didn’t even have a quorum for Monday (they did gavel in and out), while the House kind of just waited around. Senate President Morris and Neufeld evidently privately discussed the budget impasse.
Who knows what’s going on with the budget. However, this morning the Wichita Eagle reported that Morris will not support the resolution to sue the Governor. “We’re not going to do it,” Morris said.
OK. Now, this is politics, where nothing ever dies and initiatives are reborn in often surprising ways - but that sounds fairly definitive, especially considering the source.
Also, Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt said the Senate did not plan to hold any votes today. This is also interesting in regards the new coal bill - which would require Senate approval. Hard for them to approve anything - a concurrent resolution, or the new coal bill - if they’re not here.
And conceivably - the Senate doesn’t really HAVE to do anything on the new coal bill, if I understand it correctly. All the bills that just got rolled into the new mega coal bill - those were pre-existing bills that the Senate had already considered, and approved (except for maybe the telecom part - if it is indeed in there), earlier this session.
Legislatively, the Senate has done what they had to do. Also, some senators who oppose the coal bill are raising questions about the constitutionality of the new coal bill, which bundles several large economic development proposals in with coal (the KS constitution is not keen on the bundling of appropriations bills). Quotable from the Eagle:
But some Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said wrapping so many issues into one measure violated the state’s constitution.
Leadership is “sacrificing those proposals on the altar of coal,” Hensley said. If the measure went through, Democrats in both chambers would be filing protests about the bill’s constitutionality, he said.
So where does that leave the House? Rep. Annie Kuether was blunt. As quoted in the TCJournal, she said it (the energy debate) didn’t have to end this way. Instead, she summed it up as: “This is all about the speaker of the House being a bully.”
Speaker Neufeld told to TCJournal that “”The economic development package we have before us is absolutely critical for the state of Kansas. I wouldn’t expect the governor to veto this.”
TCJ also seemed to think Neufeld thought the coal issue could be resolved today.
What in the world does all this mean? Most tangibly, it could mean that the House will vote on the new coal bill today. If so, that bill is expected to pass (as usual).
Also if so, the Governor is expected to veto the measure - highly likely, since her stance is that the new coal bill is unconstitutional, with the bundling.
The suspense (also as usual) is whether the latest coal measure will get a veto-proof majority. If it did, then legislative leaders would probably attempt an override at sine die, the ceremonial end of the session scheduled for May 29. If there are protests filed against the constitutionality, what does that do to the validity of the veto override attempt? Dunno, will have to read up on that over a recess.
If the new coal bill doesn’t pass with a veto-proof margin, then are the other economic development initiatives now packaged with coal really dead? I wonder. If those were truly all separate bills already passed by the Senate, then perhaps the House could back up and take separate action on those bills (like they would have done in the normal course of things.)
Confused enough yet? No problem, I have someone who can sum it up for you. I can quote what a very dear friend of the family said to me this morning (once he retired from his fire job - he was my husband’s training chief, actually - he started working part-time for the state, so I see him around the Capitol quite a bit).
This morning, his comment was: “The legislature was doing okay, weren’t they? Then they just augured right in.”
Of course, to get that you have to know what an auger is - a boring tool. If you want to set fence posts, you need an auger to put holes into the ground. And you’d better have two people working it as a team, because if it gets away from you, good luck EVER hauling it back out.
OK, about half of you had that mental image already. Sorry! For some reason I always feel I have to explain rural metaphors for non-rural readers.
EDIT: ha! It may not be rural. It may be air force. Jim Mason has told me it means when a plane goes diving down, out of control (versus pancaking, which means the pilot had some form of control).
Oh well. Another day, another lesson learned.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org