News Updates: Federal transmission legislation, grid concerns, community energy systems
November 20, 2008
New federal transmission legislation to be proposed (Sen. Dorgan’s Office). I think I originally clipped this from Climateer but never got around to posting it, whoops sorry!. U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (ND) is proposing the transmission part of the Pickens plan, to create a national electric transmission grid and a major expansion of wind and solar energy.
“I will introduce part of the Pickens plan in the U.S. Senate calling for the building of a nationwide electric transmission superhighway. It will allow our country to maximize the potential to produce vast wind energy in the heartland from Texas to North Dakota. And it will allow us to develop solar energy from the southwest to California. We can put that electric energy on the transmission superhighway and move it to where it is needed in our country. By maximizing our production and use of renewable energy here at home, we will reduce our need for imported oil.”
Transmission grid and success of climate policy forever intertwined (NAWindpower). Not necessarily news to us here in Kansas, currently ground zero for cutting edge wind and transmission line discussions, but - NERC just came out with a report on this linkage. Quotable:
“We are concerned that when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system,” says Rick Sergel, president and CEO of NERC. “As we consider our energy future, it becomes increasingly clear that our success in reducing carbon emissions and realizing energy independence will hinge on our ability to provide reliable, clean, electricity where and when it is needed.”
The report says that the existing bulk transmission network is inadequate to reliably deliver power from new renewable resources to demand centers. Innovative planning and operational mechanisms will be needed as states and provinces attempt to deliver clean energy over already heavily loaded transmission lines to meet renewable portfolio standard requirements.
In addition, managing growing demand will be critical to meeting both climate and reliability goals, making demand-side resources a critical component of the resource mix. Dispatchable demand response will be particularly important as it adds needed system flexibility and supports the integration of new variable generation such as wind power.
A neat looking report than I have been meaning to summarize for WEEKS but just haven’t had the time (and probably won’t, so I’m just going to toss it out to the collective mind)- from policy think tank Newrules.org (bigtime community self-reliance organization), a report on community energy systems, like distributed generation and community wind. Quotable:
Harnessing renewable energy can dramatically improve the economic prospects of many rural areas. But new rules are needed to maximize the economic and social benefits from these new industries, policies that go beyond more, to demanding better. Current federal incentives largely enable a highly centralized and absentee owned renewable energy industry concentrated in relatively few states.
The federal government, states, and rural communities should redesign these policies to encourage a highly decentralized and dispersed renewable energy industry that is significantly locally owned. Doing so would multiply the number of rural areas that benefit from burgeoning renewable energy industries, and would create a sustainable asset whose wealth and revenue will largely remain in revived local communities and regions.
This report examines the current impact of renewable energy on rural communities and identifies existing and potential policies that could dramatically expand the economic benefit this new sector can bring to these communities.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
FERC investigating Westar for transmission line use in 2006-2007
November 10, 2008
Reprinted in full from Salina Journal:
Westar’s power line use probed
By DUANE SCHRAG
Federal regulators are looking into whether Westar Energy manipulated use of transmission lines, a practice that would drive up the cost of electricity to consumers.
“There was a question that came up, whether we have been over-reserving the level of capacity and preventing others’ use of the lines,” said Bruce Burns, director of investor relations at Westar Energy.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission investigation was noted in Westar’s quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was posted Friday.
“We are responding to a preliminary, nonpublic investigation by FERC of our use of transmission service … in 2006 and 2007,” Westar told investors, adding that it believes the company complied with all regulations.
Utilities schedule capacity on the lines, based on their estimates of how much power their customers will use.
At issue is whether Westar deliberately scheduled more capacity than it needed, Burns said.
He wasn’t certain when the regulatory commission began its investigation, but believes it has been ongoing for the better part of 2008.
Federal law requires that all utilities be allowed open access to transmission lines, regardless of who actually owns them. Line owners receive royalties for use of their lines.
Gov. Sebelius, Lt. Gov Parkinson praise the Southwest Power Pool
September 18, 2008
The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) is a regional transmission operator (RTO), and it oversees the regional electric grid to which Kansas belongs.
No regional transmission (over a certain size) can be built without SPP’s permission. For Kansas to upgrade its grid enough to get more wind power online, we need SPP to do at least a couple of things: (1) allow new lines, and (2) make sure that the costs of those lines do not fall disproportionately on our low population state.
And we like it this way (for the most part), but it does mean that there are fewer of us around to bear the per capita costs of expensive infrastructure improvements, like transmission lines.
Thus Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson are praising SPP to the skies for their decision to pursue a cost allocation method known as postage-stamp recovery. This means that the costs of new big lines will be born throughout the SPP territory, not just in the area of new transmission construction.
Reprinted from the Governor’s news release:
Governor, Lt. Governor applaud the Southwest Power Pool (SPP)
Regional State Committee; urge additional action be taken
An expanded transmission system will help to ensure regional reliability for the future.
Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson, in a recent letter to the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Regional State Committee Chair David King, applauded the Committee for their unanimous decision to treat wind energy on a more comparable basis with conventional generation sources and encouraged further action by year’s end to develop a cost allocation methodology for the regional transmission system.
The new policy will allow for base-funding transmission line upgrades and certain wind energy projects to be selected as Designated Network Resources – a more equitable method of financial aid.
“Supporting policies that will expedite expansion of our transmission infrastructure will benefit Kansas, as well as the entire region,” said Sebelius. “We appreciate the critical role the SPP Regional Committee has played in making a decision that will provide greater assurance of cost recovery for new projects and upgrades. We encourage speedy implementation of this policy.”
In the letter Sebelius and Parkinson encourage the SPP to view transmission’s benefits broadly in order to promote the needed infrastructure and also express support in moving towards “postage stamp” rates for the regional Extra High Voltage (EVH) transmission system. In addition, they emphasized the importance of simplifying cost allocation methodologies to spur the construction of the super regional transmission system.
Existing resources allow for the opportunity for Kansas to export electricity to regions in need and will provide economic development benefits, similar to what is seen in the agriculture industry.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) provides market oversight to the SPP and other regional electric power markets nationwide. The SPP operates the transmission grid in Kansas, Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Arkansas.
Reminder of other recent transmission activity in the state - T. Boone Pickens came through here to talk about the need for an interstate highway for transmission.
Also, Westar Energy and ITC Great Plains are competing to build a 765 kV line between Spearville KS and Wichita KS. ITC Great Plains has already worked it out to build another big line (forget the size, sorry!) between Spearville KS and Axtell NE.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
New report shows that $100 billion investment from federal government could create 2 million clean energy jobs (DOE/EERE News). (Let me see, the Fed just loaned AIG $85 billion, right? This simple little country girl - and taxpayer - is getting a bit confused on the meaning of the term “free market economy.”) Quotable:
A new report from the non-partisan Center for American Progress concludes that a $100 billion federal investment in clean energy technologies over the next 2 years would yield 2 million new U.S. jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by 1.3%, while putting the nation on a path toward a low-carbon economy. The report, prepared by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, proposes $50 billion in tax credits for energy efficiency retrofits and renewable energy systems; $46 billion in direct government spending for public building retrofits, mass transit, freight rail, smart electrical grid systems, and renewable energy systems; and $4 billion for federal loan guarantees to help finance building retrofits and renewable energy projects.
If $100 billion sounds like an unreasonable number, consider the fact that this year’s economic stimulus package amounted to more than $152 billion, of which about $100 billion was provided to taxpayers in the form of rebate checks. The Center for American Progress report concludes that clean energy investments would yield about 300,000 more jobs than if the same funds were distributed among U.S. taxpayers. The clean energy investments would also have the added benefits of lower home energy bills and reduced prices for non-renewable energy sources, thanks to the reduced consumption of those energy sources.
Major investors are pressuring the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require oil and gas companies to reveal the environmental risks of their supplies (Reuters). A concept also known as “carbon liability.” Quotable: “A group of 19 environmental, investor and non-profit groups want the regulators, under new proposals, to ask that oil and gas companies disclose reported reserves that have higher than average greenhouse gas emissions associated with their extraction, production and combustion.”
Trying to make coal clean (Financial Times). Ie, trying to build coal plants that can remove the carbon dioxide from their emissions. Yes, I’ve seen the pretty commercials, too, but in fact that technology is not yet workable on an applied market scale. Quotable:
Burning coal is the dirtiest, most old-fashioned way to produce electricity in the energy industry today. However, in the coming years many governments and energy companies are hoping to reinvent coal as a cleaner, more modern form of energy in the coming years, as they try to reconcile energy security with the need to halt climate change.
Pickens and water (Ft. Worth Star Telegram). Found this originally on Climateer. Pickens has announced that he is suspending his plans for the water pipeline he had planned to mine the Ogallala (selling the water to Dallas et al). He wants to focus on the wind and transmission plan instead.
If that plan does involve eminent domain, though, it will be interesting to keep an eye on how water rights might be treated under that arrangement.
Recent editorial in USAToday about how scarce water resources of the Great Plains need better protection. Written by a native western Kansan, the child of dryland winter wheat farmers (it sounds like). Quotable:
(Pickens) says little of his intention to market fossil water. That’s what conservationists call finite supplies of water dating to prehistoric times. The Ogallala Aquifer is the largest such supply on our continent. It underlies the Plains all the way from Pickens’ North Texas to South Dakota. Thanks to help he obtained from the Texas Legislature, he has stacked the board of a tiny water district. By the power of eminent domain, also granted him by the Legislature, he can force landowners to sell him rights to a 320-mile strip of land connecting him to Dallas. He will pipe the water down the same corridor he plans to use transmitting his wind power.
Water is life, and the rate we’re squandering it outpaces even our flagrant waste of oil. This is nowhere so true as on the Great Plains, where withdrawals from the Ogallala threaten to close down most irrigation farming before the end of this century.
Found a new blog that I love - Windpower Law. They are from New York but I am sure no open-minded Kansan will hold that against them, right? Correct. Scroll down the right side bar to get some neat links and resources. Great overview of all sorts of wind law, from wind farms to small wind.
And yes, New York does have wind farms. Upstate New York is kind of like - like a giant hand took Kansas, squeezed it up into more bumps and ridges, took away the horizon line, and let lots of trees grow. Lots. Fairly rural place, broken up by a few major population centers. Not even remotely like NYC. Lots of dairy farms. (At least that’s how I remember it from 20 years ago.)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Transmission: KETA won’t get involved in KS transmission debate
September 8, 2008
Reprinted in full from Hays Daily News.
Lawmakers remaining neutral in transmission fight
By CHRIS GREEN
Harris News Service
TOPEKA — Key legislators say they won’t be picking sides when it comes to an unusual competition between two utilities wanting to build electric transmission lines through southwest Kansas.
This past week, the president of one of those companies asked the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority, which tries to spur upgrades to the state’s power grid, to get behind a compromise offer designed to end the battle over the lines.
But lawmakers serving on that board said they didn’t think it would be appropriate for them to indicate support for a particular proposal.
“We don’t make that decision,” said state Sen. Janis Lee, D-Kensington, a member of the seven-member transmission authority. “It’s not our place to be involved.”
Two firms, ITC Great Plains and Westar Energy, are vying to construct a V-shaped series of high-voltage lines, part of an overall plan that would significantly upgrade the region’s transmission capacity.
It’s first time, state utility regulators note, they’ve seen two entities compete for the right to build the same transmission line.
A case that could decide which company will be allowed to build the transmission lines is unfolding before the Kansas Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s largest utilities. Staff members for the agency are presently collecting information and will issue a report on the case next month.
Electric power providers in central and western Kansas announced an agreement Tuesday evening that would allow ITC Great Plains, the subsidiary of a Michigan company, to build the two segments of the V-plan entirely inside their service territories.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and Mid-Kansas Electric Co., both based in Hays and run by the same six rural electric cooperatives, also offered Westar the chance to build the plan’s third segment.
ITC Great Plains, which only builds power lines and doesn’t generate its own electricity, would own and operate lines running from Spearville to Comanche County and then on into Barber County. The cooperatives would maintain the lines.
Under the deal, Westar, investor-owned and the state’s largest electric utility, would be given the final leg, which would cross several miles into Westar’s territory as it runs from Medicine Lodge to just outside Wichita.
ITC Great Plains President Carl Huslig told members of the authority that he believed the proposal was a great settlement and urged them to get behind it.
“If you believe so, I would hope that you would be out vocally supporting such a statement so we can get this done,” Huslig said.
A Westar official, however, expressed no interest in the compromise during an interview earlier this week.
Jim Ludwig, a Westar vice president, said his company still wanted to build the entire line. He said the company’s joint venture with other firms, Prairie Wind Transmission, was the best candidate to construct the project.
He also said it would be up to state utility regulators to determine who would build the lines.
However, Huslig said authority members should support the compromise because it might speed the construction of a crucial project. The plan could bring a 765-kilovolt line to Kansas and would be the most electrified line west of the Mississippi River. The line could bring cheaper power to rural areas in western Kansas — which tend to pay higher electric rates than urban areas in eastern Kansas — and allow further development of wind energy production in the region, he said.
“Renewables are going to be capped without this transmission line,” Huslig said.
No end in sight
ITC Great Plains was the first of the two companies to propose the line. But Westar sought dismissal of their rival’s plan in May and proposed to build their own similar project.
Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, was quoted in a press release announcing the settlement proposal involving Sunflower Electric, Mid-Kansas Electric and ITC Great Plains.
But he said later that he doesn’t actually favor one company’s bid over the other.
Sloan noted that under the rules of the Southwest Power Pool, the regional transmission planning board for the middle section of the nation’s grid, the Sunflower cooperatives have the right to choose whether they builds lines proposed for their service territories.
The agreement, he said, shows that Sunflower’s cooperatives have made the decision that they want ITC Great Plains to build the lines wholly inside their territories. They’ve also extended an offer to Westar for lines spanning the two provider’s service zones.
“I’m just concerned that we get the transmission built sooner, rather than later,” Sloan said.
But Westar officials are contending before the KCC that they have a legal right to refuse ITC Great Plains’ entire transmission proposal, even the parts not extending into its areas. Westar wants to the lines so it can expand its system’s use of wind power from central and western Kansas.
The authority’s chairman, Rep. Carl Holmes, R-Liberal, said his panel would keep a close eye on developments in the competition involving Westar and ITC Great Plains.
But he said he didn’t think it would help for the authority to add to the number of entities directly involved in deciding which company builds the transmission lines.
“I think KETA has a role to monitor and stay on top of the what the KCC is doing,” as well as keep track of the Southwest Power Pool, Holmes said.
Another transmission authority member, Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, said he also thought remaining neutral was the best option for the authority.
He said he’s not concerned that the ongoing case over the power lines would ultimately result in delays that force the project to be scrapped.
“I think it’s going to get built,” Emler said of the project. “The issue is: ‘Who’s going to build it?’”
Huslig said he was just making a suggestion to the authority when asked them to get behind the settlement involving ITC Great Plains. He said it was up to members of the board to decide how to respond to it.
He said the deal involving his firm would’ve sped resolution of the power-line dispute, which will now continue without any clear end in sight.
“I would not be surprised if it dragged out into early next year,” Huslig said.
Transmission - the legal question currently at issue in the Kansas transmission discussion
September 5, 2008
Those of you trying to keep track of the players in the Kansas transmission picture probably are wishing we could set up some version of fantasy football, with data tracking systems to keep tabs on all the players, issues, regulators, the game schedule, etc.
That is beyond my power (ha). But since this has been de facto transmission week on the CEP blog, I’d like to add to the mix this contribution from SNL writer Kerry Bleskan. SNL is a subscription news service (you can sign up for a free trial, it’s good stuff for industry types), but they have kindly allowed us to clip from one of her articles.
Kerry’s summary is a lot better than the fantasy football approach (if you’d like to read a .pdf of the full article, you can download it here). As she notes:
In a Sept. 2 order relevant to applications from both Westar Energy Inc. and ITC Great Plains applications to build a 180-mile section of transmission line called the V-Plan, the KCC gave its staff 30 days to write a report that summarizes the issues involved and propose a process and procedural schedule for resolution.
Here’s the chronology, as well as the major players:
ITC, an ITC Holdings Corp. subsidiary, applied to build the project April 11, and on Sept. 2 announced a collaboration with Mid-Kansas Electric Co. LLC and its generation and transmission arm, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., to build the parts of the line outside Westar’s service territory.
Westar is also proposing a collaborative effort, a new joint venture called Prairie Wind Transmission LLC. Westar’s partner is Electric Transmission America, which is in turn a joint venture between American Electric Power Co. Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. The new venture filed its application with the KCC May 19.
Wait, it gets even more complicated. What happens with this transmission case will likely affect other transmission cases in the future. This means other utilities with potential transmission issues also have an interest in the outcome. Therefore, they have the status necessary to intervene in the case.
The KCC’s order allows the two companies to intervene in each other’s cases. Others granted intervenor status include the Southwest Power Pool Inc., Great Plains Energy Inc. subsidiary Kansas City Power & Light, Sunflower and Mid-Kansas.
Mid-Kansas and Sunflower stressed in their intervenor filing that they had discussed the V-Plan with ITC but were not relinquishing their right of first refusal.
The Kansas Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board was approved as an intervenor in Westar’s application but not yet in ITC’s, pending a statutory comment period. CURB applied for the consideration Aug. 28.
SPP and CURB have their own interests as well. SPP is trying to carry out a giant planning process to smooth out and upgrade the grid in their territory - primarily KS, OK, and part of TX, also one of the most wind-rich areas in the country. Do they want one state to mess up their plans? Probably not, is my guess.
So what are these parties going to debate? The right of first refusal. According to Kerry:
A major issue in the proceeding concerns an incumbent utility’s right of first refusal: Once a project is deemed necessary, local transmission-owning utilities get the first crack at it. If the locals decide not to build the project, outside companies such as ITC then have their chance.
The concept was written into the KCC’s decision allowing ITC to operate as a utility in the state.
ITC’s Sept. 2 cooperation announcement touched on the concept, stating that Westar had been invited to build the Medicine Lodge-Sedgwick County segment of the transmission line, as that segment runs through the utility’s service territory.
Westar filed for consolidation of the three dockets, saying they are essentially one project, and to dismiss the ITC’s application based on Westar’s right of first refusal. The two companies then filed two rounds of heated responses and replies.
The KCC tabled the issue Sept. 2, saying simply that it “declines to rule on these two issues at this time and takes them under advisement.”
I would have to add - a week or two ago I sat in on a DOE conference call about their major new wind study, showing that the U.S. could potentially get 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030.
One of the major barriers to accomplishing this goal was cited as the “balkanization” of the U.S. electrical grid. This argument is that there are simply too many competing territories and regulators to get the grid in shape in a timely manner.
Right now, the case study of Kansas does not exactly refute this argument.
If this is the problem, what is the solution?
Obviously a lot of different things could happen. As always, one concern is the power of the unknown variable(s). The eminent domain power of the federal government under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 strikes me as a pretty significant variable. This provision allows the condemnation of transmission lines in corridors of national interest, which are areas of congestion.
Like everything, there’s probably an easy way and a hard way to go about transmission. In general, I’m not a big fan of hard ways.
Another note. The intervention of SPP into the case is very, very interesting.
Why? Because SPP is in effect an agent of the federal government. Through SPP, the federal government has already approved ITC Great Plains building part of the V plan. Now a state government agency - the KCC - is getting involved.
So. When it comes to transmission questions, who ultimately has jurisdiction?
Might this question lie further down the road, pending the KCC decision? The transmission world (already a confusing place) is changing. Could these jurisdictional issues soon shift as well?
I simply mention it. It also occurs to me that Kansas - we seem to have a gift - is once more on the front line of the energy debates. It is conceivable that how this transmission question plays out here could also have an impact on how it plays out in other parts of the nation.
However. There’s a hopeful, positive way to look at the current Kansas transmission situation. Arguably, this is a moment of unparalleled opportunity. Our state has yet another amazing opportunity to lead the rest of the country in exploring innovative solutions to energy dilemmas. Right? Right.
In the next six months, this is what we want the rest of the country to say: Can’t figure out your transmission problems? Don’t worry! Look at what Kansas did! They figured it out!
OK. Clearly time for the weekend. Everyone take care.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Transmission: Westar responds to ITC’s deal
September 4, 2008
Reprinted in full from Harris News.
Duel over transmission lines could continue
By Chris Green
TOPEKA — An unprecedented battle between two utilities seeking to build key high-voltage transmission lines in southwest Kansas looked poised to stretch on into the future Wednesday.
Despite a proposed settlement aimed at allowing each company to build a portion of the project, the fight over the so-called V-plan looked likely to remain before utility regulators instead.
Electric power providers for central and western Kansas announced late Tuesday evening that they had reached a deal with a transmission-building utility, ITC Great Plains, to construct two of the plan’s three sections.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and Mid-Kansas Electric Co., both based in Hays and run by the same six rural electric cooperatives, also extended an offer to the state’s largest electric utility, Topeka-based Westar Energy.
Westar would be allowed to build the third section of the line, which would run from Medicine Lodge to just outside Wichita, according to company officials.
ITC Great Plans would be responsible for building a first section running from Spearville to Comanche County and a second piece extending to Medicine Lodge.
The two sections that would be built by ITC Great Plains sit wholly within the service territories of Sunflower and Mid-Kansas Electric while the third section extends eight miles into Westar’s service area.
“We think this is a proposed settlement amongst all interested parties in the state of Kansas to move this project forward,” ITC Great Plains President Carl Huslig told Kansas Electric Transmission Authority in Topeka Wednesday morning.
But Westar spokesman Jim Ludwig said it will be up to the Kansas Corporation Commission to decide which firm will construct the project.
“We have joined with the right partners to get that line built as efficiently and in the most timely way possible,” Ludwig said. “We remain committed to entire project, not just some portion of it.”
Westar is asking state utility regulators to block ITC Great Plains’ bid to build the entire V-project, which could be the most electrified transmission line west of the Mississippi River.
The company instead wants its own cooperative venture, Prairie Wind Transmission, to build the V-plan with a spur extending down in Comanche County to connect with Oklahoma’s transmission network.
By the end of the year, Kansas should have 1,000 megawatts of wind power online, making it among the first 10 states to accomplish such a goal and the first to do so without a mandate, according to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
But some state energy experts consider the transmission line project crucial to the further development of wind energy production in Kansas. That’s because the lines would provide a way for southwest Kansas wind farms to send more power to eastern Kansas.
State officials say that it’s highly unusual for two entities to compete for the right to build the same transmission line.
Larry Holloway, chief of energy operations for the KCC, told the transmission authority Wednesday, said his agency’s legal staff can find no other case where that’s occurred.
“This is somewhat unique,” Holloway said.
On Tuesday, commissioners issued an order designed to launch the process of resolving the question of which company should be allowed to build the lines.
The commission asked its staff to summarize the issues it will need to decide, propose ways for making those determinations and suggest a schedule for resolving the case. They asked for the report to be filed within 30 days.
Westar and ITC Great Plains, as well as several other parties involved in the case, will have 15 days to provide a response after the report is filed.
Recent developments in the Kansas transmission discussion have been widely reported in trade and business journals. They also made it into Reuters, on the Industrials side.
Also from the Hays Daily News (story by Mike Corn), how the construction of the transmission lines relates to the proposed Sunflower 1400 MW coal plant, which was defeated last legislative session:
At stake is something of a turf battle for both utilities. Sunflower and Mid-Kansas argue they have the right to build the line in the area they serve. Westar serves most of the area Sunflower is offering to let them build.
ITC Great Plains would do the actual construction, with Sunflower and Mid-Kansas operating and maintaining the line. ITC would charge for electricity that flows along the line. Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller said the line is unrelated to the proposed construction of two new units at the Holcomb power plant outside of Garden City.
That process has been stalled since the request for an air permit for the plants was denied by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Despite legislative efforts to overturn the decision, the case now is pending before the Kansas Supreme Court.
If the Holcomb plants are built, lines running into Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas could be needed because utilities in those states have agreed to build the plants, which would then be operated by Sunflower.
Because Westar has proposed building the line, the decision on who ultimately will construct it will fall to both the Southwest Power Pool and the KCC. SPP will have to determine if the project is financially feasible and if utility companies served by the line can contribute to the cost.
The KCC will have to determine who has the right to build the line, given it crosses areas covered by at least two utilities. The battle already has generated considerable paperwork for the state agency.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Brownback/ Roberts have some ’splaining to do, transmission super-highway
August 4, 2008
Brownback and Roberts try to explain their no votes on the Production Tax Credit (Hutch News/ Harris News). Read it. See if you are convinced.
AWEA puts forth plan for transmission superhighway (Reuters). Eminent domain would probably be involved. Quotable:
The map is making the rounds. Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens distributed it on Capitol Hill last week. He was testifying to a Senate committee about his plan to replace natural gas burned to generate electricity with wind power tapped from the heartland. According to his plan, some of the freed up natural gas would be used to fuel cars and trucks.
Like Pickens, Swisher said in order for country to tap its wind power potential, the U.S. government may have to use powers of eminent domain, or the seizing of private property with due compensation, to secure the paths for the lines.
“I’m not aware of any utility that’s building a transmission line that doesn’t on occasion need to make use of such a tool,” Swisher said.
Indeed, the federal government has given itself new powers that could help transform the grid over the next few decades. Late last year, the Department of Energy identified two “national interest” electric transmission corridors to address areas of line congestion that hurt consumers, one from New York to Washington, D.C., and the other from Los Angeles to San Diego.
The corridors are a “first step in providing the federal government…siting authority that supplements existing state authority,” according to the DOE.
Even so, the building of a national grid is unlikely any time soon, said Will Pearson, a global energy analyst for the Eurasia Group.
“It is a great resource that’s largely untapped,” he said about the central U.S. wind power potential, “but it seems there’s widespread and very diverse opposition to federally driven programs.” Opponents include states that would not benefit from the transmission of power through their boundaries and utilities on the coasts that may not want cheap power from the heartland to come into their markets.
Local and regional big businesses getting greener. Anheuser-Busch plants are adding alternative energy (Greenbiz.com). Kansas Bank of America branches are cutting their greenhouse gas emissions (Wichita Eagle). Hallmark is getting into a recycled line of greeting cards (KC Bizjournals).
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Les Evans is currently the vice president of power supply for the Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, or KEPCo. KEPCo is a nonprofit generation and transmission (G&T) cooperative. Its membership is made up of nineteen rural electric cooperatives that sell power in predominantly rural areas of eastern and central Kansas. Evans is also a commissioner on KETA, the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority (KETA).
An electrical engineer by training – “I went to K-State! I bleed purple!” – Evans has been in the power utility industry since college. He has a long perspective on how the power industry works.
(For a .pdf copy of this interview, click here)
Photo: Les Evans on his bike outside of the Gray County wind farm
at Montezuma, KS (southwest of Dodge City about 25 miles) - during Bike Across Kansas in 2005
****************************
Nancy Jackson, CEP: Why don’t you start out by telling us a little about yourself, what your background is, and what you have done in the industry over time.
Les Evans (LE): I grew up on a farm in south-central Kansas just north of Wichita – my hometown is Valley Center. I started out with the predecessor to Westar, the old Kansas Gas and Electric Company, KG&E. When I left Westar in 2001 I went to work exclusively in the renewable energy business. Then I had a chance to come back here to my roots and work with KEPCo.
NJ: You’re the vice-president of power supply – could you describe exactly what that means?
LE: It means I have responsibility for providing a reliable and economic power supply for KEPCo’s member cooperatives. Doing that can be a challenge because we don’t own all of our power generation resources. We also buy a significant portion of our power supply through long term purchase power agreements (PPA’s). KEPCo’s nineteen members are all distribution companies that take the power we provide and then provide it to retail customers – or in our case, also our owners.
A rural electric cooperative works differently than an investor-owned utility. We don’t have shareholders versus customers. In a cooperative, they are one and the same.
NJ: What does KEPCo’s power supply mix look like?
LE: It’s very diverse. I like to use an analogy here - different utilities will have different philosophies about how to put a power supply together. It’s just like different people have different preferences, or different risk tolerances, for their own personal investing strategies.
So for power supply, there is no one set of right answers. The power supply mix is also based on your members’ desires, needs, and tolerance for risk. What various aspects do they give significant weight to? So, in the case of KEPCO…
NJ: Sorry to interrupt – but how do you know your members’ tolerance for risk? How do you judge that?
Westar plans to build new transmission lines. Most Kansans know that to develop wind energy - and especially to sell these resources out of state - we need first to build more high-speed transmission lines (364 kV to 765 kV).
Existing grid management technology limits the amount of wind that our state grid can safely handle to about 20%. Kansas can’t hope to absorb all the wind we can potentially produce; other states need to buy it to meet their Renewable Portfolio standards; so we need transmission highways to get this high-value commodity to market.
Many have also heard of the proposed “V” line. This is the name for the SPP-approved transmission plan, where two lines would originate out of Spearville, Kansas (in the southwestern corner of the state, just above the OK and TX panhandles), one heading north toward NE and one east toward Wichita, KS.
This line (plus a few other smaller ones) meant that over $1 billion would be invested in KS transmission over the next five or so years. A lot of current wind development in Kansas is being based around these lines.
Last time CEP mentioned all this, ITC Great Plains was bidding and going through the approval process to build the V plan, but Westar had filed a motion against the plan.
Westar has now announced that it has formed a joint venture with Electric Transmission America (TCJournal). The venture is called Prairie Wind Transmission. It proposes to construct the super-mega-highway of transmission lines - 765 kV lines.
The Westar proposal doesn’t seem to cover the whole of the original V plan. Instead, these lines would extend from Wichita to Dodge City and from Medicine Lodge to the Oklahoma border.
Potential markets for wind energy exports are generally seen as to the east, toward either Chicago or Atlanta. Not only do the electrical systems of the western and eastern grid not connect, but the West has plenty of its own wind resources.
There are still a lot of regulatory hoops to jump through before the lines receive final approval. The news coverage doesn’t mention how the competing proposals of ITC Great Plains and Westar/ ETA might be resolved.
How do these lines get paid for? The SPP board recently approved what is know as a socialized cost, or postage stamp, recovery system for expenses. This means that the costs of these superhighway lines are paid for by the entire SPP region, not just by Kansans in the area of the new lines.
— 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.”
Location: Senate Chamber
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW coal-fired plants at Holcomb
Bill No.: the measure will probably be considered as Sen Sub for HB 2919 - but it is the Senate’s version of SB 148, the second Holcomb bill, which the Senate Energy and Utilities Committee considered in an unscheduled meeting this morning
Summary/ Action: The senate version of the second Holcomb bill - the committee report on the bill was accepted by the body, but no further action was taken. The House version of the bill is high on the list for General Orders tomorrow.
Next steps: If the Senate passes this bill today, then it will await the House to pass its own version of the second Holcomb bill, SB 148 (that link takes you to CEP’s quick and dirty analysis). SB 148 has been mired in General Orders after its supposedly upgraded green provisions fell flat. CEP’s take: If by “green provisions” they mean carrots instead of sticks - and sticks have been Sunflower supporters’ dominant approach so far - then these carrots have been left in the back of the produce drawer way too long. Meaning, they are limp.
Metaphors aside. UPDATE: this all still holds true, even though the schedule is off by a day: Say the Senate passes this measure (which I imagine it will). Then the House would have to pass their version of the measure and take final action. Then the measure passes to conference committee. Since the regular session ends on Friday (thank heavens) the conference committee will be pretty zoom-zoom.
Then the House (and Senate?) would have to concur/ non-concur. If there is concurrence, the second Holcomb bill goes to the Governor to be signed or vetoed. Since it still retains all the provisions that got it vetoed the first time, odds are good that the second bill will get vetoed too.
Why two Holcomb bills? Remember that the first, SB 327, has been vetoed by the Governor. The Senate will probably vote to override it by the end of this week. The House will then have 30 days. However, having a second bill out there gives Sunflower Electric’s supporters two options during the veto session - and possibly for sine dei, which I spelled wrong and will explain later.
***************
We are now awaiting the Senate’s entry into the chambers - which was actually supposed to happen at 2:30, but is not yet. So I will take this lull to apologize to our readers… I have been too busy tracking coal drama to type up other live blogging notes! The ones from the carbon tax amendment attempt (??) should really not be lost to posterity. Nor should the ones from this morning’s Senate committee meeting.
But, they might be. And no news updates either. Sorry guys. And I have awesome wind notes from the Kingman wind forum, plus handouts and cool maps of transmission lines… news about more upcoming wind forums in Colby (April 14) and Phillipsburg (April 17), warnings about “lease hounds,” neato updates on energy efficiency, news about CEP appearing at various earth day events - but none of that will get up !!! until we slog through this next field of cow pies.
Sorry.
Anyway! Hit your refresh button now and again to check up on us. Remember the usual disclaimer of live blogging at the Kansas Statehouse: It could be a whole lot of nothing - or a whole lot of something. No way to tell.
We kick off. 2:52 p.m.
hi all. just some follow-up on yesterday’s live blogging of the second House floor vote on the Holcomb energy bill, the vote that sent the bill to the governor. We now await her promised veto.
The final vote was 75 to 47. 3 representatives were absent. It would take 84 for a veto. I have heard all sorts of convincing theories on both sides - that this vote is really significant, to that it means noting at all. I guess we’ll see.
Here’s how they voted. As always, check for your legislator’s name, then contact them to give them either your support and/or constructive criticism. That goes for anyone. I know from my email that we have a lot of different perspectives reading this blog - 
hey. You’re all welcome to add your voice. (Even if it sometimes means hollering in my ear.) You can find your representative by checking here. The Senate Roster is here and the House Roster is here, and these lists contain their contact info.
Votes to approve the conference committee report and send the bill to governor: 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, Horst, Huebert, Humerickhouse, Johnson, Kelley, Kelsey, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Knox, Light, Mast, Masterson, McKinney, McLeland, Merrick, Morrison J, Moxley, Myers, Neufeld, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Owens, Palmer, Patton, Pauls, Peterson, Phelps, Powell, Powers, Proehl, Rhoades, Roth, Ruff, Schroeder, Schwartz, Shultz, Siegfreid, Sloan, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Watkins, Whitham, Wilk, Williams, Wolf B, Yoder
Votes against the bill: Ballard, Burroughs, Carlin, Colloton, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Faust-Goudeau, Flaharty, Flora, Frownfelter, Garcia, Goyle, Hawk, Henderson, Henry, Holland, Huntington, Kuether, Landwehr, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Lukert, Mah, McCray-Miller, McLachlan, Menghini, Metsker, Morrison J., Neighbor, Peck, Pottorff, Quigley, Rardin, Ruiz, Spalding, Storm, Svaty, Swenson, Tietze, Treaster, Trimmer, Ward, Winn, Wolk K, Worley
Not present: Aurand, Sawyer, Wetta
To compare the earlier House vote on the bill, check here.
It always warms my heart to click on the blog stats and see how many people follow these links. Yay for a constructively engaged citizenry!
Also, some very helpful people have been forwarding me their email correspondence with their legislators on the Holcomb topic. Please feel free to do this. I’ll keep it all and maybe centralize the legislators’ responses into one main file at some point, if there is interest.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
newz updatez
March 3, 2008
Just felt like a “z” this morning. Not an “s”. No reazon.
Wind power. Did the wind stop blowing in Texas and lead to a recent major power failure for interruptible users (usually big users who agree to have their power cut off in times of need)… or did baseload providers fall down on the job? (Houston Chronicle). Quotable: “the state’s grid operators say a problem they could normally handle was complicated when a number of traditional power plant operators failed to provide the amount of electricity to the grid as promised.”
It appears several power providers didn’t perform as expected, according to a spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s quasi-public grid operator, but names won’t be revealed at this point.
Coal and Kansas. (Agh.) Sunflower Electric responds very strongly to Westar’s announcement that Westar will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put off construction of new coal plants as long as possible (press release, pulled off PrimeNewsWire). Southeast KS tries to figure out if the technology is there yet for them to mine their “dirty” coal resource (Pittsburgh Morning Sun). Not that “clean coal” exists, in terms of a technology free of significant environmental impacts.
Duane Schrag of the Salina Journal steps back and looks at the big energy picture in Kansas. Amongst the drama, sometimes it helps to just calmly take stock. He notes that immediately following the denial of the Holcomb permit, there were lots of predictions about the negative impact this would have on transmission and wind development, as well as baseload resources in Kansas. His findings were that, since the denial:
ITC Great Plains has said it plans to build transmission lines to Spearville, with or without the Holcomb plant expansion.
Wind farm development continues. In recent weeks a study was requested for a 600 megawatt wind farm in Finney County.
The Kansas Corporation Commission posted a statewide map of the average retail price of electricity in 2006. Western Kansas — in particular, the western third — enjoys some of the lowest rates in the state.
Westar Energy, the state’s largest utility and one that uses coal-fired generation for nearly 80 percent of its power, published a comprehensive energy plan explaining why it is delaying for as long as possible the construction of new coal-fueled generation.
Research. Xcel Energy is experimenting with battery back-ups for wind power, so as wind power keeps increasing in the energy mix, the natural ebb and flow of wind can be more easily mitigated (Finance-commerce.com). Topeka-based Mother Earth News (super-cool resource for homesteaders and gardeners) offers an update on the public and scientific discussion of global warming. I can summarize: (1) is it still going on? Yep. And (2) are human actions, such as burning fossil fuels, still a part of the issue? Yep, yep. And finally, an article for those paying attention to the evolution (hee hee) of the creation care movement.
Editorials. For serious, KC Star encourages KCPL to develop wind power, as they had already committed to do in their agreement with Sierra Club (the one that allowed them to construct a new coal-fired power plant), although they put off the investment in 2008 due to other financial commitments. (For more details on the Sierra Club deal, check out slide 7 of the powerpoint presentation that KCPL representative Paul Snider gave at the CEP Take Charge forums). KCPL said you betcha.
KCStar also urged caution on adding nuclear power to the state’s fuel mix, pointing out that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about what to do with the waste, as well as the true costs of building new nuclear plants.
For funny, Richard Crowson of the Wichita Eagle asked readers to help come up with a caption for his following image:
Although I don’t mean to imply that respiratory problems are funny. I just enjoy it when people take on issues in creative and interesting ways. Here’s a selection of the runner-up captions -
Jason Griffin: “Where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are…are…oh, forget it.”
Bill Hess: “It’s to the stars through greenhouse gases!”
Karen Wallace: “Is this what they mean by a state coal-ition???”*
Burt Parry: “Add aspirator per coal plant.”
Kim Dunakey: “Rough road to the stars my foot. Just line the right pockets and the road becomes an 8-lane expressway.”
* my favorite
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News update
February 27, 2008
Working from home in rural Jefferson County at the moment. Sun is shining. Birds are singing. Ice on the lake is popping and spalling in weird underwater echoes as the sun hits the east side, while the west side is still cool and in shadow. Dogs are outside barking hysterically at my poor neighbor.
If I can figure out/ find out when the next conference committee meeting is on the Holcomb/ energy bill is today, we may have live blogging from Topeka later. If not, tomorrow holds a special treat - the KCC has decided to host a round table on nuclear power !!! (.pdf) I guess we weren’t having enough fun with coal. The event goes all day, so don’t expect live blogging, but I will take notes and post them later. Seriously, I am excited - very interesting speakers lined up.
For now, the news.
Cargill has canceled a proposed $200 million ethanol plant outside of Topeka due to the high price of corn (TCJournal). Christian denominations gathered for a “creation care summit,” a term popularized by evangelical Rev. Richard Cizik (Christian Post). Cizik spoke at the event, calling global warming “an offense against God,” and saying that “America needs our biblical outrage. We as a nation will face a judgment from God if we don’t do this.”
The wind industry is facing a shortage of qualified workers due to the enormous increase in demand (Seattle Times). Go, Cloud County Community College, and other Kansas community colleges who are developing wind technician training programs! The country needs you. Kansas needs you, too, to help spur rural economic development opportunities.
The following is not news to any of us, probably, but the USA Today has caught on that wind development is contingent on construction of new transmission lines, and that the grid in windy areas of the country is horribly congested. Why do I mention it, then…? Because I have a crazy fringe theory. The story supports my belief that the transmission issues in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc., are going to draw more and more national attention as pressure mounts to develop renewables. There is also a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (I think that’s the date) that allows the federal government eminent domain to build transmission in corridors of “national interest.”
My fringe theory: Either we develop more transmission, fast, or within a decade or so we could face the federal government perhaps deciding to do it for us.
But I could also be crazy.
NPR produced a harrowing story about the history of a yellow fever outbreak in Memphis in 1878. Yellow fever is one of the many diseases spread by mosquitoes. Long spells of hot weather provide a longer breeding season for these insects. Such spells are one of the many risks posed by climate change, which mainstream scientists agree is affected by human actions, such as burning fossil fuels.
Editorial. Randy Schofield of the Wichita Eagle whacks the pro-Holcomb folks on one hand for misrepresenting “regulatory uncertainty” (the Holcomb plant is the only air quality permit KDHE has ever denied, and regulatory uncertainty about greenhouse gases and carbon regulation on the national scene created that unique situation). On the other hand, he points out that in the aftermath of the decision, Governor Sebelius and Sec. Bremby haven’t been open enough about how they are developing GHG regulations. (Don’t get mad at me, I just offer a synopsis). Quotable:
Granted, there are legitimate concerns — we share them — about where state and federal carbon regulation is heading.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Bremby have been far too quiet about how the Holcomb decision fits into larger efforts to reshape the state’s energy policy in light of looming federal carbon regulation and growing uncertainty about the economic viability of coal plants.
They need to move this dialogue forward more aggressively and show business leaders and lawmakers where they’re heading.
All the same, there’s no cause for panic. Bremby has made clear that his decision should be seen as limited and narrowly crafted to the energy sector.
One permit denial out of thousands does not add up to regulatory anarchy.
A guest editorial in the KCStar points out that all of the Kansas’ electricity picture is affected by the decision to put a coal plant, in the face of future carbon regulation structures such as cap and trade. Quotable:
If southwest Kansas goes with coal, then the rest of the state will have to make up the difference by assuming the burden and cost of developing new resources…. With (Sunflower Electric’s) coal plants employing newer technology, Kansas would be forced to achieve reductions at other utility plants, such as Westar, Kansas City Power & Light and BPU.
The necessary emission reductions may not be feasible on older plants, forcing them to invest in expensive alternative solutions. Our exposure is substantial because these utilities rely heavily on coal.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
maps for your viewing pleasure - the KS transmission grid, and 2006 KS electric rates
February 21, 2008
The first map comes from Dan Nagengast of the Kansas Rural Center. It represents a map of Kansas transmission lines suitable for commercial wind. They uncluttered it by aggregating up to 3 line sizes and color coding them. The orange dotted lines are the permitted new lines from Spearville.
CAUTION: This map does not express the existing load on these lines. There may be some lines, especially the smaller ones, which are saturated. Anyone actually considering interconnection would have to find that out first.
EDIT: As of 03/04/08, this map is being updated. It is missing at least two new lines.
The next map comes via the Kansas Corporation Commission. It represents EIA (Energy Information Administration) data current as of January 2006. The highest rates in the state are in red. Interestingly, those areas are in eastern and south central KS, not western. Jefferson County, where I live, is interestingly mottled in red. (Which doesn’t really surprise me.)
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
CEP Conversations: Kimberly Gencur-Svaty on transmission lines
February 16, 2008
Kimberly Gencur-Svaty has worked in the energy and transmission industries for several years, most recently for International Transmission Company (ITC). CEP interviewed her for our Conversations series because she is very familiar with the transmission picture in Kansas. (If her last name sounds familiar, it might be because she is also the wife of Representative Josh Svaty, Ellsworth.)
ITC currently has a proposal before the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) to build two transmission lines originating out of Spearville, Kansas – one leading north toward Nebraska, and the other heading east.
Maril Hazlett, CEP: Nice view! (Kimberly’s 5th floor office window in downtown Topeka looks directly at the Capitol.)
Kimberly Gencur-Svaty: Thank you! (There is also a little bit of chat about how MH’s father is from Sterling and her grandfather was once the registrar of Sterling College, and discussion of how many of KGS’s in-laws attended Sterling College.)
MH: OK. Let’s start with the basics. Transmission is a key ingredient in getting electricity to markets and eventually to consumers. Please briefly describe how the system works.
KGS: There are basically three portions to the electricity system. First, you’ve got your power plant or generating source. That power plant could be a wind farm, it could be coal, nuclear, natural gas - any generation type.
That generated power then feeds through of series of high voltage transmission lines. It goes to a substation where the voltage is stepped down so it can be fed through the distribution system. The distribution system is basically the shorter or smaller poles that you see basically everywhere. (MH: For additional information on how electricity works, see the CEP website.)
MH: The ones your car runs into when you are in a wreck.
KGS: Exactly. Those could be telephone poles too.
MH: The distribution system usually travels along roadways, or existing right of ways, correct?
KGS: Exactly. That is called the last mile into the home. In some older neighborhoods, you will see the wires actually going into the home. In areas built in the last thirty to thirty-five years, you see the boxes in the middle of someone’s backyard, and then the line runs underground to the home.
Distribution is much lower voltages. When we are talking transmission, we mean the high voltage lines that usually run cross-country.
MH: What is the average voltage of a transmission line?
KGS: Well, that is completely dependent upon where your region is. Interestingly enough, for example, in Kansas we have a lot of 115 kV transmission and 230 kV transmission.
MH: 115 kV - is that low? Do lower voltages typically date from earlier eras?
KGS: Well, when you are looking at the grid itself, we do have a lot of older infrastructure in Kansas. But we are no different in that respect than any other portion of the country.
MH: The electric grid is patchy all over the country, is my understanding.
KGS: Exactly. And …that is kind of a tough question because you have to be diplomatic about it. Basically you do have some vintage -
MH: Vintage. I like that word.
KGS: - vintage material out there. Utilities are in the process of re-energizing those lines, or upgrading them from maybe 69 kV to 115 kV or from 115kV to 230kV. In Kansas, we have primarily 69 kV, 115kV, 230kV, and some 345 kV. The older portions of the grid are often in the more rural areas of the state where you just don’t have the tremendous demand.
Holcomb/ energy bill - or, what the heck just happened (again)
February 13, 2008
Recap on yesterday - what exactly happened in the House Energy and Utilities Committee as they worked HB 2711, which they dumped into Senate bill 327 (another gut and go occurred, just like in the Senate on Monday when they dumped a stripped down SB 515 into HB 2066 (.pdf), which is being debated on the Senate floor this afternoon). Bremby was speaking in the Senate at the same time as the House Committee met, actually, so I did miss that (LJWorld). Oh for a clone.
Before getting into the details, just the broad strokes: Two very different things have happened with what were originally identical bills. The Senate stripped out everything but permission to build Holcomb, regulatory restrictions on KDHE, and net metering for solar. In effect, they created a stick. The House did strip some things (see below) but in effect they dumped in everything but the kitchen sink, trying to create a carrot.
Now - is the stick a real stick - or if it is used, can it be guaranteed that the entire state of Kansas won’t end up knocking itself upside the head instead of just clobbering KDHE? And is that carrot really something you want in your mouth? Those are some of the decisions that your state government now faces.
To summarize yesterday, since the transcript was long and the hearing got pretty interesting in parts: Well over 20 new amendments were tacked on to the House bill (and the revised language might be online by this afternoon). The permission to build Holcomb is still in there, as in the regulatory language re KDHE, and the solar net metering (although slightly changed).
Some of the more interesting amendments:
The regulatory restrictions on KDHE were eased slightly, with the goal of not making Kansas an non-compliant state under the federal Clean Air Act. If this occurred, EPA standards would take over. The federal Clean Air Act currently allows states discretion in some of what Kansas enforces. If the legislation made KS strictly compliant with all federal standards, then KS would have to enforce the entire act.
Most of the energy efficiency requirements for schools are out.
A big chunk of the original mitigation is out (most of Sections 10-12). However, “affected facilities” are now - required? strongly urged? - to use “available best practices” of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Who are these facilities, exactly, how does one define best practices… dunno. There seems to be some debate.
There is now a nameplate Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) included. It is phrased as an incentive, not really as a requirement, since there seems to be no enforcement mechanism. Utilities (and which utilities was unclear) would have to generate 10% of their electricity portfolio from renewables by 2010 and 25% by 2025. There was also a requirement for KCC to allow an additional 1% return on investment for projects that were started with the goal of complying with the RPS. An amendment to require an 8 percent reduction in peak demand by 2010 and 20 percent by 2025 failed.
The mission of the Kansas Electrical Transmission Authority (KETA) was expanded, some say greatly.
The language that would have allowed the unintended consequence of all utilities being able to deregulate and escape the jurisdiction of the KCC was removed, although it is evidently different than the Senate version of same.
The energy commission looks totally different. The Kansas Energy Council more or less got panned as an effective body for providing policy suggestions. As a substitute, a much smaller group made up of a wide range of scientists (including climate scientists) and engineers plus one or two legislators will take over the job of providing good information on climate and energy and suggesting future energy policy. Rep. Sloan, who drafted this amendment, stated that Kansans do not currently trust their legislature to have a sound grasp on the current science.
HB 2066 hits the Senate floor later this afternoon, and CEP should hopefully be there. This morning I took a long walk with the dogs over the frozen hills of Jeff County, and managed to drink a whole cup of coffee at my desk instead of while roaring down I-70. I think I’m ready.
And before we leave, a public service announcement - tomorrow is Valentine’s Day. If you have a significant other (or parent, or grandparent, or other loved one) to whom this occasion matters, now is the time to act.
fact checks from Holcomb hearings
February 5, 2008
Folks have had a few questions about facts that have come up in the hearings. (One is - does Maril ever spell-check? Answer: you try typing with your laptop balanced on your knees for two hours in a really uncomfortable chair.)
That said. What has come up - and some of this is taken from the Q&A sessions as well:
Q: Are transmission lines for wind dependent on building new transmission lines for coal?
A: At the SPP meeting that CEP attended a week or two ago (link is to our blog entry) that was not the impression we received. The SPP presentation materials are all linked within that entry so you can look at them if you like, but SPP’s basic message: wind development in OK, TX, and KS is driving current transmission line planning.
SPP’s priorities are to send the wind power east and southeast, to Chicago and Atlanta markets. They are negotiating seams agreements (agreements with other RTOs) to make this happen, because SPP can’t absorb all the wind itself. The western interconnect with Colorado and the West was their lowest priority market to connect to. Also, since then, the SPP board approved a postage stamp method of cost recovery for the area, so transmission development is expected to open up even more in the area.
Q: How far off is emissions regulation - soon or far?
A: Depends who you ask. If you ask banks JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup - emissions regulation is coming soon enough to start reconsidering financing for coal power plants. If you ask the Bush administration, which is currently involved in good faith negotiations with the international community about a carbon regulation treaty to be implemented by 2010- well. Yeah. Also, according to Pew Climate: “As of mid-July 2007, lawmakers had introduced more than 125 bills, resolutions, and amendments specifically addressing global climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” Presidential candidate John McCain also has his name on one of the most major pieces of that legislation.
So - you decide.
Q: Who will use the electricity from the Holcomb plants?
A: Of Holcomb’s expansion of 1400 MW of electricity, Kansans will only use 15 percent. The rest is planned to be sold out of state.
Q: Is Colorado a market for Kansas coal-fired electricity?
A: Depends who you ask. According to most recent observers, Colorado is taking huge strides toward a low-carbon economy. It has established one of the best Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and net metering statutes in the country, and has attracted the wind giant Vestas to build a manufacturing facility that will provide 400 jobs. The Colorado RPS was passed under a Republican majority in the legislature and a Republican governor. The Democrats now hold both a legislative majority as well as the Governor’s seat, and in 2007 the legislature considered or passed more than a dozen clean energy bills (Governor’s Energy Office).
By the time the Holcomb plant would be completed, it’s hard to say what Colorado’s stance on coal-fired electricity would be. Additionally, a coal-fired power plant in Pueblo, CO, will be completed in 2009. Tri-State (the folks who are contracting with Sunflower to finance and manage the Holcomb plant expansion) is also investigating the possibility of developing another coal-fired power plant in Eastern CO.
Q: What standards do coal plants already have to meet?
A: Lots. Carbon dioxide emissions will be the next in a long list of regulations that the coal-burning utilities face. In the words of the Sunflower official who testi