Governor Parkinson cuts deal with Sunflower Electric for Coal Plant
May 6, 10:42 AM
Instead of two 700 MW coal-fired plants, Sunflower will construct one coal plant – one 895 MW pulverized ultra-super critical coal generating unit. The carbon dioxide emissions for the 1400 MW was 11 million tons per year. The CO2 emissions for 895 MW is 6.7 million tons per year. The wind offsets will reduce the CO2 emissions to a little over 3 million tons per year.
The deal is contingent on the legislature passing the Governor’s energy plan:
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Utilities will have to produce:
- 10% energy from renewable resources by 2010,
- 15% by 2016, and
- 20% by 2020
This is a major component of renewable energy policy. While an ideal RPS for Kansas would be based upon actual renewable energy output, rather than just capacity, setting an RPS at the state level not only requires utilities to integrate wind, solar, and biomass into production portfolios, but this sends a clear message to renewable energy manufacturers, developers, and lenders that Kansas is officially “open for business” and committed to diverse energy markets.
Net Metering
- 1:1 bidirectional net metering for investor-owned utilities
Each home or business producing renewable energy will receive the value of energy produced and will be credited the total value of energy rate for any production that is greater than monthly demand. A real net metering policy on the books is a major victory for renewable energy advocates. However, the Governor’s compromise falls short of delivering this desired policy piece to all Kansans. The energy package that the Governor put forward in return for granting the coal permits requires only the investor-owned utilities of Kansas to honor real net metering. In other words, those Kansans who live in a district that is serviced by a municipal utility or a rural electric cooperative (which is the windiest and sunniest regions of the state) are excluded from this agreement. There was staunch opposition to real net-metering by electric cooperatives in Kansas throughout this legislative session, and they have some legitimate concerns here. However, bipartisan polling done by the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy in February of 2009 showed overwhelming consumer support for a statewide policy, which was especially strong in those parts of the state which under the Governor’s compromise do not qualify for net metering.
Energy Efficiency Standards
- All newly constructed state buildings and renovations must meet ASHRAE / IECC standards,
- Energy audits required for all state leased buildings,
- State agencies to purchase Energy Star rated products, and
- KCC to improve participation of schools and local governments in facilities conservation improvements program
The cheapest source of energy we can get is that which we don’t have to use. Efficiency standards should be the cornerstone of any 21st century energy policy or plan. When compared with efficiency policies in place around the country – these provisions don’t meet the test. Kansas needs an aggressive efficiency policy that works to include not only state buildings more efficient, but commercial and residential buildings as well. We could significantly extend existing energy production with practical, cost-saving efficiency measures that will ultimately protect electric ratepayers from volatile spikes tied to fuel sources.
Health and Environment Powers
- Federal Clean Air Act standards will be the guidance for KDHE regulations,
- Emergency powers may still be exercised where danger to public health, or to the environment, but order is temporary in nature unless agency seeks injunction from court
This provision limits the scope and authority of the KDHE when regulating air quality and health impacts in Kansas. Under this provision, the KDHE can set no limit or regulation stricter than what is enumerated in the Federal Clean Air Act. It was the ability to interpret federal law and state assessment of health and environment implications that led the Secretary of KDHE, Rob Bremby, to make his initial ruling in October of 2007. This provision could also adversely impact local governments who are faced with isolated but extraordinary pollution concerns not covered by the federal guidelines or regulations.
