State Energy Resources Coordination Council
November 19, 2003
Municipal Utilities offices, McPherson, KS
Meeting was called to order at 10:05 by Chair Lee Allison. Allison
thanked Colin Hansen for set up of meeting place and directions, also
Present: Lee Allison, Earnie Lehman, Colin Hansen, Alex Silver, Dave
Phelps, Larry Holloway (Moline), Liz Brosius, David Springe, Spencer
Depew, Galen Menard, Dave Holthaus (Hart), David Dayvault, Rick
Anderson, Scott Schneider, Richard Nelson, Kyle Wetzel, Bruce Snead,
Jesse McCurry, M. L. Korphage
Menard: Tour of NCRA refinery following meeting; bus will arrive at
2:30. Asked tour participants to sign up on list. The tour will take
about 1 hour.
Allison: Larry Holloway is sitting in for Brian Moline and Dave
Holthaus for Barry Hart. We have a number of reports this morning,
beginning with a presentation from Earnie Lehman, COO with Midwest
Energy, and Chair of the Transmission Task Force. Task Force’s work is
not completed, but progress report.
Transmission Task Force Interim Report
Lehman gave a powerpoint presentation and circulated a more detailed
version of his interim report. He noted that a majority of the task
force members were present at this meeting – Larry Holloway, Kyle
Wetzel, Rick Anderson.
Interim Report: Current system is reliable and adequate, industrial
development has not been hindered by reliability or electric cost
concerns, transmission system expansion is governed by processes
outside of state control. Process for considering transmission system
expansion does not work well. Four meetings in 44 days, conducting
assessments accepting polcy development and next step assignments
using buddy system. Low risk, economic development not been impaired.
Federal authority over transmission has expanded thru legislation and
regulatory rulemakings. Regional power pools now process new
transmission service requests. Utilities do not have priority for
tying in their own generation. Formal process takes months at best.
Problems with Process....., Problems with Cost Recovery....Next Steps
– Assess long term transmission reliability.......
Dayvault: What part of the state has least capacity to absorb new
Phelps: Southeast Kansas would be where we would put new generation
[has the best capacity]
Silver: Depends on where the load is
Holloway : Depends on load and generation
Allison: Who sets powerpool?
Holloway: Independent board of directors, advisory group.
Springe: Are you seeing that the state does not need to spend a lot of
money to expand or increase transmission? Not the focus?
Lehman: To serve current needs, that is correct. We have not yet done
the long-term analysis—in the future there will need to be some
expansion on transmission system. Example: Sunflower has said that
they had 6 requests from customers for the new Holcomb plant, 50-60 M
dollars for, customers planning to build own transmission system for
Holloway: A concern from the regulatory side is that these companies
are willing to put up 16-20 M for first year for transmission.
Southwest powerpool independent board would hope that this regional
committee could tell board that it has to do certain things, that have
to be filed with FERCC, disadvantage in Kansas, have seen policy
drafts out of Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Allison: Does the task force have a recommendation at this point for
this council to adopt for 2004 energy plan?
Lehman: Not at this point. Develop effective advocacy group,
incorporate these recommendations into report.
Silver: would take a step further. Can’t have a part time committee,
needs to be full time group.
Allison: Thank you for what your group is doing, in such a short time
I had asked Alex to report on system benefits charge ad hoc committee,
would like to postpone this until 11:00.
Kansas Summit on Natural Gas
Brosius: The natural gas summit report was delivered to Gov. on Nov.
5, then circulated to council members and participants of summit.
Report summarizes short-term recommendations: council identified 3
things that could be done in short term. Report posted on website,
have copies here today.
Allison: Press release going out shortly.
Springe asked whether all the recommendations that came out of the
natural gas summit would be included in the 2004 Kansas Energy Plan,
indicating that he had reservations about putting the whole list in
the plan. Allison said the council tried to capture some fo the summit
recommendations in the recommendations they proposed at the last SERCC
meeting. Brosius said that the intent was for the committees to review
summit recommendations and incorporate those that seem likely into
their 2004 recommendations; the natural gas summit report will be
included in the energy plan document.
CO2 Linked Systems Project, Russell
Allison: I want to invite you all to the valve turning, on Dec. 4, in
Russell, of the CO2-linked systems approach. First project in Kansas.
Used in West Texas and New Mexico. Hope to extend life of these oil
fields in Kansas another 20–30 years. Work on this project has been
going on for 3 years, multi-million dollar project. Hope Governor &
Lt. Governor and other officials will be present, then go out and see
the operation. Also will look at ethanol plant in Russell.
Allison: Does Kansas want to compete? Met with Lt. Gov. yesterday, he
was very supportive, asked the council to take lead in the state.
Federal support – Keith Yehle asked if we have expertise in Kansas to
participate in this? Action item for 2004 plan would be to develop
subcommittee to look at Future Gen to see how we can compete, put
proposal together. We are already behind: Texas Dept. of Economic
Development transferred $10M to enhance development to compete. West
Virginia has contract from their economic development office to locate
6 sites to bring forward one site for competition. Need to look at
what we need for proposal. DOE put up $800 M of $1B cost. Looking for
matching funds. 275 megawatts, also produces hydrogen.
Holloway: Look at Great Plains Gas Energy website for more info.
Allison: Lt. Gov asking Energy Council to take lead on this.
Dayvault: What are our competitive advantages to other states?
Allison: Closer to Wyoming coal, CO2 sequestration.
Holloway: Need to look at use of hydrogen
Allison: Generating or fuel cells
Holloway: Do we have available gas pipelines to transfer hydrogen?
Allison: Need committees to look at and discuss, a lot on technical
side that don’t fully understand. Don’t want to miss opportunity.
Kansas does want to try to compete.
Springe: Create committee?
Allison: Action item.
Brosius: Shari Wilson, KACEE, who attended our last two meetings,
contacted us about ways that KACEE could partner with SERCC to promote
energy information. She suggested that SERCC or members be involved in
the next KACEE environmental education conference, in Dodge City next
November. The them is energy and they plan a visit to the wind farm at
Montezuma. Also, KACEE has trained facilitators, who could lead the
public through discussion, if we want to get public input. Will be
pursuing educational efforts throughout out the coming year, as well
as with KIOGA Foundation.
Allison: Modify our recommendations for education from last year.
Allison postponed discussion of Rural Life Task Force, energy issues,
until later meeting, due to time constraints.
Wind Energy Siting Guidelines
Alex Silver reported on the Renewable Energy Committee’s discussion of
wind energy siting guidelines.
Silver: Guidelines were developed from national guidelines by KREWG
(KS Renewable Energy Working Group). Response from developers and
communities – guidelines balanced – don’t think SERCC would have any
problem adopting them, putting on website, we reviewed and liked it.
It’s a good document and should be made available to public.
Allison: We’ll put it as study item for this year; council will
Wetzel: These guidelines were created out of committee chaired by
Nature Conservancy and Brad Loveless at Westar. Came out of
controversy on wind farms in Flint Hills.
Snead: We’ve had requests for this info from counties; it is already
Allison: I suggest we look at this document to see if the council can
formally adopt. If want to modify, need to listen to various sides.
Our role would add some gravitas for counties. Could post on website
as resource identify where from. Consider adopting at next meeting.
Federal Energy Bill
Allison: Anyone have any insight on what is coming out of Washington –
federal energy bill?
Holloway: there is a net metering provision in for every utility. We
got into the systems benefit charge from the net metering issue. Is in
the electricity section of the bill.
Wetzel: If same language as I saw before wasn’t to be mandatory.
Dayvault: From tax provisions, there’s continuation of coalbed methane
credit that would have expired for production, open up new window, run
through 2009, increase to just over a $1 for anything over ?MCF. Great
impact on state – marginal well tax credit when barrel is less than
$18 and gas $? MCF. Price protection. Streamlining drilling on
existing federal lands.
Hansen: More disappointing is the loss of tradable tax credit. Victim
of negotiations. Still hope for substitute.
Wetzel: Thought there was something in the bill that would eliminate
the cost of transmitting electricity for whoever is first requesting.
May have been stripped out of bill.
Menard: Heard that some of the Alaska pipeline part was stripped out.
Kansas Energy Plan 2004
Allison invited Silver to report on the ad hoc committee’s SBC (system
benefit charge) proposal.
Silver: Volker picked up the charge – SBC – yes it is a tax, way to
raise money. Trying to be objective – makes sense, allows funding of
activities such as SERCC. In order to do anything and be effective, we
need some funding. What is SBC? It’s a volumetric charge on customer’s
bill to fund energy activities beneficial to Kansas. Focusing on
utility costs. Already SBC on gasoline.
Limits on SBC volumes: electricity: rate: $.05 per kWh, no charge for
first 300 kWh in a month. No charge for consumption over 2,000,000 kWh
in a month. Revenue: about $1M, $.25 on a residential bill. Natural
gas: numbers are less, proposed $.01 per MCF, $.08 on residential
bill. Use of monies: State Energy Planning Office, not more than 5% of
SBC revenues. Renewable Energy Electricity Generation: minimum 20% of
monies for R&D. Energy conservation, & fossil fuel production. Concern
of committee on usage of funds. Concern won’t be used for energy
Springe: Not fair to tax general utility customers.
Holloway: Seems we are developing a different office that may have
different goals that the already established energy office—Jim
Ploger’s program at KCC.
Silver: Concept is SBC, that is in the detail, don’t have answer.
Springe: State energy planning office would be SERCC, not the Energy
Office at KCC.
Wetzel: Lots of work to be done on topics SERCC keeps raising that
require more than a volunteer council. Envision a body that would
tackle these issues. Look at Iowa that has 30-member energy office
funded by state. Tax electricity to fund energy office. Could look at
gasoline tax for funding. Envision that this energy planning office
would be rolled into KCC energy office.
Allison: The Natural Resource Legacy Alliance will be submitting their
report by Dec. 1 and there’s talk of a natural resources division. It
would be good for us to have idea of where we would come in.
Hollaway: On gas side, could bypass KS jurisdiction and customer can
go directly to pipeline, can state go back and collect that?
Silver: Can state allow a municipality to avoid SBC?
Springe: Appreciate what Michael Volker and Alex have done, but I’m
extremely concerned about this, disappointed that utility customers
will be responsible for financing energy policy of state. KWH charge
is based on all consumption in KS, don’t think you can make state law
apply to municipality. Not sure can put SBC on every kWh sold. Same
for natural gas side. Don’t think that $0.25 on a utility bill is
wrong; I’m just reluctant on this form, should be SBC to fund several
issues. When we go to legislature and say should be SBC, you don’t
know where things are going from there on. They could say “what is a
quarter, let’s make it $1.00.” Working with legislatures for buy-in
that they don’t take idea and run, and keep it as submitted. Not ready
to go to legislature.
Holloway: When we debated this earlier this year, the funding was for
electricity. Funding fossil fuel production seems curious; if electric
customers pay for it, benefit should be to electric customers.
Wetzel: Holmes said couldn’t get $0.50 on 911 cell phone bill; he
likes the SBC but doesn’t think it would go through. There’s a fear it
will turn out like California, where they made it 1/10th of a cent,
and now can’t give money away. If this is alternative to net metering,
it’s hokey. Need to be clear what it is going to be spent on. If
proposal is not specific on how money is to be spent.
Snead: The primary motivation was to find way to fund SERCC planning
and programming initiatives; so far, I haven’t heard any of this. What
is politically achievable? We can’t wait, need something to develop
funding. Something better? Go with that, failure to move forward will
cripple what has been done so far. If the money comes from property
tax, or other sources, or if there’s another equitable way to fund
energy policy and activities, let’s hear it.
Wetzel: Don’t think $600,000 will go very far in funding energy office
Silver: Don’t want to go down path to subsidize special interest.
Funding administrative activities, policy activities, make it $10 M.
This activity deserves to be funded.
Springe: I agree. I’m not objecting to what funding is for; I’m just
opposed to utility customers being charged. Not where we can send to
legislature for broad activities.
Lehman: One element of history we ought to remember: back in the 80’s,
utilities were required to spend on research programs, was an option
of 20% to be dedicated to state energy programs. Urge you to consider
Wetzel: Incremental approach, first attempt, limited scope, get foot
in door, add pieces later.
Springe: Gets back to SBC charged to who, legally get to everyone.
Holloway: If we assess electricity customers, should go to electric
customers, discussion came out of net metering, was an alternative.
Silver: Net metering affects a small number of people.
Wetzel: When looking at states around us, they have people doing
energy work that is funded. Don’t see problem splitting utility from
oil and gas.
Holloway: Not opposing use of money for administrative use. If not
connected to services received by people paying for it, problematic.
Snead: What is alternative, how does water office get funding?
Allison: Fees, general funding.
Springe: Should come from general funding, not from utility customers.
May not be realistic.
Snead: We have to come forward with something, make the case or don’t.
Compare to water office, everyone uses water. Does everybody benefit?
Allison: After lunch, we’ll adopt recommendations. I’ll ask you to
think over lunch, bring forward the proposal, vote on as it is, or
modify to make more focused on SBC for state energy policy and
planning. Modify the amount?
Galen: We would be big payer, concern where money would go, policy
development or planning office OK, but if it were for projects, we’d
would want to know what projects.
Silver: How do we address the home rule issue?
Springe: KCC - If intent is to get all end users, can we get all end
users? Does utility have right connotation? Not generic.
Holloway: Not sure this is much of an issue. There’s legislation out
there that has affected all electricity utility in state.
Lehman: To get through legislature, you have to know where money
going. You all are discussing where coming from.
Break for lunch: 12:05 p.m.
Reconvene at 12:55 p.m.
Kansas Energy Plan 2004—Recommendations
Brosius circulated list of proposed recommendations.
Brosius: This is the list of recommendations for 2004 plan that came
out of committees at our last meeting. The recommendations are
numbered to aide discussion, not to indicate ranking. On # 3, we need
to correct spelling of word “pool,” and I think #13 and #14 can be
combined. There’ll be some overlap between some of the other
recommendations as well.
Wetzel: Did you say this is last meeting?
Allison: Yes, this will allow time to pull together the energy plan
and get it back out for review; due to legislature, Jan. 12.
Allison asked for discussion of each proposed recommendation. Decided
to skip #1 (SBC) and come back to it after going through others.
Allison: Turn to petroleum folks, they had most specific
recommendations for legislation. Reads #2 and #4:
#2-Recommend that the Kansas legislature increase oil and gas industry
production levels and prices for oil and gas for obtaining exemptions
from the severance tax and the ad valorem tax.
#4-Recommend that the Kansas legislature give consideration to
granting expanded exemptions from severance and ad valorem taxation
for oil and gas production and other energy activities that result
from implementation and use of advanced technology, methods, and
Depew: Content of #2 is in #4. We have enhanced recovery, want to make
Allison suggests combining language of #2 and #4 into one proposal.
Depew: Last part may apply beyond oil and gas production, could be for
refinery, broader than production, wind turbines, anything.
Dayvault: Another piece is to look at trigger points at pricing
standpoints, for low production, allow for certain base level of
production that could be kept in periods of low prices, tripper points
raised for increased costs, probably what #2 was for.
Depew: Wouldn’t cost the state anything.
Dayvault: 18-20 is more realistic trigger point. Could be written into
#4, not currently in #4.
Phelps: Intent for oil and gas?
Menard and Depew: No other energy for tax exemption.
Allison: Do we want to go back to having #2 and #4 as separate?
Depew: Don’t need to.
Dayvault: We need word help, talking about prices and production
levels in #4.
Brosius: Can you do now, or need time?
Dayvault: Need time.
Allison: If I were to put forward motion to incorporate #2 with #4,
with understanding that committee to clarify wording. Different
trigger levels for ad valorem taxation for oil and gas production.
Depew : Wanting to reward new energy technology, wind energy might
Holloway : It already does, more concerned about general.
Allison: Problematic in drafting legislation.
If we can’t resolve this at this time, we’ll ask the petroleum
committee to recraft, and we’ll send out electronic ballot. Could your
committee recraft #2 and #4 and we’ll vote on it in the next week?
Allison reads #3:
#3-Recommend that the Kansas legislature amend the K.S.A. 55-1302
definition of “pool” in order to allow unitization of more than one
single and separate natural reservoir if the same are in communication
so as to constitute a single pressure system.
Depew: Something in last three years, argued you can’t have 2
formations, committee wants to clarify that you can have 2 formations
and call a single pool.
Korphage: KCC has already ruled that you can, appealed.
Council unanimous in adopting #3 as recommendation.
Allison reads #5:
#5- Recommend the amendment of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial
Code to restore a priority creditor status for sellers of oil and gas
production when a purchaser is in bankruptcy. It would follow the
language of the former K.S.A. 84-9-319, which was repealed in 2000
without any input from the oil and gas industry.
Depew: Farmland cost a lot of money with bankruptcy.
Springe: Not appropriate for energy policy; it’s a finance
issue—bankruptcy commercial code, not energy policy issue. The issue
Depew: Helping energy in general, oil and gas.
Springe: Helps energy people. Is this the proper nexus for SERCC?
Concern of Kansas?
Dayvault: Energy policy issues, Prior to farmland, 4 others – energy
producers find from credit worth, price implications for producers and
state in general, severance tax collections.
Depew: This is money that didn’t get reinvested in Kansas.
Allison: I think we can take as broad a role as the council is willing
Phelps: Commercial code in 2000, clients request a deposit?
Dayvault: Didn’t realize the change in language until we had a
Springe: Who modified code?
Holoway: What about oil and gas companies that got stung also?
Silver: Corporate policy could have been avoided, can be as broad as
Depew: All this does is bring back law as it was before, oil and gas
Holloway: Established priority when people are owed money?
Springe: Not sure making recommendations out of the energy council is
appropriate for commercial code.
Allison: Move forward as it stands, or make it for all energy
providers, or is this outside of our expertise?
Depew: It’s energy related.
Phelps: Specific to a provider or to a specific thing?
Holloway: Can affect Kansas producers, more general .
Allison: Not breaking new ground, returning to law as it was before.
Menard: Can a state supersede a federal bankruptcy law?
Depew: No, this was copied from Texas.
Menard: Judge can take under advisement.
Springe: This recommendation is going to legislature with a SERCC
label, not that it shouldn’t go to legislature, but should it go with
a SERCC label?
Holloway: Your concern is that it would not be referred to a utility
Allison: This would be another committee .
Vote on proposal #5 as written: 6 for, 1 opposed, 2 abstentions.
Phelps: Motion for amendment – insert “and other energy providers”
Holloway: Hearing a few people that buy the oil in the state and
getting smaller all the time, protect the fact that limited market,
lot of different customers, big customer, hurts when they go away,
Wetzel: If passed as amended – energy providers at front of state, not
self serving. Rather than focusing on energy benefits for Kansas.
Phelps: Protect someone that might not have good business practices.
Silver: Five of these are industry specific, do we want that to be?
Allison: #5 has passed as written, if time at end, we can revisit.
Allison reads #6
#6- Recommend the adoption of favorable legislation to assist in the
exploration for and production of coal bed methane gas. This would
include granting an extended period for severance tax exemption under
K.S.A. 79-4217(b)(4) from twenty-four (24) months to forty-eight (48)
months or more.
Dayvault: There is an 18-24 month period of time for dewatering, not
producing commercial product in commercial quantities. Traditional –
24 months to recoup investment, this would put on equal footing with
traditional gas production in terms of being able to have exemption
for time to recoup costs.
Allison: Lt. Gov. asked what can state do to aid development. Didn’t
endorse, but he is following.
Council unanimous in adopting #6 as recommendation.
Allison: We will look at #7 with #1.
Hansen: Maybe we should talk about general funds first, funding of
SERCC regardless of source.
Dayvault: If fund through general funding or SBC, which direction
would you go?
Allison: What I’m hearing is that we might not adopt #1, but we may
adopt funding for SERCC. Take #7 and modify that priorities to provide
energy activity funding including SERCC.
Holloway: Have seen big numbers for energy plan kicked around, I’m
concerned anyway you do it, need input from groups that are out there
in industry that have different perspectives. I’m in favor of
providing funding for this group to put on these meetings, as opposed
to funding a full time office. Have staff where you don’t need to have
these meetings anymore.
Allison: When we get into #13 and #14 — year long process to see how
energy policy and planning works in the state. How meet current
Will come back to #7.
Allison reads #8.
#8- Develop and present a plan to increase the effectiveness of Kansas
energy programs, through coordination and cooperation, for the
eventual benefit of the State of KS. [Note: Important issues are being
discussed in a number of different forums. There is a need to optimize
the state energy program by identifying issues and
groups/departments/councils and organizations that have an interest in
and are working on them, to increase effectiveness and reduce
Holloway: How does this feed into new exec. Order? Governor is going
to come out with some plans for SERCC. Seems odd that we would come
out with energy policy when we don’t know what Governor is going to
Allison: Roll #14 into #8?
Wetzel: Take out effectiveness of energy programs of #8. Implies
coordinated large scale programs.
Springe: There are so many other agencies that are doing energy
Brosius: replace program with planning?
Phelps: Develop instead?
Snead: Develop and present a plan to coordinate and cooperation of
energy related activities.
Allison: Looking at how energy policy in Kansas is currently being
Brosius: First part is to get a handle on current energy activities,
as first step to make recommendation .
Wetzel: Don’t think you can combine all the energy programs in
agencies under one entity. We are talking about a program, an energy
office that has a program, not everyone that does something energy
related in Kansas together. #8 and #14 are not alike.
Snead: Is this inventory - #8, then a separate item, #14.
Allison: Inventory of energy related activities, with the aim of
optimizing state energy program. How to increase their effectiveness,
action item, by council. Would go to KCC and ask for Ploger for help
with inventory. Lt. Gov very interested in seeing those, they are
looking at inefficiencies and redundancy.
Recommendation #8 revised: Inventory of KS energy activities with the
intent to improve coordination and cooperation, increase
effectiveness, and reduce redundancy.
Council unanimous in adopting #8, revised, as recommendation.
Allison reads #9
#9-Endorse and support, to the extent possible, DSM and energy
conservation. This could take the form of encouragement and public
recognition of effective/important programs, or other actions, to be
Springe, Silver: Need to take out DSM.
Allison: Is this a feel good statement? The new Exec. order will
include seats for conservation, when we get new charge, we will be
given new action. Not sure what action SERCC would take. Conservation
is in our plan.
Silver: Very close to #10.
Holloway: #10 is more focused.
Springe: Can change #9 to be focused more in recognition of awards,
programs, like 10 has to support education. The awards language was
there last year, still under that rubric, doesn’t need to be repeated.
Allison: We haven’t dealt with conservation as a priority in ’04, set
up committee? Focus on conservation and efficiency?
Springe: Change focus – there was talk during gas summit, why aren’t
there low interest programs for furnaces, etc. In terms of why doesn’t
KS have a low interest loan program made available—action item as
investigating different methodologies for providing consumers
incentives to conserve. What is going on in the market.
Holloway: There are these things out there, people document who does
Springe: Change #9 to be more of an action item.
Phelps: why not roll #9 into #8
Silver: each are worthy of individual
Allison: If we take this as an action item reaffirming that
conservation efficiencies is a goal, one of our first meetings in 04
would be major study item. We don’t know what it is , just a priority
study item on how to move forward. How about we move #8 into study
items, not action item, with language that would reaffirm that
conservation and efficiency are lynch pins of our strategy, and that
this topic would be a priority study item at one of our first meetings
Holloway: I move to adopt #10 and #11 and vote on these together.
#10-Endorse and support energy education for the general public, and
K–12. Support education through media programs, and public awareness
to the extent possible.
#11-Continue to support Transmission Task Force, review activities and
conclusions, and make recommendations.
Council unanimous in adopting #10 and #11 as recommendations.
Allison reads #12
#12- Recommend that the State of Kansas take an active role in
participating in proceedings before federal agencies when national
issues will impact energy production and consumption in the State of
Kansas. Maintain communication with members of the Kansas delegation
Snead: Is this about who in state government speaks for the state in
various venues about energy?
Korphage: Might be useful if you have a state energy planning body,
coordinate information back to energy planning group.
Allison: Need to rewrite and roll into #8– inventory of federal
agencies, groups outside of Kansas, regional, national?
Council unanimous in adopting #12 and incorporating it into #8. Will
review language electronically.
Allison reads #14
#14- Develop recommendations for the formation of a state
Wetzel: Premature because doing inventory of what is out there,
#8—can’t develop entity without knowing what is out there.
Allison: May need to be done at same time. If we are not looking at
how energy fits into the Gov. plan for natural resources (plan due out
Dec. 1), will get sucked into ?
Holloway: Someone looking at plan would say that one of recommendation
is to develop energy policy which is what the council was designed to
Brosius: #14 – not saying what it needs to say.
Phelps: Think good point that we do what #14 says
Silver: Accepting policy development and next step assignments using
Allison: We are running out of time, getting new exec. order, may be
different mission, different level of authority, maybe not ready for
Wetzel: Is SERCC asking for authority to coordinate energy activities
Holloway: Need to develop legislation.
Silver: Don’t think this group that meets for 16 hours a year can
Wetzel: Was #13 and #14 to get at funding an energy office with staff?
Allison: Is this council what we want Kansas energy office to be? Is
this the best there is, do differently?
Snead: Are you trying to accomplish developing recommendations for
energy policy? How to implement or administrate, organize, state
Holloway: Not sure would put this group together and filter energy
policy down through legislature, governor.
Wetzel: If this body doesn’t tell them, they don’t have the staff to
Snead: Legitimate to make recommendations for organizational changes
for energy policy.
Council unanimous in adopting #14 as recommendation.
Allison reads #15:
#15- Work with Kansas congressional delegation, executive and
legislative branches, utilities, and private sector to investigate the
state’s potential with respect to the FutureGen project.
Council unanimous in adopting #15 as recommendation.
Allison: Can we combine #16 and #18 as study item?
#16- Review existing programs for Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)/Green
Tags/Renewable Energy Credits in other regions and evaluate in light
of KS needs and preferences. Recommend a preferred program.
Council unanimous in adopting #16 as recommendation.
Allison reads # 17:
#17- Develop a "roadmap" for KS Renewable Energy Development,
including identification/discussion of pro's and con's. Identify and
coordinate with other groups. Support development of responsible
renewable energy development in KS as elements of responsible energy
program, and reduction of state energy import requirements and the
associated negative economic issues.
Wetzel: Will need manpower to do study.
Council unanimous in adopting #17 as recommendation.
Allison directs council back to proposed recommendation #1(Establish a
systems benefit charge to fund an effective State energy program) and
to the proposals brought forward by the ad hoc committee on an SBC.
Allison: I’d like to consider narrowing down the amount of charge to
be 1/10 of a mill to produce smaller amount of money, focus on state
energy planning efforts. As chair, I propose we amend the motion,
treating proposal from renewables as forwarded, based on discussion
this morning: part A – 1/10 of a mill, limit use of SBC in part C.
Holloway: Would rather have funds that empower, actually do something.
Springe: SERCC doesn’t have authority to employ someone, if create
pool of money, FTE to KCC or KGS, form of consulting allocation to
either one, SERCC can’t hire.
Holloway: Another piece of paper telling us we need to be doing
Springe: Lot of action items, lot of study items, develop way to do as
consulting dollars through an agency.
Wetzel: Is SERCC going to become permanent with own staff?
Allison: Legislature would have to allocate to agency.
Holloway: Ask for limited funding to do this stuff from general funds
this year. Can’t put detail and thought into for anything else this
Springe: Can do a budget, make a legislative action item for 2 FTE
positions at KGS for strict purpose of [energy planning].
General discussion of feasibility of getting any general funding and
of the need to move forward with some sort of SBC plan.
Allison: We do not have consensus to move forward with SBC, so I
suggest putting #1 in study items. Add another action item – a
proposal, recommending 2 FTE’s for SERCC.
Snead: Suggest request for $100K for action items.
Allison: We will draft something for $250K, $100K for action items,
and 2 FTE’s. #1 will be study item.
[This recommendation will be circulated, along with revised language
for recommendations #2 and #4 for council to vote on electronically.]
Allison proposes that the council adopt wind-energy siting guidelines,
starting with the ones that renewable energy working group developed,
as recommendation #19. This would be an action item for 2004.
Council unanimous in adopting #19 as recommendation.
Allison distributed information on Plains Organization for Wind Energy
Allison: I want you to look at this and we will get back in touch with
you – have said we want to be observer, do not want to commit as
Brosius: I will contact those involved with pieces of energy plan.
Allison: We will put draft together, prior to Christmas you will get
Brosius: We will have draft to you by 22 Dec., you’ll have until Jan.
5 to get back to us with your comments, etc. This will give us a week
to get to Governor, Legislature.
Adjourned 2:40 p.m.