By John Hanna, Associated Press, via ABC News Money

Oil Company Owned by Tea Party’s Billionaire Brothers Gives $1 Million to Fight California’s Climate Change Law

by Rick Daysog, Sacramento Bee

An oil company headed by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch has contributed $1 million to the campaign to suspend the state’s landmark climate change law.

Flint Hills Resources does not have any oil interests in California but is a big opponent of climate change legislation around the country.

On Thursday, the Kansas-based refining and chemicals manufacturer threw its weight behind Proposition 23, the ballot initiative that seeks to suspend California’s greenhouse gas reduction law until the economy improves.

“This is a significant game changer,” said Craig Holman, a campaign finance expert at Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group. “They want to stop the state that’s well known for leading the way when it comes to climate change legislation.”

California secretary of state’s office records show that Flint Hills is now the third largest backer of Proposition 23, behind Texas-based oil companies Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp.

On Thursday, Tesoro also donated $1 million to the Yes on 23 Committee, bringing its total contributions to about $1.5 million. Overall, the committee has raised more than $8.2 million, with nearly half, or about $4 million, coming from Valero.

Flint Hills spokeswoman Katie Stavinoha said the company believes that California’s law sets a bad precedent for the rest of the nation.  ”Flint Hills believes that implementing the law will cause significant job losses and higher energy costs,” Stavinoha said.

Anita Mangels, spokeswoman for the Yes on 23 Committee, said Koch Industries shares many of the job-preservation goals of her group’s 300 members.

Established in 1940, Flint Hills, a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries Inc., operates oil refineries in Texas, Minnesota and Alaska, as well as chemical manufacturing plants in Michigan, Illinois and Texas.

Koch Industries is one of the nation’s largest privately held companies. Its holdings include Brawny and Dixie paper products and the Lycra fiber and Stainmaster carpet brands.

According to Forbes magazine, brothers David and Charles Koch are tied as the 24th richest men in world, each with a net worth of about $17.5 billion. Among beneficiaries of their bankroll is the Tea Party movement.

Signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, the state’s climate change law, or Assembly Bill 32, aims to reduce carbon emissions statewide to 1990′s level by the end of the decade.

Proposition 23 seeks to suspend the law until the statewide unemployment rate hits 5.5 percent for four quarters in a row.

Proponents of the climate change law say that Koch and other oil companies are trying to preserve their profits at the expense of the growing clean-tech industry and health concerns of California residents.

“What Proposition 23 is trying to do is to move our state backward,” said Tom Steyer, co-chairman of the No on 23 Committee.

With a little more than two months before the elections, the battle over Proposition 23 is shaping up to be one of the most expensive ballot initiatives this year.

Supporters of the climate change law — which include environmentalists, clean-tech advocates and private investors — have pledged nearly $10 million to defeat Proposition 23.

Steyer, a San Francisco hedge fund operator, has pledged $5 million. Other notable donors include:

– Julie Packard, philanthropist and daughter of Hewlett-Packard Co. cofounder David Packard, who contributed $101,894 on Aug. 27.

– San Francisco private equity investor Warren Hellman, who donated $75,000 on Aug. 16.

– Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr, who donated $500,000 on Aug. 6.

– Wendy Schmidt, philanthropist and wife of Google Inc. co-founder Eric Schmidt, who gave $500,000 on June 16.

Also see this op-ed from the Los Angeles Times regarding Proposition 23.

Talks Run Hot ‘n’ Coal

Nuke Plant Eyed

By Andy Vuong for The Denver Post

WESTMINSTER — Amid growing criticism about its heavy reliance on coal-fired power, the state’s second-largest utility is considering the prospect of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado.

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association’s board of directors voted recently to have its staff study nuclear as a possibility for the site in Prowers County near Holly.

The company secured the site and necessary water rights for a plant that could either be coal-fired or nuclear. Tri-State would need a partner on a nuclear plant because of high construction costs. The staff was directed to pursue potential partners.

Right now, coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the company’s generation. Going nuclear could blunt some of the criticism about coal’s high carbon emissions, while likely opening up an entirely new battleground.

At Tri-State’s annual meeting at its headquarters in Westminster, board chairman Harold Thompson said the utility is dealing with rising energy costs and a tighter regulatory environment as it prepares for the future.

“We’re at a crossroads here, in more ways than one,” Thompson said.

Environmentalists and some of Tri-State’s member electric co-operatives have questioned its proposal to build two new coal-fired units, at a cost of $3.6 billion, at an existing power plant in Kansas. The concerns come in the face of the nation’s booming green movement and prospects of a carbon tax.

Colorado regulators have zeroed in on the utility since the proposed 1,400-megawatt expansion — in partnership with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, Kan. — was shelved because of an air permit denial in October. That ruling by the state of Kansas came over concerns about carbon dioxide emissions. Tri-State and Sunflower have appealed.

Unlike Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest utility, Tri-State is not rate-regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Tri-State sells power to rural electric cooperatives.

The PUC oversees only Tri-State’s construction of new plants or transmission lines in the state. But at the request of PUC chairman Ron Binz, Tri-State has agreed to a public hearing, expected to occur within the next two months, to discuss how the company plans to meet consumer electric needs going forward.

“Part of the logic behind us exploring their resource plan with them is we want to be fully equipped when and if they come before us with a proposal to build a power plant or a transmission line,” Binz said.

Incoming GM to be on hot seat

Tri-State’s backup plan for the Kansas plant is the Prowers County project, dubbed the Colorado Power Project. The company said it secured water rights in 2007 and plans to eventually construct a plant at the site even if the Kansas clean-coal project gains approval.

Tri-State’s incoming general manager Ken Anderson, currently a senior vice president, will be on the hot seat once he takes over in July. He said he is committed to coal because of its relatively low cost, but is open to other sources of power.

“We own coal, we have faith in coal, we know about its reliability,” he said. “It’s still the proper resource decision for the nature of resources that we need.”

The company said it has to continue to rely on coal because its rural customers require a constant load and renewables aren’t suitable for base-load generation and natural gas prices are too volatile.

Tri-State sells wholesale power to 44 member rural utilities in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming. Its members serve 1.4 million people, with 62 percent in Colorado.

Tri-State doesn’t answer to shareholders or financial regulators. It is owned by its member cooperatives, which, in turn, are owned by their customers. Each cooperative has a seat on Tri-State’s board.

The wholesale power provider’s detractors have decried its reliance on coal.

“There’s been a lot of concern that these big coal investments are going to turn out to be much more expensive than Tri-State has been saying,” said Ned Farquhar, an official with environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council. “Coal-plant costs have been going up almost geometrically around the world.”

Forty-two of Tri-State’s members are locked into contracts to buy power from the utility through 2050, and two have contracts through 2040.

The long-term deals restrict members from pursuing alternative power, although Tri-State amended the contracts last year to allow members to buy up to 5 percent of their power from renewable sources.

Wes Perrin, a board member at Tri-State customer San Miguel Power Association, which serves the Telluride area, said the utility should put more efforts into energy- efficiency programs to cut down on usage.

“I don’t think they share the concerns that the rest of us do about the harmful effects of carbon, although they understand it,” Perrin said.

Several initiatives undertaken

J.M. Shafer, Tri-State’s outgoing general manager, noted several initiatives that the utility is undertaking on the renewable front. Among them:

• Considering bids this year for up to 100 megawatts of renewable power. The company received 46 proposals, and a decision will probably come in the third quarter.

• Partnering in a proposed concentrating solar power project in New Mexico.

• Joining the National Renewable Cooperative Organization as a founding member to focus on the development and deployment of renewable energy by electric cooperatives.

Tri-State is required by Colorado law to boost its renewable generation to 10 percent by 2020.

Shafer, 64, and Anderson, 48, said the main factor the company considers when deciding on a new generation source is cost. Despite criticism to the contrary, Shafer said Tri-State factors in the possibility of a carbon tax into its cost projections.

Asked for specifics, the company was vague, stating that it uses a carbon tax estimate of anywhere from $5 to $50 per ton, and beyond.

“If it ever reaches a point where coal becomes more expensive than some other resource, that will be our recommendation,” said Shafer.

Nuclear could be a possibility

That’s where nuclear could be a possibility because maintenance and fuel costs have dropped an estimated 30 percent since 1995. Also, nuclear plants emit little, if any, greenhouse gas.

But nuclear plants are expensive to build, far exceeding the construction costs of traditional coal and natural-gas-fired plants. The price tag on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant is estimated at roughly $2 billion. And it could take a decade or more to go through the necessary permitting process and complete construction.

Concerns also exist over the proper storage of nuclear waste and the safety hazards of using radioactive materials to generate power. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s power, but no new nuclear plant has come online in the U.S. in more than a decade.

Colorado’s only nuclear plant, Fort St. Vrain in Weld County, shut down in the 1990s because of operational problems.

Told of Tri-State’s plan to consider nuclear power, Perrin, an energy consultant, said he was “conflicted.”

“I see the benefits of it, and I see the dangers of it,” he said.

He said a nuclear plant faces a stiff uphill battle, but added, “We know that carbon is our biggest problem right now, and it wins that race.”

Andy Vuong: 303-954-1209 oravuong@denverpost.com

Read more:Talk runs hot ‘n’ coal – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_8818169#ixzz0yUGpleba

By Scott Rothschild of The Lawrence Journal World

Is coal-fired production of electricity on the rise or is it flaming out?

A recent report by The Associated Press described a nationwide wave of coal-burning power plant construction.

And that fits in with the plan by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build an 895-megawatt unit in southwestern Kansas.

“Coal isn’t on the wane,” Earl Watkins, president and chief executive officer of Sunflower Electric, said this month after a public hearing in Garden City on the proposed plant.

Environmentalists, however, say the premise of the AP report is inaccurate.

“The coal plants that are being built today were permitted years ago when the outlook for coal was much more favorable than current conditions,” said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.

“Building a new coal plant today could be equated to making an investment in rotary dial landline telephones. Coal is yesterday’s fuel source,” Cole said.

Sunflower Electric is seeking a permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for the project. Most of the electricity will be owned by Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association for sale to out-of-state customers.

“There are some 16 coal plants in various stages of construction right now,” Watkins said. “There are another eight to 10 that have just recently been permitted by other utilities across the country.

“Coal projects that are built for speculation are dropping off the table because no one wants to make that type of an investment without knowing they have a need,” Watkins said. “But all of the participants of this project are going to be displacing lost resources, like us, or displacing higher cost market prices, so they have got a revenue stream there.”

Coal-burning has been under fire for producing climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions. President Barack Obama’s administration has proposed regulating CO2. But the AP recently reported that the nation is seeing the largest increase in coal-fired plants in two decades.

More than 30 coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction at a cost of $35 billion, AP reported. Once on line, the plants will produce enough electricity to power 15.6 million homes, the equivalent to all the homes in California and Arizona, the report said.

In addition, the plants will generate 125 million tons of greenhouse gases each year, the equivalent of putting 22 million more automobiles on the road.

But Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy in Kansas, has a different view of the coal landscape, both nationally and in Kansas.

The number of plants recently built and being built now represent just a fraction of the 151 total plants that the federal government had forecast several years ago. Allegrucci says that shows “coal as an electricity fuel is on the wane.”

And while most of the coal plants have been canceled or put on hold, renewable energy sources have been developed at a record pace.

“So, since November 2008, not a single new coal plant has broken ground for construction, but record amounts of wind, solar, and other renewables are coming online,” Allegrucci said.

And he notes that in the Kansas proposal, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, which will buy most of the power from the proposed Kansas plant, hasn’t made a concrete commitment to the project, describing the plant as an option in Tri-State’s long range plans.

Another factor not mentioned in reports of coal’s rise is that some coal plants are being mothballed, said the Sierra Club’s Cole.

“Today we’re seeing more utilities announce retirement plans for existing coal plants than we are seeing utilities announcing plans to build new coal plants,” Cole said.

From Kansas Public Radio

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is once again on the hot seat as Sunflower Electric Power Corporation seeks a permit for construction of a coal-fired power plant near the southwest Kansas town of Holcomb. The proposal, in one form or another, has been stirring up debate since 2006. Despite a radical scale-back of plans, the issue still seems to pit environmental concerns against economic growth. Health Reporter Bryan Thompson has more as part of our series, “Kansas Health: A Prescription for Change”.

Click here to listen to the full report.

The following was written by Jeff Jacobsen for his blog, Here I Stand

I can’t tell you how many times I have watched coal trains lumber across the Kansas Plains stretched out for miles like a monstrous strand of black licorice.  I’ve sat in my car or rested on my bike watching and waiting for them to pass, but, sadly, not thinking.  The time has come to do that.  Without much thought I have watched those trains and never really pondered from where that coal comes and how much damage that coal is doing to the air and water of our wondrous state.  Let’s clear the air.

All Kansans should be thinking very hard about the future of our state and coal’s role in it.  A permit for the construction of an 895 mega-watt coal plant near Holcomb in western Kansas is being considered.  A public comment phase runs through August 15.  Public hearings began Monday, August 2 in Overland Park.  Others hearings will be held in Salina on August 4 and Garden City on August 5.   The plant would be owned and operated by Sunflower Electric, but Tri-State Generation and Transmission in Colorado will have already claimed 85% of the energy for Colorado.  They have craftily done this by directing roughly $52 million to Sunflower Electric to carry on the fight for a permit.  The power would not be a revenue-generating export for Kansas and would have little effect on our bottom line.

If the Holcomb plant receives its permit, begins construction in 2016, as hoped, and goes on-line some years later, 3.4 million tons of coal would be burned every year.  That would require over 30,000 train cars annually, or one full train every day.  That is simply too much.  Estimates are that our country’s coal reserves could be in serious decline in as little as 20 years.

Coal for the plant in Holcomb would come from Wyoming.  According to the National Conference of State Legislators, Wyoming generated 803.6 million in severance revenue from the sale of coal.  By pursuing use of Kansas’ abundant natural gas resources and advancing our use of wind energy, we can stop shipping our money west.  In the process of putting more Kansans to work, we also can strengthen our economy and create better schools, libraries and overall public funding in areas we Kansans all need.

According to information from the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2, 700 MW of installed wind capacity at 44% capacity factor would create $7.2 million a year in direct payment to landowners, $7.8 million a year in PILOT revenue, 4,300 new jobs during construction with $508 million a year directly to local economies and 700 new permanent operation jobs generating $57 million a year.  Combine those figures with the already extensive employment that comes with the use of our natural gas, Kansas would be in the enviable position of generating all the power Kansans need and reaping the financial benefits.  These plants and wind generators could be up and running far sooner than any coal plant.

All the money involved pales though compared to the impact a move to cleaner energy would have on our state’s well being.  Coal pollutes.  Coal plants deplete our water resources.  Both contribute to the need for growing concern over our environmental future.  We cannot afford to turn our backs any longer to the realities of global warming.  A report from the Physicians for Social Responsibility has stated that coal pollutants like carbon dioxide, mercury, particulate matter and nitrous oxide will cause damaging effects on respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems.  The Holcomb plant would use 6,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water each year.  A drive through western Kansas should make anyone aware of how precious water is to the farmers and ranchers of the area.

Remember the hearings currently underway deal with the need for an air quality permit.  All the evidence given on both sides dealing with economic factors is meaningless.  That is just the barter being used to overwhelm our thought process.  Clean air is at issue right now.  There are cheaper, safer and more state beneficial options that would have immediate impacts.  None would be greater than the fact we would be assuring cleaner air for Kansans for decades to come.

In fairness, my daughter Kelly is at the forefront of this fight for clean energy with her work for the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE.)  Thanks to her and others, we Kansans are becoming more and more aware of the impact a coal plant would have on our state.  Meanwhile, we continue to drag our feet over embracing cleaner and safer alternatives.  I know I’ll never again sit in my car or rest on my bike as a coal train lumbers past and not think of the impact that black matter has had on us all.

We are already deeply reliant on coal in eastern Kansas.  Sadly, those trains will keep coming.  Let’s just make sure they don’t make a stop in western Kansas.  Maybe someday they’ll just keep right on rolling through Kansas to other states not as farsighted as we can be here in Kansas.  Now that would really be a great way to clear the air.

For further information, please go to the GPACE website here.

NEWS RELEASE

CONTACT:

Michael Grimaldi or John Martellaro

Trozzolo Communications Group

816-842-8111 or mgrimaldi@trozzolo.com or jmartellaro@trozzolo.com

GPACE Lauds Added Coal Plant Comment Period

KDHE does right thing to accommodate utility’s need to fix data

TOPEKA, Kan. – Scott Allegrucci, executive director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (www.gpace.org), issued the following statement today in response to the decision of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to schedule a second comment period on Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s draft air quality permit to construct a new 895-megawatt coal-burning power plant in Holcomb, Kan.:

“While it would have been preferable that Sunflower Electric Power Corp. had submitted accurately adjusted air dispersion data at the outset and thus necessitated only one comment period, the KDHE’s decision to allow additional public comment is good news for Kansas and all Kansans.

“Correctly adjusted air dispersion data is critical to a complete technical review of the project’s impact. We are grateful that KDHE will allow comments on the entire draft permit after Sunflower Electric submits revised data, since changes to one part of this complex information will impact many other aspects of air quality.

“GPACE recognizes the critical and essential role of electricity generation as a significant component of economic development and job creation in the state. What’s right for Kansas is that any major utility investment should support the state’s economy, use natural resources wisely and protect the health of citizens.

“We’re grateful that regulatory processes are in place to ensure that these objectives are met. GPACE pledges to support the work of elected officials, industry and regulators so that public policy decisions are made in the best interest of all citizens, our state and our nation.”

# # #

Note to editors:

For an informative timeline illustrating the history of the proposed Holcomb Station expansion project, visit http://rethinkrepowerks.com/

To see the KDHE’s news release about the additional comment period, visit http://www.kdheks.gov/news/web_archives/2010/07302010a.htm

From the Natural Resource Defense Council

Climate change will have a significant impact on the sustainability of water supplies in the coming decades. A new analysis, performed by consulting firm Tetra Tech for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), examined the effects of global warming on water supply and demand in the contiguous United States. The study found that more than 1,100 counties — one-third of all counties in the lower 48 — will face higher risks of water shortages by mid-century as the result of global warming. More than 400 of these counties will face extremely high risks of water shortages.

For Kansas specific information, click here.

By Jim Roth, special to The Kansas City Star

As a Prairie Village native and K-State alumnus, I have spent my life proud of my home state. Today, however, I have serious concerns for the citizens of Kansas and the future health of my family members who still live there.

In my public service as a utility regulator, I have learned a great deal about the intricacies of energy and electricity and the choices that exist for the future of both. Nothing is more risky today than coal. It is dirty and cannot affordably be cleaned up. Period.

Oklahoma rejected a risky coal plant and instead chose to rely on its own native blessings of wind and natural gas to power its future. Time has proven that to be the right decision, especially as gigantic and disastrous cost overruns are coming to light on the coal plant under construction in Illinois. Kansas ratepayers are facing the prospect of increased electric bills from cost overruns on Kansas City Power & Light Co.’s new coal plant in Iatan, Mo.

Meanwhile, native fuel sources of wind and natural gas native to Kansas can spur economic growth and forever provide cleaner electricity.

Wind power emits zero air pollution. It is rural Kansas’ greatest hope for an economic shot in the arm, and it is truly sustainable.

Natural gas is America’s cleanest reliable power source. It is abundant in Kansas and affordably keeps the lights on 24 hours a day across our country. Remember, Kansas exports natural gas to other states.

Yet, Kansas is now debating building a new coal plant in Holcomb, using Wyoming coal for the sake of Colorado utility customers. They can’t build the plant in Colorado, so they want to build it in Kansas.

Colorado will get the power, but the problems will remain with Kansas: Risky capital debt for the 60-year life of the plant, depletion of Kansas’ finite ground water, and massive amounts of dirty air and pollution across Kansas’ skies for the next three or more generations.

A new, massive coal plant in Holcomb makes no sense for a state that prides itself on common sense. Why would Kansas pollute our future, stall our own local, native energy economy and ship Kansas citizens’ money out-of-state for this dirty coal plant?

Because of the pollution expected from this proposed plant, Holcomb’s parent company, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., must obtain an air permit from regulators. That process is underway now and allows parents and grandparents a chance to stand and have their voices heard.

The public hearings begin at 2 p.m. Aug. 2 at Blue Valley Northwest High School in Overland Park. They continue Aug. 4 at the Highway Patrol Training Center in Salina, and Aug. 5 at Garden City Community College.

It’s time that clean air advocates speak out. It’s time for parents who want local Kansas’ energy jobs to exist for their children to speak out.

It’s time that Kansans stand up for Kansas, and I hope you will.

Jim Roth, an attorney and former member of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, resides in Oklahoma City.

Please join The Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy and The Resilience Group for an evening of discussion on the energy future of our state and country.

Dr. Nate Hagens, former editor of The Oil Drum, will lead a discussion on global energy supplies and their implications on our future. Following his presentation, staff from GPACE and the Kansas Sierra Club will provide information on how to effectively submit public comment to KDHE on the proposed Holcomb coal plant. For more information, please see this flyer put together by The Resilience Group.

Tuesday, July 27 at 7:00 PM

Kansas Wesleyan University

Peters Science Hall, Room 201

100 East Claflin Avenue

Salina, Kansas

Refreshments will be provided.

This is no cost to attend this event.

Please RSVP to info@gpace.org