Grassroots group calls for BPU changes on disconnections, other issues

by Mary Rupert

Community activist Louise Lynch told an audience at the Kansas City, Kansas, South Branch Library on Wednesday night that people are being disenfranchised out of their homes, having water and electricity turned off for nonpayment of their BPU bills.

“That is no longer acceptable for any human beings in Wyandotte County,” Lynch said.

A grassroots community group with links to Sierra Club activist Ty Gorman called for action right away on changing Board of Public Utilities bills, stopping disconnections and implementing a number of environmental goals.

“We can’t wait to examine the charter a year down the line,” Lynch said. “The cold is here today. This is a critical issue.”

Lynch told the story of her family facing major medical issues and relying on life-saving electric equipment to keep her husband alive. Although she had told the BPU that her husband relied on life-saving electric equipment, Lynch revealed that their water had nevertheless been shut off twice this past summer. The life-saving equipment program has no protection from water disconnection, she said.

After being frustrated with responses from the BPU and Unified Government, Lynch held an outdoors meeting in her yard 18 months ago. She said she attended BPU and UG meetings, but nothing happened, except a study of the charter.

A number of community residents spoke at the meeting Wednesday night, sometimes referring to themselves as “victims” and “hurting.”

“We’re being fleeced,” one of them said. BPU general manager Bill Johnson’s recent salary increase was another frequent topic, with Lynch saying at $475,000 he makes more than the president of the United States.

The BPU bill has become a collection service for the UG, residents said. A number of Unified Government bills have been placed on the BPU bill, including such items as trash service, the payment to the UG in lieu of taxes (PILOT fee) and storm water management. The stormwater fee went from $4.50 in 2019 to $14 recently.

Residents called for the BPU and UG to split the bills, sending out UG bills separately, so that residents could more easily make their water and power payments to keep their utilities on.

Another resident told the audience that her daughter’s account had a $300 credit because her ex had paid too much. She was told she didn’t have to pay the current bill, but when she came home, her lights had been disconnected. She had to pay $600 before it could be turned back on, she said. The resident said she’d like to see the BPU use its budget to compensate people from the community to work to educate residents while listening to the residents educate them on what’s not working well.

Another resident’s proposed solution was to file a class action lawsuit. He recounted he had paid $237 on a bill and had 56 cents left to go, and was told to get there and pay it or face a late payment fee.

“It’s just terrible the way we’re being mistreated as humans in this community,” he said.

The T-Bones baseball stadium, a hot issue a couple years ago, was brought up again. Let the residents miss $1 in payment, and they will be disconnected, a resident said. But the T-Bones stadium was able to keep lights on while owing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Candie Leonard Caldwell said, “I know we’re being fleeced.” She recommended reporting it to the Kansas Corporation Commission and taking it to the federal government because nothing has been resolved on the local level. However, the KCC does not oversee public municipal utilities under state law.

Sierra Club: Close the Nearman coal plant


Sierra Club activist Gorman agreed with taking it to the federal government. His proposed solutions included getting billions of dollars available nationally through the Inflation Reduction Act and other federal sources.

A lot of funding could be attached to getting rid of the Nearman coal plant, according to Gorman, and replacing it with clean energy. BPU officials recently outlined at meetings that they are now very diverse in sources of energy. The Nearman plant, however, was put into action during the February 2021 winter storm and it can act as a backup for the utility.

Gorman said the coal plant near 67th and the Missouri River produces pollution in the water and air, raises levels of disease, causes a few deaths per year and is linked to hundreds of cases of asthma, especially in children. It’s not supposed to be in population centers, he said.

Gorman said with the federal government contributing funds to pay more than half the cost of closing, it could drop electric bills.

He also supported getting rid of UG fees on the BPU bill, calling them regressive. Gorman also said grants are available through the federal government to remodel older homes to make them more energy efficient.

“We have to be part of the planning process and apply for that money,” Gorman said about the various federal programs.

Lynch advocated for the BPU to directly return money to the consumers. She did not support the idea of giving BPU assistance funds to the United Way to be distributed to needy consumers, but instead thought any funds should go directly from the BPU to the consumer.

Lynch gave out information, collected names and plans a campaign for residents to contact BPU and UG commissioners. Not waiting another year, she said, “We need to make change happen.”

Lynch urged people to attend a special BPU budget meeting at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, Dec. 5, an all-day meeting, at the BPU administration building, 540 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, Kansas. The meeting includes budget reviews. The BPU’s final budget will be presented at its Dec. 14 board meeting.

Rose Mulvany Henry, BPU board vice president, attended the meeting virtually and said she appreciated people sharing their views.

“Everything you say resonates with me,” she said.

Lynch said BPU board member Tom Groneman had been the most help to her when her power and water were cut off.

Also attending the community meeting remotely were UG Commissioners Melissa Bynum and Tom Burroughs. Mayor Tyrone Garner sent a representative.

BPU member David Haley, who had campaigned on some of the issues about disconnection, was at a long-standing committee meeting out of state, and sent a note about the issues:


“Suffice it to say, my long-standing belief and advocacies have been centered around policy inequities and excessive costs at the BPU,” Haley wrote.

“With less than a year serving now on our six member elected board, I believe those mutually held assumptions about BPU have been reflected by my “new” service, including : a) greater access to meetings/proceedings through live audio-visual (“televised”) means and more publicly navigable website (bpu.com) ; b) some “cold-weather” rule changes ; c) held the line on any staff pay increases (while recognizing the board itself is drastically imbalanced and underpaid) ; d) called for the board to pass a resolution enacting TWO monthly bills collectible through BPU, one for actual consumption of the ratepayer of electricity and water and the second for UG taxes (e.g. water sewage, PILOT, trash collection, etc.) ; e) reopening a public human-person interactive customer service center at the utility’s main facility … to name but a few.

“There’s so very much left to do to cure these and other partial ills of what should be our County’s proudest asset; our ability to independently manufacture and provide power and water,” Haley wrote.

5 big questions about the new Biden plan for offshore oil and gas leases

by Jacob Fischler, Kansas Reflector

Just before the July 4 holiday, the federal agency that manages offshore energy development proposed a five-year plan for as many as 11 and as few as zero new oil and gas sites in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska’s coast.

The proposal would clear the way for up to 10 new oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf and one in federal waters of Cook Inlet — a significant decrease from the 47 lease sales proposed under a 2018 Trump administration draft plan.

But it’s still not enough of a reduction to satisfy climate hawks who say that no amount of new oil and gas development is safe.

Here are five major questions about the proposal:

What does the plan actually do?

The proposal, put out by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, is an intermediate step between a draft and a final program.

In a July 1 release, Interior said the new proposal was narrowed to include only sites in the Gulf and Cook Inlet because there is existing production and infrastructure there. The proposal matches the Obama administration’s five-year plan, which ran from 2017 to 2022 and also approved 10 sites in the Gulf and one off of Alaska’s coast.

The 11 sites in the proposal would be the maximum allowed in a final plan. Interior could remove any in its final program proposal, expected later this year.

After Interior Secretary Deb Haaland approves a final plan, BOEM would hold up to two auctions each year through 2028 for the Gulf sites. Rights to the Alaska site would be auctioned in 2026. Interior could also choose not to conduct sales of sites approved in the final plan.

Will this make gas cheaper right away?

No.

The leases — if they’re approved — won’t be auctioned for months. Once they are, it will take about five years for operations to begin in the shallowest areas and even longer for whatever oil is retrieved there to reach the market.

In some cases, it would take more than a decade before oil companies could begin production on a new lease, according to the draft proposal.

The long lead time means new leases would have virtually no immediate impact on prices at the pump, Stephen Miller, a professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Center for Business and Economic Research, said in an email.

The proposal to grant new leases “will not exert any significant effect on current gas prices as the time lags involved before such leases could yield tangible products are measured in multiple years,” Miller wrote.

Sara Teel, an economist with the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, said Cook Inlet development in particular would have little impact on gasoline prices, as the site mainly produces natural gas.

Also, the proposed plan tentatively scheduled the Cook Inlet auction for 2026, when market conditions could be quite different, Teel said.

Still, proponents of increased drilling have used current high oil and gas prices as a rationale for expanding development.

U.S. House Natural Resources Committee ranking Republican Bruce Westerman of Arkansas implied the timing of the plan’s announcement — 5 p.m. the day before a holiday weekend — was meant to keep attention away.

“Well, Americans noticed,” he said in a statement. “How couldn’t we, when we’re paying more and more each time we fill up our cars with gas? DOI’s statement that the final plan may contain zero lease sales is deeply concerning and would be unprecedented. This administration continues demolishing access to American resources, and we are paying the price at the pump, at the grocery store, and in our family budgets.”

What does this mean for climate change?

It depends, and opinions vary.

The scientific consensus calls for phasing out fossil fuels as soon as possible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said keeping global warming to a 1.5 degrees Celsius rise — the benchmark estimated to be needed to prevent the worst potential climate change impacts — would require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050.
President Joe Biden has set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions, meaning the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced is no more than the amount removed from the atmosphere, by 2050, and a 50% reduction from 2005 levels by the end of this decade.

Issuing new lease sales, which would mean likely oil and gas development well into the 2030s, would threaten those goals, environmental advocates say.

“It would mean a continuing of the status quo, which is already a disaster for people in the Gulf South,” said Kendall Dix, the national policy director for the environmental group Gulf Coast Center for Law and Policy. “We’re already seeing impacts of the climate crisis.”

The proposed plan acknowledges that “to meet these targets, the U.S. will have to drastically change both the way it consumes and also supplies energy, whereby an increase in renewable energy production, electrification, energy efficiency, and reduced consumption assumes less reliance on oil and gas resources and reduced demand.”

But eliminating the supply of domestic offshore oil and gas may not be an effective way to meet those targets, the proposal says.

As long as energy demand remains the same, any reduction in offshore fossil fuel production would have to be filled by other sources of energy, likely fossil fuels, the proposal says.

Who’s happy about this?

Basically no one.

The range of options — from zero to 11 new leases in the next five years — frustrated advocates across the political spectrum.

Environmental advocates say any new oil and gas infrastructure would be giving up on Biden’s campaign pledge to aggressively pursue climate solutions.

“The Biden administration had an opportunity to meet the moment on climate and end new offshore oil leasing in Interior’s five-year program,” Drew Caputo, the vice president of litigation at the environmental group Earthjustice, said in a statement. “Instead, its proposal to serve up a bunch of new offshore oil lease sales is a failure of climate leadership and a breach of their climate promises.”

Even in Biden’s own party, congressional leaders on energy policy were split about whether the proposal allowed too much or too little development.

“Holding any new offshore oil and gas lease sales over the next five years is a lose-lose for Americans,” U.S. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, said in a statement.

“It will do nothing to help lower prices at the pump, and it will make our emissions goals virtually impossible to achieve … Adding any new lease sales to that equation while the climate crisis is unfolding all around us is nonsensical.”

“I am disappointed to see that ‘zero’ lease sales is even an option on the table,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, said.

“I hope the Administration will ultimately greenlight a plan that will expand domestic energy production, done in the cleanest way possible, while also taking the necessary steps to get our offshore leasing program back on track to give the necessary market signals to provide price relief for every American.”

The American Petroleum Institute, the trade group representing U.S. oil and gas producers, also said in a statement that it opposed a no new lease sales policy.

So why did the Biden administration do this?

Five-year plans for offshore leasing are required by law and the previous plan, approved under President Barack Obama in 2016, expired June 30. Without a plan, the agency cannot issue new leases.

Republicans in Congress hammered the administration for not having a five-year plan ready by the time the Obama-era one expired.

U.S. Rep. Garret Graves, the ranking member on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, said it was the first time the offshore leasing program had a lapse.

“It should have never happened — the Department of Interior literally had years to plan for it and still have additional steps to go,” the Louisiana Republican said. “Their self-imposed delays are contributing to higher prices, less certainty and more dependence on Iran, Venezuela and others.”

Biden has made no secret of his ambition to slow oil and gas production in federal waters and on federal lands. After campaigning on addressing the climate crisis, one of his first acts as president was to pause offshore and onshore oil and gas leasing.

But a federal judge ruled last year that the administration had to restart leases, saying federal law required periodic lease sales and only Congress could change that law. The administration announced it was restarting lease sales two months after that decision.

It’s unclear whether the ruling had any impact on this month’s proposed plan.

The presence of a no leases option in the proposal, though, indicates Interior does believe it has the authority to not hold new lease sales, Dix said.

An Interior spokesperson declined to answer questions about to what extent last year’s ruling influenced the proposal.

Kansas Reflector stories, www.kansasreflector.com, may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
See more at https://kansasreflector.com/2022/07/10/5-big-questions-about-the-new-biden-plan-for-offshore-oil-and-gas-leases/

‘This is punitive’: Kansas Senate committee considers poison pill wind energy bills

Senators heard three hours of testimony from anti-wind sources and just one hour from proponents of renewable energy

by Allison Kite, Kansas Reflector

A series of bills professing to protect rural residents from industrial wind claim to bring transparency, limit abuse and enact safety measures to protect against the supposed health hazards of turbines.

In reality, they would transform Kansas, one of the top producers of wind energy for two decades, into one of the most restrictive states in the nation, pro-wind experts say.

“This is punitive. This is not progressive,” said Kimberly Gencur Svaty, public policy director for the Kansas Advanced Power Alliance. “This is not laying out a path of economic development or growth for the state of Kansas.”

Kansas has embraced renewable development for years. The expansion of wind energy in Kansas has been embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike — and the state’s status as one of the top producers in the nation is celebrated.

But opposition to wind energy has found an ally in the Johnson County Republican leading the Senate Utilities Committee. The struggle between burgeoning resentment of industrial wind projects and the state’s two-decade history as the “Saudi Arabia of wind” received attention all last week in Sen. Mike Thompson’s committee.

“He’s been very clear he is very, very opposed and would like to end renewable energy, and so he brings these wolves-in-sheep-clothing bills to say, ‘Oh, these are just meant to do reasonable things,’ when quite clearly they’re not,” said Alan Claus Anderson, vice president of the energy group at Polsinelli law firm.

Thompson, in just his third session as a state senator, has established a reputation as a frequent critic of wind energy and touts dubious science about the health effects of wind. His committee is sponsoring half a dozen bills, most of them introduced at his request, enacting what the industry claims are poison pill restrictions on wind farms. Thompson didn’t respond to a request to comment for this story.

Last week, his committee heard for two days from anti-wind sources who claimed proximity to wind turbines could cause cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance and headaches. They cited anecdotes and disputed research showing no evidence of significant health harms from wind turbines. There is evidence wind farms can cause annoyance, but those sensations are often worse for people who are opposed to wind energy as an underlying cause for their frustration.

“I thought and assumed that wind turbines were quiet, good for the world, and I assumed they were safe,” said Ben Washburn, a retired cardiologist from Iowa who presented for an hour to the committee. “The last few years I’ve witnessed the good, the bad, the ugly of wind turbines. The topic is massive, emotions are high, and distortion and corruption is in play.”

Washburn said to people who believe renewables are the only path forward, “I would ask you to carefully reconsider.”

And while Washburn and fellow wind critics’ testimony was supposed to be purely informational, one of them repeatedly voiced his support for Thompson’s bill requiring wind turbines to be sited at least a mile or 10 times the height of the turbine from the next property line.

After two days of hour-long presentations outlining supposed risks of wind energy, supporters of Thompson’s anti-wind bill got a third day in committee to speak directly about the legislation for five minutes each.

Only on Thursday did pro-wind forces and experts get to speak on Thompson’s bill — also for five minutes each. An expert with his PhD in environmental health and a career studying the health effects of wind got his credentials questioned. And Thompson cut off another senator voicing his opposition to the legislation.

“If we move forward with this bill — we are now a net exporter of energy — we will no longer be an exporter of energy,” said Sen. Robert Olson, an Olathe Republican. “We’ll be an importer of energy. And —”
Thompson cut him off. “Are you testifying or are you asking a question? We need to make —”

“I’m making a comment here, which I have a right, I believe,” Olson said.

Thompson said he would limit Olson’s time to comment, and Olson voiced his frustration with the dayslong anti-wind testimony.

“You know, we had people all week say what they want for an hour, and I sat in here for a long time,” Olson said.

Thompson said, “This is my committee, and I’m saying get a question in.”

Gencur Svaty encouraged the committee following her testimony to ask questions so that pro-wind advocates would get more time to speak, noting the previous days of testimony. Thompson responded that anti-wind groups testifying on his bill the day before were also limited to five minutes.

Anderson said the informational hearings held by Thompson’s committee were not meant to compile information in good faith.

“I struggle to say informational because they were obviously not intended to give good information,” Anderson said. “The people who presented are on the fringe of the fringe.”

Health effects of wind

Opponents of wind energy have made numerous claims regarding the potential health consequences of living near a turbine.

They say the whooshing sound can cause stress, and infrasound — sound waves too low for people to hear — can harm the body.

Washburn cited a 1970 paper on pollution that called noise a “scourge of the modern world” and said ambient noise could cause atherosclerotic disease, or plaque buildup in the arteries, and death.

He took issue with wind turbines, too, not based on health but because wind is an intermittent energy resource that he called unreliable. He said moving to renewable energy only is “absurd.” And he recalled a public meeting in Iowa where he claimed a wind developer’s representative was hesitant to say wind was safe.

Research has shown a link between wind turbines and feelings of annoyance but that there is not sufficient information to link wind turbines to disease.

The University of Iowa’s College of Public Health, Iowa Policy Project and the Iowa Environmental Council reviewed several pieces of research and found the consensus was there was little scientific evidence to support the idea that wind energy poses a threat to human health.

Another literature review published by researchers in Switzerland found in 67 peer-reviewed and web articles published between 2012 and 2017 that annoyance was the only symptom of wind turbine exposure that was backed up by science.

The article acknowledged people who live near wind turbines might experience anxiety or distress, which is highly dependent on their attitudes toward wind energy.

And the article notes there are known negative effects from the use of fossil fuels to create electricity. That includes climate change, but also asthma for individuals living near coal-fired power plants.

“If you just want to have no wind turbines ever, well, then we’re going to have more coal-fired power plants and more disease,” said David Osterberg, lead researcher for the Iowa Policy Project and professor emeritus at the University of Iowa College of Public Health’s Department of Occupational and Environmental Health.

Osterberg said in an interview he doesn’t doubt people who live near turbines experience symptoms, but that it doesn’t come from sound. It could be a result of annoyance or stress from a large project they don’t want moving in near their home.

“But that is not a health effect that we can fix by moving the turbines back half a mile … so what they’re asking for does not take care of their symptoms,” Osterberg said. “They’re still going to be mad.”

Christopher Ollson, an environmental health scientist with Ollson Environmental Health Management, acknowledged a link between environmental noise and health concerns. But he told senators on the committee 20 years of research has shown noise from wind turbines isn’t loud enough to create those concerns.

“There is considerable research over the last 20 years that has studied this topic,” Ollson said. “The … provisions in this bill are far more excessive than any other state in this country, any of the local ordinances that have worked for more than 20 years.”

Fight over wind

Rural residents who have opposed wind projects moving into — or proposed — in their communities pleaded with the Utilities Committee on Wednesday to enact Thompson’s restrictions.

Aside from the one-mile setback, the bill would limit the decibel noise of the projects to levels the industry says are impossible and prohibit any shadow flicker on non-participating landowners’ property. Wind proponents say the way the bill is written would allow existing wind farms to be shut down over shadow flicker, something Anderson called “reckless” and said would threaten reliability of the power grid.

Several of Thompson’s bills have sought to shift power in siting wind farms to landowners who aren’t participating in the project and have voiced complaints about turbines moving in.

Proponents of wind energy often say landowners who want turbines on their property have a right to participate in the project without interference from their neighbors — while opponents say they have a right to enjoy their property free from what they see as the nuisance of wind turbines.

Gayla Randel, of Marshall County, told senators pro-wind forces would likely say they couldn’t enact Thompson’s restrictions because it would kill development.

“But what I want you to think about is, are they actually saying they can’t do their work unless they infringe on the property rights of nonparticipants,” Randel said. “Because that’s what it sounds like to me.”

Other supporters of Thompson’s bill said wind companies “steamroll” rural neighbors when they come into town.

“Unless you have a board of county commissioners who are actually savvy to wind projects, counties are sitting ducks,” said former Marion County Commissioner Dianne Novak. “We are at the mercy of these companies.”

Kansas Reflector stories, www.kansasreflector.com, may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
See more at https://kansasreflector.com/2022/02/13/this-is-punitive-kansas-senate-committee-considers-poison-pill-wind-energy-bills/