My name is Maril Hazlett, and I represent CEP. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Commission on the proposed RES regulations. We also appreciate the work of the KCC staff in facilitating an open, transparent stakeholder process on the topic. CEP participated in that process for both the RES and net metering. We also testified on this bill before the legislature.

CEP generally commends the KCC staff on these proposed regulations. We have only a few comments. For the most part the regulations appear to fully execute the statutory requirements and implement the law as it was intended. They provide the critical policy follow-through needed to help Kansas participate in economic development from renewables.

The main problem with these regulations cannot in fact be addressed through the regulations process – the problem is that the Kansas has a capacity-based, rather than generation-based, RES. A capacity-based RES puts Kansas out of step with state and national trends, and creates obstacles for our full participation in renewables markets, including Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).

Changing this definition would take an amendment from the legislature. However, for the following reasons, CEP submits that that option is worth considering:

• 37 states now have Renewable or Alternative Energy Standards. CEP could only identify one other state that has a capacity-based standard – Texas. Texas is dealing with meeting a mammoth goal of installing 10,000 MW by 2025, which is not the situation we face in Kansas.
• All other states have generation- or load-based Renewable Energy Standards.  The federal RES that passed out of a Senate Committee last year was also generation-based. That legislation now awaits inclusion in a national energy bill, which could well be passed in the wake of the BP oil catastrophe.
• The significance: Having a capacity-based RES is the equivalent of having a different currency. It means that in Kansas, we figure the value of our renewable energy differently than almost anyone else. Making the conversions is burdensome, and ultimately that burden will limit our market participation.

Next, CEP would like to point out a few concerns under section 82-16-5 of the regulations, regarding the certification of renewable energy resources. On part (2) we note that the KCC requires only a “detailed description of the environmental impact of the resource, including its impact in air, water, and land use.”

First, the phrase “detailed description” is too vague. As such, it could be interpreted either too loosely or too strictly, depending on one’s perspective. We recommend substituting the phrase “environmental impact study,” which is a well-understood term in environmental regulation.

Second – with all due respect to the KCC, it is CEP’s understanding that no one on the KCC staff has the environmental regulation capacity to evaluate a resource’s impact on air, water, and land use. We recommend that regulations outline how the KCC will instead work with the relevant state agencies to make this portion of the assessment.

Last, CEP would like to align ourselves with the comment submitted by IREC in regards to the need for statewide interconnection standards across the investor-owned utilities in order to fully execute the RES as it written. As noted in the net metering and interconnection hearings, we recommend that the KCC follow the example of the rural electric cooperatives, basing its interconnection standards after the relevant portions of the FERC Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP).

--- posted by Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org