►
Description
Meeting Start 00:00
Roll Call 00:09
SB 213 Discussion 01:03
SB 213 Roll Call Vote 04:40
SB 226 Discussion 05:37
SB 226 Roll Call Vote 15:07
SB 4 Discussion 16:28
Meeting End 55:37
B
Representative
Balman
representative
Blanton
representative
bowling
here,
representative
Bridges
representative
Burke,
here
representative
Chester,
Burton
representative
Dawson,
president
representative
Dodson,
representative
Flannery,
representative
Fugate,
here
representative
Gentry,
here,
representative
grossberg,
representative
Johnson,
here
representative
McCool,
representative
miles
representative
Smith,
yeah
representative
Williams,
here,
representative
Wesley,
here,
representative
White
and
chair
Gooch.
Here.
A
C
Good
morning,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
I
see
a
lot
of
familiar
faces
and
some
new
ones,
and
thank
you
all
for
allowing
us
to
be
here
this
morning
to
have
Rusty
krast
with
me
here
today
to
as
backup
for
any
technical
questions
you
might
have
about
Senate
bill.
213.
I
want
to
thank
Rusty
and
Tom
Fitzgerald
and
energy
and
environment
cabinet
for
for
their
work
and
and
collaboration
to
come
to
an
agreement
on
this
bill.
C
Senate
Bill
213
deals
with
biosolids
and
it's
a
particular
interest
of
many
cities
across
the
state
that
take
their
biosolids,
which
are
nutrient-rich
materials
that
result
from
the
treatment
of
domestic
sewer
and
Sewer
sludge
and
they're
very
productive
when
used
for
fertilizer,
and
it
helps
make
the
soil
more
productive
and
it's
an
efficient
way
to
to
use
these
products
and
this
and
to
get
rid.
If
there's
only
a
couple
ways
you
can
get
rid
of
these
bowel
solids,
you
can
incinerate
them,
which
is
very
expensive.
C
D
Tomorrow's
super
fund,
reliability
or
tomorrow's
nightmare
because
of
the
presence
in
the
sludge
of
industrial
chemicals
that
have
no
agronomic
value
but
may
end
up
contaminating
the
cropland.
We
will
be
working
during
the
interim
to
try
to
develop
the
regulations.
The
cabinet
has
committed
to
a
broad
stakeholder
process
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
the
cities
and
with
Farm,
Bureau
and
other
interested
parties.
To
assure
that,
we
try
to
hit
that
sweet
spot
of
Regulation
that
is
sufficient
without
being
onerous,
and
so
I
just
want
to.
Thank
you
all
for
hearing
the
bill.
D
A
F
F
And
I'm
kind
of,
like
my
friend
just
before
me,
I've
got
technical
people
sitting
on
either
side
with
better
legal
Minds
than
mine
in
this
field,
Mr,
chairman
and
gentlemen
and
Ladies
of
the
committee.
This
bill
has
two
perspectives
to
it.
One
is
time
framing
the
coal
industry
when
they're
applying
this
is
primarily
for
surface
mining.
E
A
Okay,
we
have
Motion
in
the
second
on
the
bill
if
but
I
would
like
for
him
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
this,
because
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
all
know
is
that
often
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
our
businesses
out
there
they're
willing
to
invest
in
Kentucky
and
create
jobs,
are
able
to
timely,
be
able
to
access
the
requirements
that
they
need
as
far
as
permits
and
those
sort
of
things
so
Senator.
If
you
don't
mind,
you
can
proceed
a
little
and.
F
F
That's
takes
care
of
that
there's
some
timelines
and
restraints
on
the
cabinet
in
that
the
second
problem,
or
not
the
problem.
The
second
issue
in
this
case
is
the
permitting
process
about
the
water,
the
fish
and
wildlife.
There's
a
federal
act
on
clean
water.
This
act
that
we're
doing
now
put
some
timelines
and
some
legalese
in
there
to
saying
that,
there's
a
presumption
that
the
water
you've
got
an
employer,
that's
mining
here
and
he's
just
going
to
move
over
to
the
next
spot.
F
He's
got
a
history
of
having
qualified
with
protecting
all
you
all
heard
the
little
dark
issue
that
we
have
and
through
the
protection
through
the
water,
it's
got
some
technical
language
in
it.
It
does
provide.
If
there's
a
dispute
between
the
two
that
there
can,
they
can
go
for
an
administrative
hearing
or
go
into
the
local
circuit
court.
F
So
it's
just
changing
the
process,
making
it
easier
because,
as
it
stands
now,
you
you
can
get
a
mind,
shut
down
and
lose
300
and
some
employees
just
because
of
this
timeline
stuff-
and
it's
been
a
big
problem
ongoing
and
we've
not
heard
anything
from
the
cabinet
that
they
need
more
funding
for
hiring
more
people
to
help
expedite
this.
So
it's
just
being
output
into
place
where
it
should
work
good
for
the
employer
state
of
Kentucky,
so
that
we
can
keep
the
mining
operation
going
to
people
being
able
to
work
and
provide
for
their
families.
A
H
F
H
F
E
D
D
If
section
one
of
this
bill
was
implemented,
it
will
interfere
with
the
cabinet's
ability
to
properly
apply
the
state
water
quality
standards
when
it's
writing
permits
for
discharges
into
water
bodies
that
have
federally
protected
species.
The
effect
of
the
bill
I'm
concerned
and
I
wanted
to
share
with
you.
It
will
be
the
exact
opposite
of
what
the
sponsor
intends,
which
I
understand
to
be
an
expectation
of
a
timely
decision
on
permit
applications
that
have
complete
and
sufficient
information.
D
Alternatively,
the
cabin
is
is
going
to
determine
that
it
can't
Implement
section
one,
because
there's
a
language
that
says
that
this
is
required
to
the
extent
consistent
with
the
Clean
Water
Act,
which
I
believe
it's
not,
and
what,
in
which
case,
we'll
end
up
with
another
case
like
Westlake
chemicals,
where,
a
couple
of
years
ago
we
passed
a
bill
that
couldn't
be
implemented.
We
came
back
this
session
and
you
all
passed
a
bill
which
is
now
in
the
Senate
to
try
to
fix
the
problem.
D
So
my
concern
is
the
bill
is
not
consistent
with
our
obligations
that
we
voluntarily
chose
to
take
on
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
will
result
in
unworkable
situation
and
will
not
further
the
protection
of
the
species.
That
is
now
it's
a
50-year
commitment
that
Congress
made
there
were
a
total
of
four
negative
votes
in
the
house
and
the
Senate
to
pass
the
Endangered
Species
Act
back
in
1973
and
which
is
a
remarkable
bipartisan
effort.
It
was
signed
into
law
about
a
Republican
president,
so
those
are
my
concerns.
D
Mr
chairman
I'm,
happy
to
go
into
any
details
on
the
problems
with
the
bill.
I
just
want
you
all
to
be
aware
that
if
the
goal
is
to
streamline
or
expedite
the
permitting
process,
this
will
have
exactly
the
opposite
effect,
because
it
asks
the
cabinet
to
do
things
that
they
cannot
do
under
our
delegated
authority.
Under
the
Clean
Water
Act
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
all
have.
A
F
A
provision
I'll
read
them
just
so
everybody
can
look
at
them
or
say
what
he's
talking
about
is
this
this
one
provision
says
presume
that
the
water
quality
will
be
maintained
and
protected
if
applicant
complies
with
technology-based
affluent
limitations.
That's
one
section:
the
other
section
is
a
protective
Obsession
says
in
determine
whether
lowering
the
water
quality.
They
will
give
substantial
weight
to
the
any
evidence
submitted
by
the
applicant
that
discharge
our
similar
operations
from
what
they've
done
before
most
of
the
time.
F
This
permitting
is
permitting
from
one
side
they
can
Bond
and
permit
one
section
they
just
jump
to
the
next
section
right
beside
of
it
and
they
have
a
history
of
complying
with
all
that
laws.
And
then
it
says
the
cabinet's
not
to
impose
any
more
conditions,
more
strings
and
required.
The
United
States
fish
and
wildlife
service,
which
is
appropriate
so
I
think
this
bill
is
self-protective
and
I,
like
my
good
friend
Tom,
but
I
disagree
with
him
in
this
because
I
wrote
this
thing
so
that
it
says
plainly
and
I
just
read
those
to
you.
F
A
I
J
J
A
A
A
A
L
Today,
we're
looking
at
for
discussion
only
Senate
bill,
4.
Mr
chairman.
It
doesn't
take
a
genius
to
realize
that
our
once
trustworthy
and
reliable
electrical
grid
is
headed
into
Uncharted
Territory.
That
will
undoubtedly
include
blackouts
voluntary,
shutdowns
and
and
a
general
loss
of
public
faith
in
our
power
grid.
Symbol.
4
is
all
about
protecting
our
nation's
power
grid.
This
bill
is
an
attempt
to
be
proactive
from
a
state
level
and
to
speak
up
for
our
constituents.
We
are
accustomed
to
Reliable,
affordable
electricity
and
our
constituents
fear
both
of
these
May
no
longer
be
available.
L
In
Kentucky,
the
nation's
largest
power
grid
operator
pjm
has
recently
warned
of
a
major
coming
shortfall
in
electric
generation
capacity.
Pjm
recently
published
new
analysis
that
showed
power,
plant
retirements,
outpacing,
new
power
additions
in
the
coming
years.
That
could
leave
its
service
area,
which
includes
most
of
Kentucky
short
of
thousands
of
megawatts
of
capacity
by
2030..
L
Utilities
are
under
increasing
pressure
from
the
Biden
Administration
and
investors
to
phase
out
fossil
fuel
resources,
especially
coal,
for
the
sake
of
mitigating
climate
change.
This
pressure
from
the
federal
government
includes
very
attractive
Financial
incentives
and
Wall
Street
investment
strategies
that
constantly
push
for
the
retirement
of
fossil
fuel-fired
power
plants.
L
Senate
Bill
4
is
a
state
level
attempt
to
secure
for
our
constituents
reliable,
affordable
and
resilient
electricity,
and
to
help
make
sure
that
our
fossil
fuel-fired
power
plants,
which
provide,
in
my
opinion
the
most
reliable,
affordable
and
consistent
form
of
power,
are
not
retired
prematurely
and
contribute
to
our
coming
capacity.
Deficit.
L
Senate,
Bill
4
sets
up
a
presumption
against
the
retirement
of
a
fossil
fuel-fired
electric
generation
unit,
unless
the
utility
can
prove
to
the
PSC
that
the
utility
will
replace
the
retired
unit
with
new
electric
generating
capacity
that
is
dispatchable,
maintains
or
improves
the
reliability
and
resilience
of
the
transmission
grid,
and
that
it
maintains
the
minimum
Reserve
capacity
required
requirements
established
by
the
utilities.
Reliability
coordinator
that
the
you
that
the
retirement
will
not
harm
the
utility
rate
payers.
L
Finalist
chairman
Senate
Bill
4
also
sets
up
what
I
think
is
going
to
be
very
valuable
annual
reporting
mechanism
by
the
PSC
to
us
to
the
lrc
that
will
detail
the
number
of
retirement
requests
and
whether
they
were
approved
or
denied
the
impact
of
any
approved
retirements
and
finally,
if
the
retirements
resulted
in
any
stranded
costs
for
the
ratepayer
that
will
have
to
be
recovered
by
surcharges
on
the
customer's
bill.
At
this
point,
we
really
don't
know
what's
going
on
in
this
field,
and
we
need
to
know
and
I
think
these
report.
L
This
reporting
mechanism
will
bring
us
up
to
date
on
that.
The
opponents
of
Senate
Bill
4
are
saying
that
this
bill
will
lead
to
higher
energy
rates
and
less
reliable
service,
because
it
will
prevent
utilities
from
shutting
down
fossil
fuel
power
plants.
The
truth
is
Senate.
Bill
4
is
needed
to
make
sure
utilities
are
not
closing
power
plants
too
soon
and
subsequently
increasing
rates
to
customers.
As
with
the
Big
Sandy
plant
closure
that
resulted
in
drastic
rate
increases.
L
Symbol
4
provides
a
common
sense
approach
to
ensure
important
decisions
that
affect
our
grid
and
cost
to
Consumers
are
highly
scrutinized
by
the
PSC
Mr
chairman
I
believe
Senate
Bill
4
is
the
proper
reaction
from
this
governing
body.
We
must
do
all
we
can
to
protect
citizens
that
we
represent
and
putting
regulations
in
place
that
we
that
will
help
ensure
reliable
resilient
electrical
service
for
our
constituents.
Moving
forward,
I
think
is
a
great
first
step.
L
Mr
chairman
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
may
be
out
there
or
I
can
wait
until
the
other
side
gives
their
presentation,
and
then
we
can
answer
questions
but
I
appreciate
you
letting
us
bring
some
education
forth
on
this
I
believe
this
is
a
very
important
bill.
It's
a
kind
of
a
paradigm
shift
in
energy
policy
in
Kentucky
and
I.
Think
it's
very
well
very
much
needed
so
be
happy
to
do
whatever
your
directions
are.
A
A
You
know
our
people's
lives
are
disrupted,
I've
been
in
Kentucky.
All
my
life
and
I
had
never
ever
seen
what
we
saw
in
December
when
utilities
were
actually
cutting
people
off
without
any
notice
or
or
warning,
and
you
know
I
understand,
they're
their
desire
and
and
their
ability
to
to
do
that
in
order
to
keep
the
entire
grid
from
from
collapsing
and
going
down.
Because
then
you,
you
could
have
big.
A
A
L
Yep
my
position,
my
position
in
this
bill
is
that
that
is
one
of
the
pro.
That's
the
that's
the
issue.
One
of
the
issues
at
hand
is
that
the
federal
government
is
basically
incentivizing
the
shutdown
of
coal-fired
plants,
and,
while
that
is
important
to
my
region
in
the
state,
the
biggest
issue
is
that
it's
incentivizing
what
I
can
consider
to
be
an
inferior
fuel
source
going
forward,
whether
it's
Renewables
or
whether
it's,
whether
it's
gas,
you
know
gas,
has
problems
with
pipelines
and
Delivery
Systems
right
now.
L
So
that's
what
one
of
the
main
issues
and
and
points
of
this
bill
is
to
is
that
the
federal
government
is
incentivizing
changes
on
the
state
of
Kentucky.
That
I,
don't
think,
is
best
for
the
state
of
Kentucky
or
our
constituents
that
lead
to
problems
like
we
saw
and
could
lead
to
more
problems.
Even
pjm
is
suggesting
that
even
the
minor
minors,
the
problems
are
going
to
result
in
major
disruptions
to
the
grid,
so
it
would
be
my
response
to
your
question.
Thank
you,
representative.
G
L
Yes,
I
mean
they,
they
typically
look
at
cost
and
and
customer
service,
but
reliability
is
not.
In
my
opinion,
reliability
is
much
lower
on
the
scale
in
the
decision.
Making
Factor
than
cost
is
one
of
the
other
things.
We're
trying
to
do
with
this
bill
is
try
to
bring
reliability
and
cost
up
equal.
As
the
chairman
said,
you
know
a
couple
pennies
more
to
make
sure
that
the
lights
come
on.
I
think
is
very
valuable.
L
L
I,
do
not
I
mean
we
mentioned
the
reliability
coordinator,
I
know
each
utility
has
an
organization
or
a
person
in-house
that
watches
after
reliability
and
has
a
reliability
coordinator,
but
I
believe
that
it
needs
to
be
more
globally
looked
at
and
brought
into
equal
with
with
price
and
costs.
Thank
you.
I
G
I
Think
it's
very
important,
but
anyhow,
could
you
explain
the
process
if
of
coal
fire
plant
is
deemed
to
be
inoperable?
Who
makes
the
determination
that
that
to
be
decommissioned
as
to
where
it
can
be
repaired
and
brought
back
to
a
place
of
normalcy
to
where
they
could
be
utilized,
that
that
is
not
so
cost
prohibitive?
That.
L
May
be
a
better
question
for
the
the
experts
that
come
behind
me
from
the
utility
company
to
answer,
but
in
in
general
the
PSC
does
not
tell
a
utility
whether
they
can
shut
down
or
or
decommission
or
retire
a
plant.
There
are
some
decisions
that
the
PSC
might
help
that
utility
make
dealing
with
recovering
costs
and
things
of
that
nature
in
that
process,
but
there's
they're
not
in
involved
in
the
retirement
decision.
L
I
A
Of
the
things
that's
frustrating
to
me
is
that
so
many
people
don't
really
understand
that
different
sources
of
utilities
have
have
a
reliability
factor,
and
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
have
enjoyed
very
cheap
electricity
in
this
state.
For
so
many
years
is
that
you
know
we
we
relied
on
what
was
available
to
us
in
Kentucky
and
and
for
a
long
time.
That
was
coal,
and
you
know
the
the
when
you
build
a
coal-fired
Power
Plant.
It's
designed
to
run
about
85
efficiency.
Seven
days
a
week.
A
It
also
has
to
be
pressure,
that's
Advocate,
to
generate
electricity
just
in
time
and
so
that
that
gas
arrives
just
in
time
to
generate
electricity.
We
we
also
know
that
you
know
we.
We
wish
we
had
more
Hydro
in
this
state.
That's
that's
pretty
much.
The
base
load
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
because
you
have
the
fuel
source
behind
the
dam
and
that
that
is
the
fuel
that
can
generate
electricity.
A
But
when
you
look
at
some
of
these
Renewables
the
intermittent
sources,
they
they
have
more
of
a
an
efficiency
factor
of
15
18
at
the
most
probably
less
than
20.
Just
because
you
know
they're
only
there
when
the
wind's
blowing
or
the
Sun's
shining
and-
and
we
have
no
ability
to
store
that
electricity-
and
you
can
generate
a
lot
of
electricity-
maybe
even
cheaply
at
times
when
you
don't
need
it
right,
but
without
the
ability
to
store
it
for
a
later
date.
A
A
A
Reliability
is
the
ability
of
utilities
to
generate
and
dispatch
electricity
when
and
where
it's
needed,
and
that
that's
just
something
that
has
to
happen,
and
if
we
have
to
pay
a
premium
in
this
country
to
make
that
happen,
then
then
I'm
certainly
willing
to
have
that
conversation
so
I.
Thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill.
K
Grossberg,
thank
you.
I
I
have
a
question.
When
big
Rivers
closed
the
coal
unit,
it
appears
to
have
been
entirely
a
business
decision,
because
the
expense
of
having
maintained
it
and
retrofitting
it
was
far
more
than
that.
What
the
return
on
investment
would
have
been
had.
They
been
forced
to
keep
it
open,
who
exactly
would
have
paid
for
that
maintenance
and
retrofitting,
and
how
would
we
have
kept
that
expense
for
being
passed
on
right
to
the
rate
payers?
Ultimately,.
L
Well,
maybe
you
know
more
about
the
Big
River
situation
than
I.
Do
I'm
not
completely
aware
that
it
was
a
business
decision,
but
you
know
I
would
say
that
this
would
go
through
the
process
that
the
bill
lays
out
if
they
came
to
the
PSC
and
asked
to
close
it
and
they
they
were
replacing
it
needed
to
replace
it.
They'd
have
to
go
through
the
process
here.
You
know
all
that
we're
not
looking
for
a
decision.
We're
looking
for
looking
toward
the
process
of
you
know
that
is
reliability.
L
Gonna
going
to
drop
is
the
cost
is
going
to
go
up
to
the
consumers
I'm,
not
particularly
aware
that
that
was
a
business
decision.
I
think
that
they
were
caught
in
the
same
things
that
all
of
our
utilities
are
caught
in
is
that
they
were
in
enticed
incentivized
to
close
that
down
and
to
rely
on
the
power
grid
for
their
source,
and
we've
got
too
many
electrical
Electric
utilities
doing
that
relying
on
the
grid
and
not
on
base
load
generation
that
we're
so
used
to
so
I'll.
L
A
But
what
happened
is
the
technology
really
was
there?
It
was
expensive,
but
it
was
there
and
what
the
utilities
actually
put
the
scrubbers
on
that
took
out
the
socks
and
the
knocks
in
a
particular
matter
in
the
soot
and
those
things
and
and
actually
over
the
years
have
decreased
those
those
items
about
80
or
85
percent.
A
So
the
technology
was
there,
the
utilities
were
able
to
make
that
investment
and-
and
still
you
know,
meet
the
requirements
that
were
met,
but
when
the
Obama
Administration
came
in
and
they
set
new
standards
for
I
think
it
was
section
111,
D
and
111b
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
One
pertaining
to
existing
power
plants,
one
pertaining
to
new
power
plants.
They
actually
set
standards
that
there
was
no.
A
There
was
no
technology
there
to
meet
those
standards,
and
that,
in
my
opinion,
is
were
we
we
got
here
when
the
standards
that
they
were
setting
for
coal
was
just
about
what
could
only
be
met
by
natural
gas,
and
that
was
that
was
a
real,
a
real
problem
and
so
I
think.
That's
why
we
saw
this
fuel
switch.
Is
that
you
know
we?
We
could
build
a
natural
gas
plant
that
that
could
meet
the
standards
and
and
based
on
the
cost
of
natural
gas.
N
A
There
was
it's
kind
of
a
good
faith
lead
that
they
had
to
do
it,
and
so
I
think
that
you
know
the
real
question
is:
is
that
the
amount
of
the
cost
who
Bears
the
cost?
What
the
cost
is
going
to
go
up
often
is
a
result
of
federal
regulations
that
the
utilities
have
very
little
control
over
I
think
sometimes
they
probably
should
have
fought
back
more.
At
least
now
we
have
an
attorney
general
that
is
willing
to
sue
yeah
that
we
haven't
had
in
in
recent
years.
L
Yeah
and
and
I
I
agree
with
you,
I
think
that
this
bill
is
is
really
a
is
our
effort
to
to
say
hey.
We
want
to
have
some
pushback
on
the
federal
EPA
and
their
their
regulations,
and
these
incentives
that
are
out
there
to
to
rapidly
before
the
time
is
up
close
down
these
fossil
fuel
powered
plants.
So,
representative.
K
Grossberg,
thank
you
Mr
chairman,
that
provides
the
clarity
that
I
was
looking
for,
because,
yes,
there
are
incentives
on
one
hand,
but
on
the
other,
there
are
presently
unfunded
mandates
and
I'm
just
curious.
What's
going
to
happen
once
this
bill
passes
and
there
are
federal
mandates
that
don't
allow
these
plants
to
continue
operating
and
retrofitting
would
have
an
inordinate
expense.
Someone
has
to
bear
that
expense.
Are
we
the
general
assembly,
going
to
bear
that
expense?
L
And
you
know,
one
of
the
things
that
this
bill
is
going
to
do
is
actually
bring
that
discussion
more
to
the
public.
To
be
honest
with
you
for
several
years,
we've
asked
the
questions
you
know.
Well,
how
much
does
it
cost
you've
got
to
shut
down
a
power
plant?
How
much
does
it
cost
to
scrub
scrub?
The
coal
versus
you
know
show
us
your
your
math
and
what
we're
told
from
utilities
is
that
you
know
we've
studied
it.
We've
studied
in
depth.
L
We
know
this
is
the
best
approach
going
requiring
it
to
go
to
the
PSC
and
have
that
discussion
where
we
actually
know
what
those
costs
are
and
that
we
know
that
it's
being
compared,
then
I
think
that
brings
a
little
more
clarity
and
comfort
to
the
public.
It
does
to
me
so
good
question,
so
very
good
questions.
O
I
I
would
point
out
if
the
gentleman's
not
aware
that
we
a
few
years
ago,
had
one
of
these
Coal
Fire
plants,
the
Big
Sandy
plant
that
shut
down
up
in
my
region
of
the
state
and
I
can
tell
you
who's
paying
for
that
shutdown
and
it's
the
rate
payers.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
it's
added
on
to
their
bills
every
month
and
they're
having
to
pay
for
that,
so
them
shutting.
This
plant
down
is
already
costing
the
ratepayers
more
and
and
costs
for
their
utility
bills.
O
A
P
My
question
is:
if
with
the
utility
Representatives
was,
if
that
had
not
happened
at
the
holidays,
when
those
factories
were
already
closed,
what
was
going
to
be
the
impact,
and
he
told
me
they
had
already
planned
a
shutdown
two
though
every
industry
there
in
Christian
County,
which
that
would
also
go
Statewide,
If
This
Were.
These
brownouts
were
to
impact
the
Statewide,
the
impact
that
would
have
on
our
economy
on
our
public
as
a
whole.
P
When
we
saw
our
electric
go
off
at
home
there
over
the
holidays,
every
two
hours
for
30
minutes
at
a
time,
not
to
mention
the
damage
that
would
be
happening
to
our
appliances
and
essential
things
such
as
heating
and
cooling
units
at
our
homes.
What
would
be
those
impacts?
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
what
you
brought
forward
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
the
time
we
are
able
to
vote
on
this
legislation.
Thank
you.
Senator
thank.
A
J
J
However,
we
believe
that
Senate
Bill
4
does
have
unintended
consequences
and
will
lead
to
higher
energy
rates
and
potentially
less
reliable
service.
I've
heard
reasons
given
to
support
Senate
Bill
4.,
some
believe
it
addresses
reliability,
concerns
concerns
on
the
he
deals
of
winter
storm
Elliott
during
the
holidays.
It
does
not,
and
we
believe
there
are
better
ways
to
accomplish
that
others
believe
it
supports
the
coal
industry
in
the
state.
J
It
presumes
that
keeping
the
existing
fossil
fuel
generating
units
open
is
the
right
answer
without
considering
the
age
condition
required
incremental
investment
in
those
units
or
whether
there
are
more
efficient
means
of
providing
that
same
degree
of
reliable
Supply.
In
contrast,
existing
practice
that
has
served
Kentucky
well
for
more
than
a
century,
involves
least
cost
planning
under
lease
cost
planning.
A
utility
considers
all
combinations
of
energy
Supply
to
meet
customer
customer
demand
reliably
and
among
those
reliable
Alternatives.
J
J
We've
got
three
coal-fired
units
that,
because
of
incremental
investment
and
their
current
economic
six,
it
does
not
make
sense
from
a
customer's
perspective,
to
invest
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
those
plants
that
were
built
in
the
70s.
So
these
plants
are
all
probably
are
all
in
the
between
50
and
60
years
old.
J
Our
analysis
shows
that
under
a
base
set
of
fuel
prices
and
scenarios
that
replacing
those
units
is
600
million
dollars
more
beneficial
for
our
customers,
lower
cost
and
depending
on
your
assumptions
for
fuel
prices
that
could
be
as
low
as
300
million
dollars
less
expensive.
It
could
be
as
much
as
three
and
a
half
billion
dollars
less
expensive
and
all
of
those
scenarios
assume
there
is
no
cost
ever
put
on
co2
emissions.
We're
not
embedding
that
into
our
analysis
right
now.
We
show
it
as
a
sensitivity,
but
it's
not
in
our
base
analysis.
J
So
the
result
of
changing
that
that
I
would
say,
let's
evaluate
all
Alternatives,
as
opposed
to
putting
our
thumb
on
the
scale
a
little
bit
and
not
creating
that
Level
Playing
Field
that
exists
today
will
be
higher
rates
that
put
existing
industry
and
economic
development
in
the
state
at
risk.
In
addition,
in
establishing
the
need
for
Generation
resources,
existing
statutes
include
a
concept
avoiding
wasteful
duplication.
Senate
Bill
4
is
inconsistent
with
this
statute.
J
It's
not
coincidental,
that
of
our
units
today,
the
two
units
that
run
the
highest
percentage
of
the
time
are
one
a
natural
gas
combined
cycle
unit
that
we
put
in
Louisville
in
2015
and
a
super
critical
coal-fired
unit
that
we
put
in
Trimble
County
at
the
beginning
of
2011..
Again,
every
unit
technology
advances
units
are
more
efficient
over
time.
In
summary,
we
understand
that
there
are
some
concerns
about
the
nature
and
pace
of
what
many
refer
to
as
an
energy
transition.
J
This
transition
has
certainly
been
fast-paced
in
some
states,
but
those
are
states
that
have
adopted
policies
that
expedite
that
transition.
Kentucky
is
not
one
of
those
states.
You
have
time
to
be
more
thoughtful
about
a
holistic
piece
of
legislation
that
sets
the
course
for
Kentucky's
Energy
Future,
in
a
way
that
preserves
reliability
and
affordability.
J
N
A
N
All
right
good
morning,
everybody
sorry
about
that.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
on
Senate
Bill
4.
my
background
as
an
engineer,
I
started
out
in
quote
plants,
and
my
current
job
is
with
kind
of
the
things
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
earlier
about
commitment
and
dispatcher
power
plant.
So
that's
what
I
do
every
day
to
make
sure
we
have
affordable,
reliable
and
safe
provision
of
electric
electricity
to
our
customers.
So
some
of
the
things
earlier
we
talked
about
was
energy
markets
and
how
it
works.
N
N
We
look
at
all
the
different
things
that
go
into
the
cost
of
a
power
plant
and
we
look
at
the
commodity
cost
the
availability
of
the
power
plant,
how
much
our
customers
demand
the
power
markets,
the
price
of
power,
the
efficiency
of
the
heat
rate
of
that
power
plant,
and
we
make
a
decision
every
day
to
either
turn
on
and
turn
off
these
plants
and
called
commitment.
And
then,
once
that's
done
now
we
look
at
dispatch
and
dispatches.
You
know
the
electricity
in
this
room
is
being
generated
literally
the
exact
same
second
right.
It's
there's!
N
No
storage,
like
chairman,
mentioned
earlier
on
the
grid,
but
that
dispatch
moves
those
power
plants
up
and
down
to
allow
that
electricity
generated
to
supply
that
electricity.
You
need
so
every
few
seconds
we
are
doing
this
and
our
computers
we're
looking
at
the
electric
load
and
we're
dispatching
power
plants.
N
Get
better
efficiency
is
an
important
component
of
the
cost
of
a
power
plant,
so
the
commodity
cost
times
the
efficiency
you
know,
plus
variable
maintenance
costs
and
the
reagents
and
chemicals
and
all
those
things
equal
to
the
variable
cost
of
a
power
plant
over
time.
Our
models
show
that
variable
costs
of
some
plants.
Obviously
they
are
projections,
but
they
they
change
and
they're
expected
to
go
up
over
time.
At
the
same
time,
you
know
power
markets,
especially
the
the
connection
they
have
to
the
price
of
natural
gas.
N
You
know,
does
does
move
the
power
markets
move
up
and
down,
but
they're
expected
to
you
know,
stay
similar
so
over
time,
these
older
plants
that
are
not
allowed
to
be
replaced
tend
to
run
less
and
less,
and
so
you
would
have
coal
plants
or
fossil
plants.
Excuse
me
that
run
less
and
less
and
essentially
they
become
like
a
A,
peeker
or
a
unit.
That's
turned
on
for
that
sharp
spike
in
electric
demand
and
the
problem
is,
you
know
these
plants
aren't
built
for
that.
These
plants
are
like
the
chairman
mentioned.
N
You
know
typically
designed
for
an
85
80
75,
whatever
percent
capacity
Factor
they're
designed
to
run,
and
so
when
you
have
them
not
running
and
yes,
you
can
attempt
to
turn
them
on.
You
know
when
it
gets
really
cold
like
it
was
in
December.
You
can
attempt
to
turn
them
on
and
you
can
even
start
them
up
a
month
ahead
of
time
or
a
week
ahead
of
time
to
make
sure
they're
good
they're
good
to
go.
But
you
know
things
do
happen
when
plants
sit
and
don't
run.
N
So
that's
my
concern
is
that
then
you
you
save
them
for
essentially
because
they're
not
going
to
run
as
much
you
save
them
and
then
they're
not
there.
When
you
ask
actually
need
them,
so
reliability
actually
decreases
so
I.
Don't
think
we
want
these
fossil
plants
to
become
peaking
plants,
and
then
my
last
point
is,
you
know:
Duke
Energy
Kentucky
is
part
of
pjm
like,
as
mentioned
by
Senator
Mills
PGM
did
recently
put
a
report
out
about
their
concerns
over
reliability
and
the
changing
transmission
of
the
electric
grid.
N
The
the
problem
is,
is
this
bill
affects
Kentucky
only
right,
Duke,
Energy
Kentucky
is
part
of
p-jam
they're,
all
990
000
megawatts,
and
it's
17
States
or
whatever
this
bill
has
no
effect
on
the
reliability
of
the
other
other,
the
rest
of
pjm,
of
course,
because
those
not
in
Kentucky.
So
what
happens
is
if,
if
pjam
has
a
reliability
issue
right
and
they
have
a
mismatch
or
essentially,
they
have
generation
of
X
and
they
have
higher
load.
N
As
we
know,
they're
going
to
have
to
shed
load-
and
the
problem
is,
is
that
Duke
Energy
Kentucky
would
actually
shed
a
piece
that
load.
Even
if
we
didn't
have
any,
we
had
enough
generation
to
serve
our
load,
we
would
actually
be
forced
to
shed
load
as
part
of
PGM.
So
those
are
some
of
the
consequences
I
see
of
Senate
bill
for
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
today.