July 29 to August 2, 2006.
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FR: Representative Ron Peters, Oklahoma, Chair, Energy & Environment Committee
RE: Report of Activities of the Energy & Environment Committee at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Southern Legislative Conference in Louisville, Kentucky, July 29 – August 2, 2006
The Energy & Environment Committee convened on Sunday, July 30 for a business session; on Monday, July 31, for a program session; and on Tuesday, August 1, for a technical tour during the 60th SLC Annual Meeting. The following is a summary of the speaker presentations and Committee activities during this event.
Sunday, July 30
State Plan for Energy Independence
Representative Rocky Adkins, Kentucky
With dependence on increasingly unstable foreign countries for oil, an energy independent future is becoming more important for the United States. High levels of dependence on foreign oil for use as liquid transportation fuels has crippled the United States while encouraging repressive regimes and fostering terrorism. Coupled with the negative environmental effects that extensive use of fossil fuels causes, overdependence on these sources of energy must be replaced with a more robust approach to utilizing domestic, alternative fuel sources for the nation’s fuel needs. Global warming and calamitous climate change, coupled with escalating gasoline prices, can be addressed by using the resources and technology already possessed by the United States.
Representative Adkins’ Presentation
Representative Adkins began his presentation by stressing that energy security and independence are very important to the citizens of the United States, and that state legislators play a key role in shaping the energy future for the country. States have a responsibility to prompt federal action, in a country that has forgotten the oil crisis of the 1970s and other periodic oil shocks endured in the last three decades. In October, 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) embargoed oil to countries that supported Israel in the Arab Israeli War, driving up the cost of gasoline. Shortages affected schools and factories, as well as individuals, and for the first time Americans were forced to consider the role foreign oil plays in the domestic economy. Americans began buying smaller cars, using mass transit, and carpooling. The federal government began investigating coal and oil shale technologies, and consumption as a whole contracted. However, as the price of oil fell, people reverted to their old habits, leaving the United States in a similarly vulnerable position as it is in today. Now, due to this “liquid fuel transportation crisis” the United States is in danger of losing its foothold as a world superpower.
Representative Adkins stated that the United States uses 22 million barrels of oil daily, importing approximately 62 percent of that, or about 13.5 million barrels. It is expected that the United States will import over 70 percent of its oil by the year 2025, if current practices persist. Also, as mentioned earlier, much of what is imported is coming from politically unstable countries. More than half of the world’s oil production comes from OPEC, including Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, and Iran. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, the United States uses more than two-thirds of this imported fuel for transportation purposes.
The cost of oil has tripled since 2002, and some experts are speculating that it will soon be over $100 per barrel. The hardships that result from the escalating cost of oil are exacerbated by the United States’ dependence on foreign oil, according to a study done by the Southern States Energy Board. According to the study, demand is outstripping supply, which, according to some experts, has tapered off. There is increased foreign competition from countries such as China and India. China’s oil consumption, for instance, is growing at 25 percent per year and is expected to continue at this or a greater pace. Also, supply disruptions have become a problem. Overall, the United States spends more than $300 billion every year on foreign oil dependence, which includes about $70 billion spent in protecting military interests in the Persian Gulf. Also, approximately $85 billion is lost annually due to periodic oil shocks.
The solution, according to Representative Adkins, is to maximize domestic liquid transportation fuel sources. Kentucky, as an example, has an abundance of these resources, ranking third in the country for coal production, 13th in corn production, and 14th in soy bean production. Biomass production is one example of an underused resource that is essential to energy independence, a resource whose potential usefulness increases as technology continues to evolve. Kentucky has biofuel plants that will produce 62 million gallons of biofuel per year. Coal, the largest source of energy in the country, is another example of an underused resource. Kentucky alone has more than 250 years of coal reserves at current levels of production, and currently creates for its residents the nation’s cheapest source of electricity. Indiana has more energy in its coal reserves than the amount of oil in Saudi Arabia. The technology for converting coal to liquid fuel has been available since the World War II era (Adolf Hitler used it to fuel machines during the war), and it is perpetually getting better. South Africa, as another example, gets 30 percent of its transportation fuels from coal.
Kentucky’s 2004 Comprehensive Energy Plan which was created by a bipartisan task force and supports more than 50 action recommendations for developing all of Kentucky’s energy resources, including 23 related to coal development, coal technology and biofuels development. There is no “silver bullet” to energy independence, therefore the plan calls for the use of all available sources of energy to be implemented into a comprehensive strategy that utilizes hydropower, solar power, wind, biofuels, and fossil fuels. According to Representative Adkins, what the plan attempts to accomplish, and ultimately what Kentucky has failed to do, is to develop a way “to bring all of the research, projects and plans into one thoughtful, cohesive vision that will accelerate America’s path towards energy independence.”
Representative Adkins also discussed the Kentucky Energy Security National Leadership Act. This legislation was enacted in the General Assembly without opposition, and was signed into law by the governor earlier this year. The legislation creates the Kentucky Office of Energy Policy (OEP), with the goal of developing a strategy for making liquid transportation fuels from coal, oil shale, and biomass. The Act directs the OEP to aggressively pursue federal funding for research, development, construction, and operation of alternative fuel plants at commercial scale. Also, the Act directs OEP to develop incentives to encourage the development of technologies that would maximize the use of other types of energy sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and other renewables, and would mirror those programs that have been established at a federal level. Also, the legislation prompts OEP to identify four locations in Kentucky for establishing coal-to-liquid and coal-to-natural gas facilities.
In general, the goal is to corral all the best practices in Kentucky into a streamlined plan, one that is flexible and able to expand to include versions of other initiatives that are being addressed in other states and by the federal government. Many other states have embarked on alternative energy exploration with the goal of energy independence in mind, and that progress should be shared, embraced, and put to use in Kentucky. For instance, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has prioritized energy policy, encouraging exploration in technology that would make coal a competitive alternative to imported oil. According to Governor Schweitzer, the United States has spent approximately $400 billion in Iraq. If that amount had been spent in developing alternative fuel plants throughout the country, some experts say the United States would be producing 4 million to 5 million barrels of liquid fuel per day. This would supplement approximately one-third of the current oil that is imported into the country, diminishing the reliance on foreign oil from unstable regimes in foreign countries, while creating jobs, using domestic resources, and supporting the industry and agricultural communities. Also, state governments can encourage improvement of liquification technology by purchasing liquid fuels with long-term contracts. State loans and grants made on a matching basis can encourage companies to invest in plants.
Representative Adkins also emphasized the importance of encouraging the United States Congress to create a Strategic Energy Security Corporation, a self-funding, self-sustaining organization with the purpose of administering a new alternative liquid fuels market insurance program to protect against market manipulation and predatory pricing by OPEC and others. The group would collect insurance premiums from companies that would voluntarily enter the program, and invest net premiums in insurance funds for future pay-out to the program members if necessary. The program would facilitate market insurance payments to members if the price of oil falls below a low-trigger price and if the accumulated investment pool of insurance premiums is exhausted.
In closing, Representative Adkins noted that the United States prides itself on being a market-based economy, but oil markets are anything but market-based. There needs to be a plan for energy security based on what is best for the United States.
Southern States Energy Board’s Legislative Digest, 2006, Presentation
Senator John Watkins, Virginia
The Legislative Digest is a compilation of model Energy & Environmental legislation enacted by Southern states that has been compiled by the SSEB for more than 20 years. According to the 2006 Digest, over 450 related bills were passed by Southern legislatures this year that seek to improve the environment, provide cost savings to the consumer, protect people and property, stimulate and encourage economic growth, and further express the South’s deep commitment to effective and efficient Energy & Environmental policy. Topics addressed in these pieces of legislation included: coal production, mine safety, eminent domain, alternative energy developments, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, infrastructure, pollution control and waste management, biofuels, and nuclear energy.
Consideration of Policy Positions
In accordance with SLC pre-filing rules, Representative Rocky Adkins of Kentucky introduced a policy position encouraging federal legislation that would encourage the production of alternative transportation fuels produced from domestic coal, biomass and oil shale recovery, thereby increasing energy security for the United States. In accordance with the SLC pre-filling rules, Representative Chuck Martin of Georgia introduced four policy positions that parallel positions filed and adopted by the SLC last year. The proposed positions encourage further exploration of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change; support the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules regarding emissions reductions; support the findings of the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review on pollution; and support nuclear power and continued funding of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program. All five positions, with no amendments, were passed by the Committee. Subsequently, all five positions were adopted by the Southern Legislative Conference Tuesday, August 1.
Election of Officers
The Nominating Committee, chaired by Representative Charles L. Young, Mississippi, recommended that the Energy & Environment Committee elect Representative Ron Peters of Oklahoma as its new chair and Representative Rocky Adkins of Kentucky as its new vice chair for 2006-2007. The Committee voted, concurring with those recommendations.
Chairman Ullo thanked the participants for their presentations and adjourned the meeting with no further discussion.
Monday, July 31
Energy Security and Reliability
Robert Baumann, Director of Research and Development, Center for Energy
Studies, Louisiana State University
Dr. Kenneth Friedman, Senior Advisor, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
Francis Bradley, Vice President, Canadian Electricity Association, Ottawa
In light of the September 11 terrorist attacks and with the Gulf Coast still recovering from the repercussions of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the topic of energy security and reliability has become an especially crucial one for our country. While these two disasters have been at the forefront, daily maintenance of the continuity between sources of energy, and consumers and businesses that use them, is a daunting undertaking. A dependable, modern infrastructure of energy-product transportation is imperative for our country to move forward.
Mr. Baumann’s Presentation
Mr. Baumann began the panel discussion by giving an overview of where the United States currently is positioned regarding energy security, and by illustrating the potential for disruption by natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. He then pointed out that oil has become a major problem in the United States because there is no adequate substitute for it with regard to transportation fuels. Conversation about energy issues involves more than just transportation issues: it involves the environment, federal and state economies, agriculture policy, and homeland security issues. Oftentimes, it is difficult for state legislators to address this wide array of affairs because the bulk of policy (particularly in areas such as foreign affairs) comes from the federal government. An added difficulty is that the public is largely ignorant of energy matters. For instance, in a 2001 survey of 30,000 high school seniors, 28 percent did not know that gasoline is made from petroleum.
Mr. Baumann suggested that what the United States needs on the supply side of the oil crisis is an “all of the above” approach, meaning all of the nation’s resources and technology should be developed to their greatest potential. One source of energy will not sate the current energy needs of the United States. Consumption also is a problem, but perhaps not as grave as one might expect. With regard to gross domestic product, since 1949 the United States has reduced consumption per dollar of economic activity by more than half, with most of this reduction occurring during and immediately after the 1973-74 energy crisis. During the 1990s, however, when energy was the cheapest it has been in terms of personal income, there was an acceleration in consumption. This acceleration is exemplified in America’s infatuation with larger vehicles, and also resulted in a movement toward larger homes (although during this time homes became more efficient by about 20 percent, the square footage of homes increased by about 30 percent). Although the United States uses less energy per dollar than it did immediately following World War II, the nation still uses much more energy per unit. Overall consumption has increased dramatically, and, according to Mr. Baumann, the world as a whole uses twice as much oil as it did in the mid-1970s.
He then suggested that the process by which energy independence and energy security can be attained will involve incremental advancement, and by utilizing all of the following resources:
Wind – Experts estimate that 4 percent to 7 percent of electricity power can be attained from wind. This is not a large percentage but, nevertheless, it would aid in reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and the use of fossil fuels in general. Also, it is important for state governments to subsidize wind energy projects, in order for their potential to be achieved.
Coal – The United States currently possesses centuries worth of coal energy. The primary use of coal in the United States is in producing electricity. Even though environmentally, current technology does not allow for the greatest energy potential from coal to be converted into liquid fuel, liquification and gasification technologies are improving, yielding a potential for centuries worth of fuel produced from coal.
Nuclear – Including access to resources from the plants in Canada, the amount of potential nuclear energy production for the United States can be measured in millennia. There is not much waste from nuclear production, but the waste that does exist is very toxic. One option for nuclear waste is to reprocess it, but in doing so plutonium is produced. Another option is to store it, such as in the Yucca Mountain Repository. However, in order to do this the waste must be transported, and this can be very dangerous as well.
Hydrogen – The manufacture of hydrogen is the only potential “silver bullet” that currently exits. However, although hydrogen is the most abundant element on Earth, it is not easily extracted – a chemical bond must be broken, and in order to accomplish this large amounts of electricity are required.
Ethanol/Other Biofuels – Ethanol and biofuels have the potential to supply about 7 percent to 10 percent of transportation fuels before it begins to affect the cost. Like wind energy, although this is not a large percentage, it would supplement approximately 1.5 million barrels of the United States’ daily consumption. Current technology improving this percentage, using enzymes that work fast enough to break down cellulose. Currently there are a large number of ethanol plants being built in the United States, which may make ethanol more competitive with gasoline. If supply is increased, then the cost will be driven down. Of course, it is important to remember that ethanol only produces about one-third of the amount of energy that is produced by gasoline.
In closing, Mr. Baumann spoke on the affects Hurricanes Katrina and Rita had on the
energy industry of the United States. Although there was the emotional devastation that followed Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita caused more damage with regard to the energy interests. About 10 percent of the nation’s oil imports come through Louisiana, therefore the entire United States suffered as a result of this destruction. A lack of geographic diversity is to blame for this, and it is unlikely that such confinement will change. Forty-two percent of all refinery capacity in the United States is on the Gulf Coast, 38 percent shared between Louisiana and Texas alone. Hurricane Rita, for instance, destroyed a platform off the coast of Louisiana that supplied about 10 percent of the oil, and six percent to seven percent of the natural gas used by the entire United States. This and other platforms and refiners are now functional again, but the loss of domestic fuel accessibility has drastically affected the nation. Also, following the hurricanes, availability of electricity was sparse. Therefore, even refineries that were operational could not pump oil to where it was needed. Currently, the United States is at negative 20 percent of domestic oil production, and negative 15 percent of natural gas production, than it was before the hurricanes. Approximately $20 billion in damage to energy infrastructure was assessed as a result of the hurricanes.
Dr. Friedman’s Presentation
Dr. Friedman began his presentation by emphasizing how important state and local governments are to the goals of the United States Department of Energy (DOE). Currently, the DOE is working with the private sector to develop a National Infrastructure Protection Plan. This was an issue that mainly involved terrorism prevention, but now, since September 11 and the hurricanes that decimated the Gulf Coast in 2005, it has broadened to include restoration, mitigation, and recovery in the oil, gas, and electricity sectors. Terrorist acts cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be fully protected against, but restoration and recovery efforts can be sped up, which can be more important, in many ways than direct preventive measures.
Dr. Friedman noted that Homeland Security Presidential Directive Seven was signed in December 2003, which gave the DOE responsibility for attending to the energy sector, instead of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and required the creation of an Energy Sector Specific Plan. This plan dictates in what ways resiliency and speed recovery should be increased, with regard to protecting energy assets. Also, this plan created a partnership between the DOE and the private sector, one that has experienced some obstacles as the process moves forward, but is constantly evolving in order to maintain collaboration and achievement.
Directive Seven also created the Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council to the Secretary of Homeland Security, which allows the federal government departments to work much more closely with the private, industrial sector. It requires the establishment of a Government Coordinating Council, which acts as the primary liaison between the federal government and the industrial sector and allows industry to communicate with one group, as opposed to simultaneously dealing with several different federal groups. This increases clarity in communication and reduces the potential for confusion. Also, this ensures that the federal government speaks with one voice to industry. Likewise, private industry has established Sector Coordinating Councils, which essentially serve for industry the same function that the Government Coordinating Council serves for the federal government. There are joint writing teams made up of personnel from the federal government and the private sector. There are two main Sector Coordinating Councils, one that represents the interests of the electrical industry, and one that represents the interests of the oil and natural gas companies. These are broadly inclusive groups, with the oil and gas group representing approximately 98 percent of the industry, including 23 different trade groups, and the electricity group representing approximately 95 percent of the industry (including Canadian industry) with 29 different trade groups participating. According to Dr. Friedman, these ventures have yielded much progress.
While the DOE is working diligently to improve energy infrastructure protection, recovery and restoration, progress at the state level is imperative as well. One area where states can improve is in personnel and vehicle identification. Due to the threat of terrorism and drug trafficking, transportation across these boundaries has been delayed during past crises. Proper credentialing can reduce or eliminate the potential for this impediment between states as well as between the United States and Canada.
An area where state and local governments have complete control is in the coordination and prioritization of restoration efforts. This is a complicated issue, and one that is left completely up to state and local authorities. This becomes increasingly complicated in attempting to synchronize, for instance, sharing of equipment between companies. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it has become obvious that backup equipment for natural gas processing plants, pumping stations, transformers, and generators is critical. Harmonized sharing between companies becomes essential in this regard. Utility recovery also is a major issue. There are varying opinions regarding the most efficient and effective means for carrying this out, and so processes vary from state to state. Currently, Dr. Friedman stated, George Mason University is examining how different states are approaching utility recovery, and soon will be publishing their findings. Some states, for instance, have housing and urban development funds containing block grants that can be used for utility recovery in the event of an emergency.
In closing, Dr. Friedman noted that an area where the DOE takes the lead, but one where state and local agencies should maintain great involvement, is in pre-event coordination. States should be in regular contact with the DOE, and should regularly schedule emergency exercises and drills. The DOE is working on research that deals with the various kinds of possible and probable energy disruptions, including: terrorist acts, hurricanes, derailments and other forms of transportation disturbances, flooding, et al. The DOE is evaluating the speed of recovery and restoration after such events, and will make as much information as possible available to the states, so that the most affective plan for energy security, recovery and restoration, can be carried out at all levels.
Mr. Bradley’s Presentation
Mr. Bradley began his presentation by describing the functions of the Canadian Electricity Association, which represents both investor-owned and publicly-owned companies in Canada. It is the equivalent of the combination of the responsibilities of the American Public Power Association and the Edison Electric Institute in the United States.
The relationship between the United States and Canada probably is more interactive than any other two countries in the world. There is a two-way trade of goods and services that amounts to approximately $1.2 billion in exchange daily, or $483 billion annually. The border is crossed by about 200 million people every year. Likewise, the energy relationship between the two countries also is very elaborate and expansive. Canada is the largest foreign supplier of energy to the United States, amounting to about 17 percent of the United States oil imports. Also, Canada exports to the United States more natural gas than it consumes domestically. With the advent of tar sands technology, and with the escalating price of oil, this intimate relationship is getting even closer. The tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan have raised the oil reserves of Canada to approximately 180 billion barrels, making Canada the second largest holder of oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia, which has 265 billion barrels.
Also, electricity continues to be significantly integrated into the close relationship between the United States and Canada, existing primarily in highly integrated, regional markets. The United States-Canada relationship in this regard has provided for a more stable, secure and reliable electricity system, one that has been developing over the last 40 years. Canada has a surplus of electricity, especially in Quebec, British Columbia, and Manitoba, which provides a large portion of the United States’ electricity needs. Although Canada is a significant exporter of electricity to the United States, much has changed over the last ten to 15 years: Canada has begun importing a great deal of electricity from the United States.
One reason for this two-way trade arrangement is the variations in seasonal peaks for demand in the two countries. In many regions of Canada, demand peak is during the winter, due to heating demands, with peak for demand in the United States during the summer, due to cooling needs. Twenty-eight states in the United States benefit from electricity imports from Canada. There are significant transmission systems on both the east and west coasts. It also is important to note that the electricity sector has various interdependencies with regard to production, including: the remaining energy industry (crude oil, natural gas), communications market (telecommunications, media, information technology), services industry (banking and financial, food distribution, water, health services), manufacturing sector, transportation arena (surface, air, marine), public safety aspects (emergency services, environmental, nuclear), and government.
Mr. Bradley spoke briefly on the blackout of 2003, in which 50 million people in the United States were plunged into darkness for up to a week. Mr. Bradley emphasized that there is no such thing as a national issue. There is only a bunch of local issues – that is where it impacts people. In other words, regional and national concerns are basically the culmination of shared local concerns. With regard to the 2003 blackout, local concerns were significant, due largely to the fact that electricity companies simply were not prepared for that level of electricity outage. One problem, for instance, is that there were many refineries on interruptible power sources, meaning power would be restricted or unavailable for short periods of time throughout the entire blackout. Typically, this does not pose a problem for refineries when power is restricted for a short interval, but when they were exposed to limited availability of electricity for the duration of a week, then the level of production was extremely constrained. This, in turn, meant that many hospitals in the region that rely on diesel from these refineries were experiencing severe shortages, injuring their operating capacity.
After the 2003 blackout a bi-national task force, called the Federal Energy Reliability Association, was established in order to address mandatory and enforceability standards. Unlike the United States, the Canadian Constitution places responsibility for energy security and reliability in the hands of providers. Therefore, the Canadian Electricity Association, for instance, is faced with the task of replacing an aging infrastructure, while addressing increasing demand. The Federal Energy Reliability Association aids in this regard by implementing controls to manage system health, network monitoring, and incident management. The Federal Energy Reliability Association has initiated a United States-Canada risk management study to assess risk and vulnerability at various intervals. It has developed procedures to prevent or mitigate inappropriate disclosure of information, and to heighten overall security. In addition, the Canadian Electricity Association has developed a Critical Infrastructure Protection Program (CIP) which has the goal of coordinating and guiding the Canadian electric power system for protection of the electric power industry’s critical infrastructure.
In closing, Mr. Bradley cited a report of the national Security Task Force on Energy on strategies for improving energy security and reliability. The recommendations of this report included: reducing dependence on foreign oil and natural gas; confronting the threat posed by climate change; increasing the viability of nuclear energy by eliminating key proliferation threats posed by nuclear energy technologies; protecting and modernizing the global energy infrastructure and distribution channels; and building a cooperative energy security environment with traditional allies and potential partners.
Tuesday, August 1, 2006
Storm Restoration Center, Louisville Gas & Electric/E-ON U.S.
Mr. George Siemens, Vice President of External Affairs at Louisville Gas & Electric, led
a committee tour of the facilities, enabling legislators and staff to visit the various areas of operation involved in storm restoration and recovery at the center. Mr. Siemens and his staff also gave a presentation on the center’s duties regarding to electricity outage response and disaster preparedness for its 384,139 electric consumers in northwestern Kentucky.
SLC Fall Meeting
Savannah, Georgia, November 10-13, 2006
All committees of the Southern Legislative Conference will meet during the SLC Fall Meeting in Savannah, Georgia, November 10-13, 2006. Committee sessions will take the form of open roundtable discussions, with conference wide plenary sessions for all members. In keeping with the wishes of the SLC appointing authorities, please note that meeting notification does not authorize travel.
Staff Liaison: Jeremy Williams, firstname.lastname@example.org, (404) 633-1866
Southern Legislative Conference 60th Annual Meeting
Energy and Environment Committee
July 29 – August 2, 2005
Senator Denny Altes
Representative Dawn Creekmore
Representative Marilyn Edwards
John Fitch, University of Arkansas
Tom Parker, Arkansas Petroleum Council
Senator Jerry Grafstein, Ontario
Francis Bradley, Canadian Electricity Association
June Dewetering, Canada-U.S. Inter Parliamentary Group
District of Columbia
Carolyn Drake, Southern States Energy Board
Kenneth Friedman, U.S. Department of Energy
Mick McGarey, Nuclear Energy Institute
Representative Jim Cole
Representative Harry Geisinger
Representative John Heard
Representative Jan Jones
Representative Jeff Lewis
Representative Chuck Martin
Representative Bob Smith
Representative Lynn R. Smith
Representative Vance C. Smith, Jr.
Judith Costello, Canadian Consulate
Todd Edwards, Association County Commissioners of Georgia
Angie Fiese, Senate Research
Wendell Hunt, Williams Company
Jim Ledbetter, University of Georgia
Tom Park, Southern Company
Rudy Underwood, American Chemistry Council
Josh Young, American Chemistry Council
Representative Rocky Adkins
Representative Eddie Ballard
Senator David E. Boswell
Representative Hubert Collins
Representative Jim Gooch
Representative Mike Harmon
Representative Jim Higdon
Representative Charlie Hoffman
Representative Thomas R. Kerr
Senator Vernie McGaha
Senator Jerry P. Rhoads
Speaker Jody Richards
Representative John Will Stacy
Representative Robin Webb
Representative Brent Yonts
Stacy H. Bassett, Office of the Governor
Noopie Cosby, Cosby Company
Dean C. Durbin, Cosby Company
Burt Davis, CAER/UK
David Freibert, E-ON U.S.
Earl Gregory, East Kentucky Power Company
Albert Gross, Jr., McCarthy and Speaks
David Guy, E-ON U.S.
Jay Hartz, Office of the Senate President
Bob Hazelrigg, Delta Natural Gas
Martha McKinny, The Council of State Governments
David Moss, Kentucky Coal
Greg Pauley, American Electric Power
Nancy Shelton, Tennessee Valley Authority
George Siemens, E-ON U.S.
John Talbert, Big River Electrical Company
Garett Thompson, Public Service Commission
Paul Thompson, E-ON U.S.
Tracey Thurman, Transportation Cabinet
Dave Vogel, E-ON U.S.
Representative N. J. Damico
Representative Mickey Frith
Senator J. Chris Ullo
Bob Baumann, Louisiana State University
Representative Billy Broomfield
Representative Jamie Franks
Senator Hillman Frazier
Representative David Gibbs
Representative Charles L. Young
Gwennetta Tatum, House Services
Linda Callahan-Brown, Marathon Petroleum
Representative Ron Peters
Penny Douglas, Tennessee Valley Authority
Senator Emmett Hanger
Senator Frank Wagner
Senator John Watkins
Richard Hickman, Senate Finance Committee
Laura Schepis, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Senate President Pro Temore William Sharpe, Jr.
Jerry Bird, Public Service Commission
Amy Swann, Public Service Commission