Kenergy’s Owensboro District recently hired Marc Stewart, an apprentice line tech.
Marc started work on Monday, Oct. 20.
Before coming to Kenergy, Marc was a line tech at Delaware County Electric Cooperative, where he worked more than four years.  Part of that time, Marc worked with Greg Starheim.
Marc is married to Lacy Stewart. The couple will reside in Owensboro.
His hobbies are hunting and outdoor sports.

Jill Frakes has been hired to work as a Member Service Representative (MSR) at Kenergy’s Hawesville office.

Frakes, a Hawesville resident, starts training for her new position on Monday, Oct. 6.

She will take over the position now held by Carla Early, who plans to retire Jan. 2 after working as an MSR at the Hawesville office for 36 years.

As the title implies, MSRs assist members in various ways, including payments, meter readings and applications for new service.

Before coming to Kenergy, Frakes worked at Audubon Area Community Services.

Frakes earned a master’s degree from Western Kentucky University.

Kenergy’s Board of Directors elected officers at the board’s regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 8.

Bob White of Sturgis was re-elected as chairman.  Billy Reid of Owensboro is now vice-chairman.  And Brent Wigginton of Hawesville is the secretary-treasurer.

Despite “a tumultuous two years,” Kenergy Corp. is performing well.
That was the overarching message Greg Starheim, Kenergy Corp’s president and CEO, delivered to the Green River Area Development District board of directors and guests Wednesday.
“We’re doing well in about all aspects, and we’re off to a good start in 2014,” Starheim said.
The nonprofit co-op returned $2.3 million to its members in 2013 from positive margins earned the previous year, he said.

Anne Barning and Susie Humphrey will be promoted to Member Service Representatives effective Monday, June 30.

Barning joined Kenergy as a cashier in August 2009, and Humphrey started working at the co-op as a cashier in November 2010.

Member Service Representatives assist members with payments and meter readings, inform members about rate increases and other important co-op business, and handle complaints, to name a few duties.

Barning works in Henderson, and Humphrey works in Owensboro.

By Joy Campbell Messenger-Inquirer

Some non-Kenergy Corp. members have been baffled by the barrage of campaign advertising for contested seats on the co-operative’s 11-member governing board.

One seat in particular, District 6 — which covers all of west Daviess County except for members located on the east side of U.S. 431 — has two candidates trying to unseat 18-year incumbent Larry Elder.

Elder said this is the first time he has had opposition for the seat.

“I think it’s because of the rate increases from Big Rivers with Century Aluminum leaving the system,” Elder said.

(ARLINGTON, VA) —National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) CEO Jo Ann Emerson today commented on the latest round of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions for power plants.

“Americans count on affordable and reliable energy to power our communities, promote job and economic growth, and keep costs in line for the basic necessities in our family budgets. New EPA regulations that add to the price of electricity have serious consequences for our communities, jobs and families.

“It’s very disappointing and disturbing that the EPA proposed a regulation that goes further than the Clean Air Act allows by taking an ‘outside the fence’ approach to setting the emissions reduction requirements that states must accomplish.

“America’s electric cooperatives are naturally concerned that these regulations will increase electricity prices and force power plant shutdowns, thereby harming the economy and jobs of hard-working Americans. However, there are a lot of details to work through in this proposal – and additional details that will be outlined in yet-to-be-developed state plans.

“Co-ops serve some of America’s communities most sensitive to, and least able to afford, increases in the cost of energy. Electric co-ops require independence and flexibility to choose solutions based on the needs of the communities they serve, which thoughtfully take into account balanced consideration of affordability, reliability and environmental responsibility.

“America’s not-for-profit, member-owned electric cooperatives remain laser-focused on the affordability and reliability of the electricity that powers our communities and will provide the EPA with detailed feedback after analyzing the proposal through that lens.”  NRECA is the national service organization that represents the nation’s more than 900 private, not-for-profit, consumer-owned electric cooperatives, which provide service to 42 million people in 47 states.

© 2014 Van Ness Feldman, LLP. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by Van Ness Feldman for informational purposes only and is not a legal opinion, does not provide legal advice for any purpose, and neither creates nor constitutes evidence of an attorney-client relationship.

On June 2, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed new rule pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would establish state-by-state carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction goals for existing fossil fueled electric generating units (EGUs). Under the proposed rule, EPA would require states to meet CO2 emission goals or targets starting in 2020 on a state-wide basis. States could allow their power plants to use a number of measures to meet those goals, including heat rate improvements, energy efficiency, plant retirements and renewable energy. EPA projects that the Proposed Rule will result in power sector emission reductions of 30 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. On the same date, EPA issued a proposed rule for modified and reconstructed EGUs under section 111(b). This alert will focus exclusively on the Proposed Rule for existing sources (referred to in this alert as the “Proposed Rule”). Background on Section 111(d) Section 111(d) directs EPA to promulgate regulations establishing a federal-state process for setting standards of performance limiting emissions from existing sources for pollutants not otherwise regulated in other specified sections of the CAA. Under this process, EPA develops performance standards, states are to submit plans to EPA to meet these standards, and EPA then approves or disapproves the state plans. EPA has used this section in only a handful of rules over the forty-plus year history of section 111, and there is almost no case law interpreting EPA’s authorities under section 111. In the previous rules under section 111(d), EPA has issued a “guideline document” that set out emission reduction targets and compliance deadlines for states, and has required states to implement compliance plans that ensure that the regulated sources meet those targets. The Proposed Rule includes such a guideline, along with a requirement that states submit plans to achieve compliance with the guideline. Emission Guideline: State-By State Emission Goals EPA has proposed to set a series of “state-specific emission rate-based CO2 goals” that would require states to reduce statewide emissions from the power sector. EPA has proposed to set an Interim Goal for 2020-2029 and a Final Goal for 2030 and beyond. EPA projects that, averaged nationally, these goals would result in a 20 percent reduction of CO2 from 2005 levels from existing fossil fuel power plants over the 2020-2029 period, and a reduction of 30 percent by 2030. EPA justifies setting state-by-state goals, instead of uniform reduction targets, by citing the “unique mix of emissions and power sources” in each state. EPA’s proposed Interim (2020-2029) Goals range from 244 lbs. of CO2/MWh for Idaho to 1882 lbs. CO2/MWh for Montana. The proposed Final Goals range from 215 lbs. CO2/MWh for Washington to 1783 lbs. CO2/MWh for North Dakota. Form of State Goal. Each state goal would take the form of an average rate of emissions per net MWh of electricity (lbs. CO2 / MWh) across all power plants within the particular state. However, in the proposed rule EPA gives states the flexibility to convert the rate-based goal into a mass-based goal. This could allow a state to set a cap on emissions from its power sector. This flexibility is responsive to the comments of some states that had requested a mass-based system, and could be necessary to integrate to existing cap-and-trade programs already implemented by California and a collection of northeastern states with the proposed rule’s framework. Basis for Setting State-by-State Goal. Consistent with the requirements of section 111(d) and EPA’s implementing regulations, EPA established each proposed state goal by determining the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) for the state and utilities. In setting each state’s BSER, EPA has adopted an interpretation of the term “system” that assumes reduction measures occurring outside the regulated plant. Specifically, EPA assumed four “building blocks”: • Improving the average heat rate of coal-fired steam EGUs by 6 percent; • Displacing coal-fired steam and oil/gas-fired steam generation in each state by increasing generation from existing [natural gas combined cycle] capacity in that state toward a 70 percent target utilization rate; • Including the projected amounts of generation achievable by completing all nuclear units currently under construction, avoiding retirement of about six percent of existing nuclear capacity, and increasing renewable electric generating capacity over time through the use of state-level renewable generation targets consistent with renewable generation portfolio standards that have been established by states in the same region; and • Increasing state demand-side energy efficiency efforts to reach 1.5 percent annual electricity savings in the 2020-2029 period.” EPA then applied these BSER “building blocks” to each state’s existing and projected coal, natural gas, and zero-carbon power systems (including both renewable energy and nuclear generation) to determine its state-specific emission rate goals. Notably, three of these four building blocks for setting each state’s target are based on “beyond-the-unit” (or “outside-the-fence”) measures for reducing or avoiding CO2 emissions. State Compliance Plans EPA has proposed to provide states with flexibility in meeting their emission targets. The proposed rule offers states at least three forms of flexibility: flexibility in the means of compliance, flexibility in timing, and flexibility in the form of the compliance obligation. In addition, EPA proposes to approve plans that employ a “portfolio approach” in which entities that are not EGUs would be partially responsible for meeting the state emission target. Means of compliance. The proposed rule would allow states to comply using any of the four “building blocks” EPA considered in setting the state-by-state emission guidelines, as well as other emission reduction measures not considered by EPA. These measures could include both “at-the-unit” measures such as improving boiler efficiency or switching to cleaner-burning fossil fuels (such as natural gas) and “beyond-the-unit” measures such as promoting demand-side energy efficiency or conservation, increasing the deployment of renewables, or establishing a cap-and-trade program Importantly, the proposed rule would allow pre-existing state programs, as well as new programs implemented ahead of the deadline for compliance, to be counted toward compliance with the state goal. EPA, working with other federal agencies and states, has set up a website with technical resources for use in developing state plans. Compliance timing. Regardless of what measures they use for compliance, state plans must ensure that the state’s power sector meets a specified interim carbon intensity target, on average, over the 2020-2029 period, and a more stringent target by 2030. However, EPA proposes to allow states to determine when and how quickly individual power plants in the state must reduce their emissions. Form of the compliance obligation. Although the proposed rule is formulated as an output-weighted average rate-based target, EPA proposes to allow states to convert their rate-based target into an annual tonnage emissions budget (also known as a “mass-based” target). In addition, the proposed rule 3 would allow multiple states to work together to achieve reductions—an option that could encourage states to join existing state cap-and-trade programs or create new multi-state programs. States that decide to participate in a multi-state compliance program could submit a single unified multi-state plan in lieu of their individual state plans. Compliance via a “Portfolio” Approach. In addition to approving state plans that place the ultimate compliance obligation directly and solely on EGUs with the state, EPA proposes to also approve state plans that employ a so-called “portfolio approach.” EPA describes the portfolio approach as a plan that includes “emission limits for affected EGUs along with other enforceable measures, such as [renewable energy] and demand-side [energy efficiency] measures, that reduce CO2 emissions.” Thus, state plans could impose obligations on EGUs as well as other entities that otherwise would not be regulated under section 111(d). Under the proposed rule, obligations on these non-EGU entities would still be federally enforceable through incorporation into the federally approved state plan. EPA explains that in order for EPA to approve a portfolio-based state plan, however, the agency would have to determine that the combination of measures could achieve the state-specific emission target. In addition, such a plan may need to contain “backstops” to ensure compliance with the mandated emission rate. Next Steps Comments and Public Hearings. EPA indicates that comments must be received within 120 days of the proposed rule’s publication to the Federal Register. Depending on the exact date of publication, this means comments will be due to EPA sometime in early October 2014. EPA is also scheduling four public hearings to discuss the proposed rule in late July. Finalization of the Guideline and Submission of State Plans. EPA indicates that it expects to issue a final rule by June of 2015. EPA proposes to require that each state submit its plan by June 30, 2016. If a state needs additional time and provides proper notification and explanation, EPA proposes to grant a one-year extension (until June 30, 2017) for submittal of individual state plans, or a two-year extension (until June 30, 2018) for multi-state plans. To qualify for these extensions, states would be required to submit detailed explanations by April 1, 2016 that contain specified information, including the likely approach the state will take with its state plan, the level of emissions the state plan could achieve, and an explanation of the expected path to completion of the state plan. Impacts of EPA Proposal According to EPA, the Proposed Rule could lead to $7.3 billion in compliance costs by 2030. EPA also predicts that the Proposed Rule will spur states and regions to consider new or expanded emission reduction, energy efficiency, and renewable energy policies. As a result, EPA’s proposal will have major implications for states, electric utilities, natural gas and coal suppliers, renewable energy and nuclear energy generators, energy efficiency companies and aggregators, financial institutions, and others. For More Information Van Ness Feldman will be preparing a comprehensive analysis of the proposal that will be available on a cost-share basis. Our professionals are also available to provide counsel to companies and others as they assess the implications of the rule and prepare to submit comments to EPA. Please contact Kyle Danish, Stephen Fotis, or any other professionals in Van Ness Feldman’s Environmental Practice for additional information on the analysis or on other matters related to this rulemaking.

For the third year in a row, Kenergy’s Board of Directors has voted to retire patronage capital, which is a tangible demonstration of members’ ownership in the cooperative.

In June, Kenergy will return $3.11 million to its member-owners in the form of a general capital credit retirement. The cooperative returned more than $3 million to members in 2013 and nearly $2 million in 2012.

Not all active members will be eligible for this year’s retirement, which is being made to current and former members who bought electricity from the co-op during 1983 and 1984.

One hundred percent of the margin from 1983 will be returned to members. Fifty percent of the margin from 1984 will be retired.

Members who bought electricity from kenergy during those years will see a credit on their bills in June. At this time, Kenergy continues to calculate amounts to be applied to accounts. After members receive their June statements, they may call with questions.

Former members will receive patronage checks in late May.

Deputy Secretary Rocky Comito of the Kentucky Labor Cabinet joined employees and officials in Henderson today to honor Kenergy Corp. with the Governor’s Safety and Health Award. The honor recognizes the member-owned electric cooperative for 509,963 hours without a lost-time accident or illness.

Kentucky Labor Cabinet Secretary Larry Roberts praised the success of Kenergy’s dedication to safety.

“It’s obvious that Kenergy Corp. has made safety a top priority, and today we recognize those daily efforts that add up to more than half a million work hours without a lost-time incident,” said Secretary Roberts. “Kenergy’s efforts reflect a constant awareness and commitment to avoiding accidents, which can happen so quickly and, unfortunately, can have everlasting consequences.”

Kenergy Corp. was established in July 1999 through the consolidation of Henderson-Union Electric Cooperative (organized in 1936) and Green River Electric (organized in 1937). Now with approximately 150 employees, Kenergy has grown to serve more than 55,000 homes and businesses in the following 14 western Kentucky counties: Breckinridge, Caldwell, Crittenden, Daviess, Hancock, Henderson, Hopkins, Livingston, Lyon, McLean, Muhlenberg, Ohio, Union and Webster.

“We are very proud of this achievement,” said Kenergy President and CEO Greg Starheim. “Our business requires our employees to work in hazardous and difficult conditions each and every day. We are so pleased to be celebrating this milestone and the recognition of our employees through this award.”

The Kentucky Labor Cabinet presents the Governor’s Safety and Health Award in recognition of outstanding safety and health performance. An establishment may qualify for the award if its employees together achieve a required number of hours worked without experiencing a lost-time injury or illness. The required number of hours is dependent upon the number of employees. In the case of Kenergy, the requirement is 500,000 hours.

The Governor’s Safety and Health Award program is part of Gov. Steve Beshear’s efforts to improve the health of all Kentuckians. The Governor launched kyhealthnow last month as an aggressive and wide-ranging initiative to significantly reduce incidence and deaths from Kentucky’s dismal health rankings and habits. It builds on Kentucky’s successful implementation of health care reform and uses multiple strategies over the next several years to improve the state’s collective health.

Every establishment within the geographical boundaries of Kentucky is eligible for a Governor’s Safety and Health Award, even if the establishment won the award the previous year. Eligibility is limited to one award during a 12-month period of time.

The award is a certificate that contains the signatures of Gov. Beshear, Secretary Roberts and Department of Workplace Standards Commissioner Anthony Russell.