Interview of Bruce Snead, September 3, 2024

Rex Buchanan: Good afternoon, I’m Rex Buchanan, the former director of the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS). Today is September 3, 2024. We’re here to interview Bruce Snead, former Director of the Engineering Extension Program at Kansas State University [(K-State]). Our videographer is former Representative Dave Heinemann. We’re conducting this interview in the Statehouse in Topeka.

Bruce was born in Chicago, raised in California during the 1960s, earned a Bachelor of Architecture degree from California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) San Luis Obispo in 1974, and did two years of graduate work in environmental analysis at New York State College of Human Ecology at Cornell University. Bruce’s career at K-State began when he was hired by the Department of Architecture in 1976. After a couple of years in the private and non-profit sectors, he was hired as an extension state specialist in residential energy for Engineering Extension. He was chosen to direct Engineering Extension in 2011 and retired from that position in 2023. During his time at Engineering Extension, Bruce was recognized as an expert on radon detection and mitigation and indoor air quality. His involvement with Kansas energy policy issues began in 1982 and continued over three decades with participation on three different policy bodies and numerous legislative initiatives addressing energy efficiency, renewables, and conservation. During his career, Bruce was recognized at the local, state, and national levels for his work on various environmental issues. He was also elected to four terms on the Manhattan City Commission from 1995 to 2011, including four years as mayor.

This interview is part of the Kansas Oral History Project’s series examining the development of public policy at the nexus of energy and the environment during the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries. In these interviews we explore those policies through the eyes of experts, executives, administrators, legislators, environmentalists, and others. The Kansas Oral History Project is a non-profit corporation that collects and preserves oral histories of Kansans. The project is supported by donations from generous individuals and grants from Evergy and ITC Great Plains.

RB: Good afternoon, Bruce, and thanks for agreeing to contribute to this project.

Bruce Snead: Thank you Rex.

RB: I think it helps always to set a little bit of the stage with background so that people have some context for the issues as we get to those. We touched on this, but how do you wind up in Kansas?

BS: Well, we were at Cornell doing graduate work, both my wife and I, we were married in 1974. A job in architecture [at] K-State came up available. Someone from Cornell came up a year before that [had] worked with my master’s advisor. So, it was a flight and an interview, and when I came out to Manhattan and interviewed, I liked what I found and the people I would work with. So, I said yeah, it’s half-way back to California. Cornell and Ithaca, beautiful but cold and kind of grey. When you’ve grown up in California, you appreciate that. So, we came out in 1976 and have been in Manhattan ever since. It’s home. It’s a great place to raise a family. We have dedicated our lives there and I had the fortune, as you said in the introduction, of serving in the city commission there for 16 years. That’s how we came to Manhattan, Kansas.

RB: What brought on the political city commission thing?

BS: My interest actually peaked in 1982 when my son was born. I felt a responsibility to address environmental issues. I had been working in sustainable energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency in my graduate work. When I came to K-State, and in the subsequent three or four years [in the] private sector building passive solar homes, solar greenhouses. The opportunity in 1982 came to join the Kansas Natural Resource Council (KNRC) Board of Directors. I joined that and was with them for ten years. I think I was president for three of those years, working on energy issues in that member-based organization. Then in 1991, I was appointed to the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board by a good friend of mine, Karen McCulloh, as a county commissioner. I served for four years, and I remember one night watching the City Commission deal with an issue that we had dealt with at the Planning Board. And planning issues are usually the most controversial in communities, typically. I thought, you know, I think I can do that, and I think I can maybe do that more effectively than what I’m seeing. I ran in 1995, and was elected, came in first for a four-year term. Then subsequently, three more times was elected to four-year terms, coming in first or second, which means you get to be mayor in the third or fourth year of a four-year term. That’s a tradition in Manhattan. Being a city commissioner really helped me engage more at the state level because I had to represent Manhattan and engage with our local legislators on many issues for the city. It was also an opportunity to bring up my own career and experience and passion with energy and raise energy issues in the context of municipal work and municipal governments. Then my work in outreach and education on energy issues, indoor air quality issues, renewable energy helped inspire, “OK what could Kansas have?” I mean, what does it have? It has fantastic renewable resources, right, just immense renewable resources. I saw such a terrific focus on petroleum and gas and oil and how it dominated the policy discussions and the legislation. Obviously incredibly significant fiscal part of the state and economic part of the state. But, looking to the future, renewables, energy efficiency and conservation to build that. So, I got engaged however I could.

RB: That’s interesting, and to back up real quickly, KNRC was real involved with a lot of energy related issues about the time that you period that you’re talking about, as I recall.

BS: Nuclear energy was a big issue then. It was a good vehicle to try and have impact on state energy policy.

RB: I think it did. It was very active at that time. I don’t think it is so much today. But at that time, it was very engaged, even like radioactive waste disposal issues and a variety of environmental issues. Probably kind of peaked out in terms of environmental impact of citizen groups on the legislature in that time period.

BS: It was significant for about I felt, ten plus years. After that, there were some director issues that came up and it wasn’t well sustained. A member organization has, you’ve got to sustain the organization if you’re going to have the capacity to accomplish work and to accomplish your goals.

RB: Clearly, you’ve had a lifelong interest in energy issues. Where did that come from?

BS: It came from my background in architecture and understanding how buildings work and function. And that you can integrate renewable energy design into buildings. You want to design an efficient structure so you can optimize the renewable energy. That was the reason why, it was primarily from a buildings orientation. Design of buildings, renovation of buildings, weatherization. I taught the very first blower door workshop for the Kansas weatherization program in my work at Engineering Extension, which is, how tight are your buildings. Quantifying how tight they are and how you can make them more energy efficient by air sealing work. Energy’s the thread, but architecture and buildings, how buildings work and can be more efficient in addition to doing all the things they have to do. That was my inspiration.

RB: Tell me a little bit about Energy Extension at K-State because I’ve never been exactly sure what it is, how it fits in with other extension. Tell me about it.

BS: Sure, well, I joined in 1982, the same summer my son was born. As an energy extension residential energy specialist. It started a couple years earlier with the Carter presidency budget funding as the Kansas Industrial Extension Service. But with more of a focus on energy issues that were of significant concern at that time. It was funded through the [U. S.] Department of Energy [(DOE)]. If I characterize Engineering Extension, it’s educational entrepreneurs. At that time it wasn’t grant and contract funding, it had some state funding, it had some federal funding through extension through the College of Engineering. Engineering Extension now is 100% grant and contract funded. There is no tenure, there’s no permanency. It’s year to year contracts based on the ability of those folks to bring in contracts with EPA [U. S. Environmental Protection Agency], DOE, Departments of Health and Environment, private industry. I found it was a really great place for me in an academic setting because I didn’t have to deal with a lot of the academic stuff of classroom teaching and consulting or advising and all that. I was dealing with people who had problems. The classic extension work, people are, “all right, I’m building a new house. How should I heat and cool it? How much insulation should I have, what windows should I use? How should I lay it out so that it takes advantage of the sun?” Helping people with those kinds of questions over the years was something that I found myself very interested and willing to do and capable of delivering in terms of training and outreach and education.

RB: So, is it not part of [Agricultural] Extension at K-State? Is it a separate animal out of the Engineering School? Is that how that works?

BS: It is a separate entity in the College of Engineering. It has certainly good working relationships with the [Agricultural] Extension network, the counties and other states and other specialists and so on. But it has no funding from Cooperative Extension. It has no funding from the College of Engineering. [Engineering Extension] pays for computer services, they pay for utilities. It’s quite independent and if K-State’s budget gets cut, it doesn’t affect Engineering Extension. There’s an independence to it that has just worked really well for me and for the 20-plus others now that work there.

RB: What brought it on? Why does it exist?

BS: It exists because of the legislation at that time that created the Industrial Extension Services. Obviously, Cooperative Extension was already well established. It was a logical home for that but coupled with Engineering because of the energy focus of Energy Extension actually. The Kansas Energy Extension Service was created under this industrial extension moniker.

RB: But there must have been impetus within the Engineering School to go do that. Is that connection with Architecture? What’s the impetus here?

BS: It was Dick Hayter. Richard Hayter was the first Director of Engineering Extension, followed by Richard Nelson. And then I took over in 2011. Energy was the thread. Then we expanded, because I was able to take training in radon in the late 1980s. We secured funding to help to become an original radon training center with Minnesota and Michigan universities. That opened up indoor air quality issues for me as a funding source and as an activity. In addition to doing energy, and then I really fully went into the radon and indoor quality stuff in the 1990s. My energy work became more peripheral. Associated with City Commission work. We added in the mid-1990s the Pollution Prevention Institute. We had pollution prevention, radon, and energy work at Engineering Extension.

RB: In addition to the focus on residential work like you’ve talked about and radon to a certain extent, you’re also connected with various efforts within the state that look at energy issues from a statewide perspective. What’s been your connection there? What kinds of committees, boards, those kinds of things have you been on?

BS: Well, the KNRC was kind of the lead in, then when I was on the League of [Kansas] Municipalities Board, I chaired the Energy Environment Committee, I think it was called. City municipal energy issues and environmental issues was something that I paid attention to and worked with the League’s legal staff when issues or legislation came up and testified for or against whatever might affect municipalities. As I learned and saw the nature of the utility structure in the state with the regulated, big utilities, the municipal utilities (munis) and then the co-ops [electric cooperatives], I learned much more about the challenge of energy policy, where you have the primary deliverers of energy, gas, and electricity as diverse as that. From tiny little cities, right, that had their own generators and munis to the rural [electric] cooperatives, and then the big utilities, Kansas Gas & Electric (KG&E), Kansas City Power and Light (KCPL), Kansas Power and Light (KPL), and all of the different acronyms and names for all of those things that emerged over time. I saw in the rest of the United States many different examples of quality energy policy that states were implementing that led to tax credits for energy efficiency improvements, conservation, adding insulation, adding renewables, property tax exemptions for solar, additions to homes. I looked at Kansas and, abundant sunshine, abundant wind, and opportunities for energy conservation that I could see and quantify. It just felt like, we need to be doing more. That’s when I became aware of the state legislative structure, the utilities committees, the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), which is the regulatory body. And the lack of a policy body. Where should policy be? A major issue in Kansas was where should energy policy be administered? Should it be in the Governor’s office? Should it be with the KCC, a regulatory agency? Should it be with the Department of Commerce? The Department of Administration? Health and Environment? Of course, then the Legislature and the Governor have to determine that, right. That also affected securing federal dollars. You had to designate who was responsible. It just opened up, not a Pandora’s Box, but just a real complex picture of these players in energy policy and what could happen. I thought one of the major issues was having energy policy at the Kansas Corporation Commission doesn’t make a lot of sense. [The KCC] makes regulatory judgements and has to administer those utilities that it has jurisdiction over. It just didn’t make sense to me that those were in the same place. That it would be better to have separate energy policy that could interact with the various and have participation versus having people that regulate utilities also engage with them on policy. Trying to create independent energy policy efforts, committees over the years and I participated in those if I could gain an appointment or could volunteer.

RB: Kansas did very briefly, for one shining moment, have an Energy Office.

BS: Right, yes. A good friend, Joe King, no longer with us, headed the Kansas Energy Office. I worked with Joe on numerous projects over the years. We wrote joint position papers on energy policy. Joe characterized energy policy in Kansas as “extract and combust.” I give him credit for that. But it was accurate. That’s, all we’re going to do is just keep sucking it out, burning it up, and adding that to the atmosphere. I worked with Joe. I asked him actually when I was on as mayor, I got the city to engage with him to evaluate solar panels on top of a parking garage that we were adding in downtown redevelopment. I had that kind of relationship. I did training with Joe on energy codes and building codes. We hired Joe to do work for us as well.

RB: With his background in architecture…

BS: Yes, Joe was an architect.

RB: That was kind of my memory.

BS: Yes, he designed passive solar homes, buildings, he designed the KCC’s building that they’re in now in Topeka.

RB: Roughly what time period? Do you remember that we’re talking about here. Is this the late 1980s, early 1990s?

BS: It was the 1980s and 1990s and then 2000 is where there was quite a bit because I was on the City Commission and engaged in policy level activities, policy committees, worked with Governor Mark Parkinson, was appointed to the state Energy Resources Coordinating Council, served on the Kansas Energy Committee, there’s so many different . . . I got to look at my history and my files and there are so many acronyms. I actually developed an energy efficiency and conservation plan for the state under a contract to the KCC in 2009. Fifty-seven pages, it was kind of a tour de force for me to say, here’s what we could do. Here’s what all other states have. Here’s their administrative structures, here’s their initiatives, here’s their incentives. These are all… and proven performance, right. Let’s try and find a way to implement these kinds of things. But I have to say that probably in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the biggest obstacle to getting anything done in this area was the major utilities. I had a presentation in 2004, I think, to the three people that headed KPL at the time. I prepared a presentation about energy efficiency as a resource. What it could be for a regulated utility, with examples and so on. It’s like there’s a brick wall here. They’re not seeing the opportunity to have another resource. But it was very difficult to get utilities to implement anything. It still is, has been, it’s been very difficult. Kansas in ratings by independent associations – and I’m blanking on the acronym – we’re always ranked on the bottom five of 50 states in terms of energy policy that addresses efficiency, conservation, and renewables. Now things have changed over the last 10 years certainly, with wind and solar, but wind most obviously. So, there has been progress. But I just remember at a Kansas energy policy meeting I was talking to someone but the utility guys were all gathered and I could hear them talking, and they said, well if they pass this conservation thing we’re just going to go to the Legislature and we’ll kill it. That captured for me the challenge of getting statewide energy policy. The utilities and their lobbyists had the ability to control Legislation.

RB: But utilities are a big deal in every state . . .

BS: Yes.

RB: . . . by definition almost. Why are they able to do that here as opposed to other places?

BS: Politics, persistence, lack of vision and different commitment to their fiscal model. How do you make money? You sell more energy.

RB: Right.

BS: Selling less energy and helping people use less energy? They just had a real tough time seeing that, even though we could point to other examples from across the country where this has happened. This was happening. It was a very difficult environment because they were an obstacle.

RB: Yeah, they’re in the business of selling people electricity or other forms of energy, mainly electricity. So, you waltzing in and saying, sell less, wouldn’t compute. But it also relates to what is going on in about the same time period, which is, if you sell more electricity you’ve got to make more generation, and now the solutions to needing more generation is don’t use as much. You don’t hear much of that conversation in this state.

BS: Yeah, yeah. The coal-fired power plant at Holcomb, as I was reviewing my files for this, I found a letter from Mark Parkinson had found a way to approve that. I was kind of triggered, what happened to that. Well, I think it never actually got built.

RB: Right.

BS: It never got built. So, things can happen that are good. We’re on a much better path now with wind and the commitment to wind. But transmission issues were a big thing, how are we going to get wind distributed centralized service, so you get it delivered to where it needs to be. You have to have transmission lines. I remember [Representative] Carl Holmes and talking to him about transmission, the challenges of transmission and the committees that he led and work that he did about trying to address transmission issues. Those were bigger picture problems that affected the renewables. Getting the utilities to have fair rates for people who added solar or added wind. Those were, again, regulatory challenges. Utilities bring up proposals, the KCC has to look at that. And the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB), you certainly had CURB as another important actor in the energy policy arena because they were a break on what the utilities tried to accomplish with their rate cases and policies.

RB: Let’s go back to this Energy Office idea here for a little bit because a lot of states do have energy offices. Kansas did for a few years, not very long. It did establish various committees that would come in and out of existence. But none of those committees I think were ever viewed as being a permanent part of state government. They were going to do what they did and go away. There was no central permanent part of state government that focused on this issue. Why?

BS: Oh [sigh], I don’t know that I could have a good answer for that. Some of it would be hesitancy to add an additional office or entity to government. Why would we add an entity if people want to pull back. They want to put it somewhere. So where does energy fit? Well, to me, having it in the Governor’s office made a lot of sense. A Secretary of Energy. That made a lot of sense because it gave it higher importance. Part of it was driven by where funding for it came from. If the State Energy Program funding from the [U.S.] Department of Energy is the primary funding source, there are certain requirements that go with that funding. You have to have a designated entity. It’s the KCC now. It just was an unwillingness to implement a new administrative structure or revive the Kansas Energy Office structure as a Governor’s appointee. But I looked at models for where energy office, energy policy could be across all state governments, and it was diverse. A lot of governor’s offices, a lot of departments of administration, departments of commerce, and some independent as well. Independent energy offices or departments.

RB: My memory is when that office existed and Joe was director, it was a gubernatorial office . . .

BS: Yes, me too.

RB: . . . as I recall. Because as you look at the state agencies within the state, there is no obvious home for it like you’ve talked about. If Kansas had a Department of Natural Resources, it might make sense to fit there, but Kansas doesn’t have that model. Therefore, it’s kind of an orphan that’s looking for a place to go.

BS: Yes, there were just so many different possibilities, but it takes. . . For a number of years, I felt energy policy was legislative ad hoc. It’s just whatever legislators or committees wanted to initiate is what the energy policy would be. Whether it had an impact on tax through some kind of tax credits or it had an effect on transportation, it just was ad hoc by the Legislature with Governor’s concurrence perhaps. That’s just scattershot based on what the legislator or utilities committee chair or whatever committee that the legislation might appear in, their preferences. That just was rarely comprehensive.

RB: It is one way of making policy. Almost by de facto making policy, even if it’s just a function of who happens to be interested in what at a given time. In other interviews we’ve done as part of this series we talked about water. If you want to use water as an analogy in this state, there is a state water office. It is in effect an independent entity that lives out there. It has a Water Authority, but it is not part of Health and Environment. There are a zillion water agencies in Kansas – state, local, federal. In theory the water office is that policy coordinating model. Is that the model you would look at for energy?

BS: I did. We raised the water office and the water plan and all the efforts to address the water issues as parallel. Here’s an example of what, I mean, isn’t energy as widely distributed a need as water? Right? You’ve got to have water, you’ve got to have energy to do work, build, all those things. It made perfect sense as a model to have that Kansas Energy Office, Kansas Water Office. Develop a plan. To me, it was what we used as an example of what could be. Make an independent entity. You know more about it than I in terms of the legal structure that it is. But that made perfect sense.

RB: If it makes perfect sense . . . [Laughing]

BS: Why didn’t it happen? Why didn’t it happen? Yeah, no magic wand. It just, all those things that I mentioned earlier, there’s hesitancy to create new additional government. That certainly has been a thread over the years. Let’s not add to government, let’s cut back on government. That was part of it. Then utilities and their desire to maintain as much control as they could get over the energy market in Kansas and the provision of energy. Then you have the munis [municipal utilities] and the coops [electric cooperatives]. Those three levels, their interrelationships and connections and contractual relationships also played a significant role. The specifics are not coming back to me very well, but you know, if the munis decided to invest in renewables, and get less from the large, regulated utilities, they could end up paying more. So just the logic of the use of energy ran contrary to what contractual relationships were set up.

RB: You mentioned utilities, but my guess is the fossil fuel industry in the state was probably not thrilled about the idea of an energy office anyway either because they would ask the question, what’s in it for me . . .

BS: Yeah.

RB: . . . and I’m not sure what the answer would be.

BS: I remember one of the energy conferences and the first day was petroleum base, gas and oil. It got to the end of the day, and I stood up and said, I just want everybody to recognize that we have a second day tomorrow where we’re going to talk about efficiency, conservation, renewables, wind, solar and the role that they could play. But it was like the gas and utility gang had done everything they needed to do, and it was kind of done. No, we got more to do. It was daunting. I just felt we have to persist. The public, based on the surveys and reviews, and information. The public believes in renewables. They intuitively understand, sun and the energy source that’s there, and wind with help can be, they can tap them. But it was just very difficult at the time to overcome the obstacles that were based on the players and what their intents and goals were.

RB: So, by default, when there’s federal money for energy conservation programs, weatherization, whatever, it’s tended to flow within the state to KCC, right?

BS: Yeah.

RB: How’s that model worked?

BS: Well, there’s been some success certainly. KCC has had a long-standing Facilities Conservation Improvement Program (FCIP), which provides fiscal support for school districts, counties, cities, hospitals, others to make energy efficiency and conservation improvements in their buildings to make them more efficient, to reduce the budget costs for energy. That program has been very successful, it’s been long standing. The Engineering Extension energy program provides technical evaluation of those proposals, which is great. There is that example. Of course, the Kansas Weatherization Program has for many years helped weatherize low-income homes with federal resource funding. I remember one year working with [then-State Representative] Tom Hawk, we tried to get the state to provide an additional $300,000 to the Kansas Weatherization Program, of state funding, because it would increase the number. The question was could the Weatherization Program handle that. They couldn’t handle $3 million; you can’t ramp up $3 million. But $300,000 yeah, you might be able to add to it. So those kinds of efforts, just small things sometimes trying to get a little inroad for efficiency and investment at the state level on top of what the feds were already helping through their provisions.

RB: And I don’t, maybe I do mean to keep harping on this Energy Office idea, but one role that that office could have served would be when there are policy questions it could have served as sort of a dispassionate source of information.

BS: Right.

RB: Without that in existence, who does the legislative committee go to when it wants objective information about an energy issue?

BS: I presume they go to the research staff [Kansas Department of] Legislative Research [(KLRD)].

If there’s no entity in the state that you can say, I want to talk to the director of the energy office, I want his input or her input on this issue. They’re going to say, all right, this is a concern we have, let’s ask the Legislative Research to give us what’s available or research this in other states. That’s the beauty of the Legislative Research staff, they can tap into any other state’s initiatives and capacity and plans to help. When I did that energy efficiency and conservation plan, I went through all of those things that could serve as examples for Kansas.

RB: It would also make the Legislature at times reliant on those very industries that they’re having those conversations about. Isn’t that a fair statement?

BS: Sure, absolutely. They’re going to, the industry is going to find the example that serves their end goals best. That’s not necessarily what’s best for the state. But the legislature and the governor are the ones that finally have that decision making. Unless they’re willing to do the research, you’re going to ask Legislative Research or you’re going to rely on the lobbyists who say, oh, this is what they’re thinking about, here’s something we want you to see.

RB: After all this time of looking at other models out there, if you could create an energy “X” for the state, would it look like the Kansas Water Office? If you could snap your fingers, what would result?

BS: I guess that’s probably true. I’d actually have to go back and look at some of the things that I actually wrote and developed and found to say. But I do believe that the Kansas Water Office, I just remember it’s striking the right chord as a structure. As an organizational structure that was statewide that looked at . . . has the watershed districts and has all of that. . .

RB: . . .Municipalities, irrigators, everybody.

BS: The parallels there were, I thought, significant and as a model, made a lot of sense. It recognized the distribution structures, the watersheds. There were parallels in the energy infrastructure and the entities that make up the energy realm in the state of Kansas.

RB: But having said all this, if you look at where the state has wound up, the increased capacity in renewables . . .

BS: Is wonderful.

RB: . . . is pretty incredible.

BS: It’s great. And that’s, I don’t know what to attribute that to primarily. I think nationally, that has been one of the primary drivers is national policy for renewables. That has created the marketplace and changed the marketplace such that Kansas utilities have invested. But just as I said before, Kansas utilities have never been leaders in these areas. It’s been really hard to pull them along. But we’re in a much better place now with wind energy and solar, because both of those are just immensely valuable and useful. The policy questions about distributed wind and reliability and impact on the need for generation, all that stuff has been answered.

RB: But you know, as I sit here and think about it, maybe the place that water versus energy analogy breaks down is exactly where you just touched on which is the federal government. We didn’t have much in the way of conversations about the fed impact on the state when it comes to water because by and large water is viewed as state purview, legally and all sorts of ways. But the conversations we’ve had in this series, when you talk to people about  what were the big deciding factors that drove things like natural gas exploration and prices that affect the state or utilities’ use of natural gas versus coal versus whatever, they will invariably point to the federal government and say, the feds are the ones that made a decision and now we react to it. That may be why energy policy is much more of a – I was going to say victim, but that’s not the word I’m after . . .

BS: [Laughter]

RB: . . . but it’s at the beck and call of the federal government far more than say water would be. In a lot of respects, what the feds decide, then we react to it.

BS: Sure. Yeah, and there’s always that. With the [U.S.] Department of Energy and all the things it has to address and deal with. As administrations change and budgets are finally implemented, you see that. It will affect what the states can do.

RB: The upshot has been, as you pointed out, a lot more renewables throughout this state. Did you expect this to the extent that it’s gone on? Particularly in terms of wind. Solar’s somewhat behind that.

BS: Yeah, yeah. Ultimately, yes. Was it fast enough for me? No. But yes, I just . . . I was on the or I attended the wind energy task force meetings that were here in Topeka that created the zone in the Flint Hills of no wind. That made sense. There’s places where industrial wind should be implemented and has been successfully. Ultimately, I figured things would get there. It’s just it was never fast enough for me because of what I saw happening elsewhere and the logic of energy policy is as I understood it.

RB: But it certainly happened.  In a lot of respects, it’s a function of individuals. You mentioned Carl Holmes. In a conversation we had with him it was clear Carl cared deeply about transmission issues. Making sure that that energy that was produced would get out to places that it needed to go. The moratorium you’re talking about was driven by and large by Kathleen Sebelius’ administration. In some respects – I keep trying to get away from this Kansas Energy Office conversation – those kinds of developments depend directly on individuals.

BS: Yeah. Well, it’s who’s in power, who has resources to invest, who has resources to lobby, and who can bring to bear economics that make sense. So yeah, individuals play a key role, whether they’re a president of a utility or a muni or a coop or they’re a president of the Senate, right, or a speaker of the legislature. Yeah, individuals can make a real difference without doubt. If you’re in a position of power, authority, and ability to apply resources.

RB: I want to come back to that, but before I forget about this, one of the conversations that I sort of watched tangentially when I was over here for other things was renewable energy portfolio standards. Did that ever enter into your world?

BS: Oh yeah, we debated those in the energy policy committees. Renewable portfolio standard, say you got to achieve a certain percentage from renewables, setting that policy goal, which has been done nationally now certainly. So yeah, there was a lot of debate about that. The utilities:  “Don’t make us utilities, don’t make us do that because we’ll have to build generation, we have to have the generation to backup when the sun isn’t shining.” What? “At night.” What? I remember one time, hearing from one of the utility lobbyists or maybe a legislator, I don’t remember which, was, “geez, you know, we can’t predict the wind. It’s a variable resource, and geez it gets cloudy on some days.” I just kind of went, OK. I grew up in California, I know that there are surfers and surfing organizations that analyze the wind and currents and wave patterns and can predict when waves will be high at Mavericks or San Francisco or elsewhere. And it’s no different. You can do the same with weather and with percentage of cloud and all that. The idea that we couldn’t figure this out and we just have to make sure we have backup generation for all of this just was nonsense to me, nonsense. We have incredible analytical capabilities to integrate renewables into the grid and deliver it. Different renewables in different locations, certainly. It makes sense for biomass somewhere maybe. But certainly, solar, wind, these can be integrated.

RB: I want to come back to the politics of this, but before I do. So, if you . . .  you know, I ask you this question about snapping your fingers and what kind of energy office. If you could snap your fingers and look at the landscape of Kansas, would there just be more solar, more wind? There must be other ideas you have that you would have liked to have seen.

BS: Solar is probably the most untapped renewable resource that we have. If you build a parking lot, put solar parking lot covers on it, right. I know in the Lawrence area there’s an industrial solar proposal that’s going to be put out on farmland. There’s been opposition to that because you want to use farmland to grow whatever you need to grow or want to grow. But buildings are the first place to put solar. Distributed solar makes so much sense to provide electricity and/or hot water or heating, but certainly electricity is the most logical one. And a rooftop if it’s got solar exposure, which is easy to evaluate is a perfect place for it. We’ve got huge manufacturing plants, warehouses, all of them need energy for lighting, for heating, for cooling, and industrial uses and put PV [photovoltaic] panels on the roof. You can do that. That’s where policy that provides incentives for doing that in business. One of the things that Engineering Extension does is help create applications for renewable energy REAP [Rural Energy for America Program] grants. These are US Department of [Agriculture] grants to help rural producers [and small] businesses implement energy efficiency and renewable energies, like rural groceries, small town groceries. You can work with Engineering Extension and get percentage funding, [for example] 25% funding for upgrading the coolers to be more efficient. By doing that you pay back through savings, that’s the beauty of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments. Many times, you can demonstrate payback, return on investment, that’s reasonable and improves the bottom line. That’s an example of what we could do more of.

RB: I want to go back to politics a little bit because your perspective is pretty unusual in the sense that you talk about this time on the City Commission and mayor of Manhattan which leads to statewide interaction. At the same time in your other life at Engineering Extension you’re coming over here and dealing with various governmental and political bodies as well. I’m not quite sure where I’m going with this question, but the perspective you’ve got from the political world in Manhattan, how does it transfer, how does it affect what you did in your professional life?

BS: Being an elected official enables you to bring your own passion, knowledge, and expertise and apply it in the political context. For me it was, all right, what is the franchise contract for the City of Manhattan for energy. Franchise fees and that whole issue, can we achieve what I felt were important energy goals through municipal action, through the contracts we have. If we’re going to build a new building, whatever it might be, let’s make it a LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] building, an energy efficient building. Let’s look at whether solar can be effectively integrated to this and let’s build the most efficient one we can. For example, a jail. How often does a county build a jail? Every 40 or 50 years? It’s the least popular building a county wants to build, right, but you’ve got to. And the lifespan, that’s the lifespan of the investment you’re making. And buildings are going to be around for dozens, hundreds, tens of years at least in most cases. You spend far more to operate buildings than build them, typically, over their lifespan. Make the right decisions when you build them, and design them, and the lifespan costs will be less. That’s part of that architecture approach and that’s what I would try and deal with as an elected official. Are we building buildings, let’s do this. Let’s invest in this FCIP program in the City of Manhattan and reduce our costs for utilities that way. I just looked for opportunities where my personal thoughts, beliefs, and perspective, and experience could be applied at the municipal level in Manhattan at or at the state level.

RB: But how did those political lessons you learned in dealing with the City Commission in Manhattan translate when you walked into this building? To give you a little chance to think about that question . . .

BS: Yeah, yeah.

RB: . . . did you have maybe more credibility when you walked into this building because you had gone through the political process yourself just like the folks that work here have? Did that help you in this process?

BS: Oh sure. Anytime you can say, well I’ve sat on that side of the dais, as an elected official, dealing with all manner of municipal governance decisions, everything from what kind of gravel are we going to use on the ball fields, what kind of fence are we going to put around the cemetery to are we going to invest $50 million in STAR [Sales Tax and Revenue] bonds to do downtown redevelopment. So having been on both sides of the dais, so to speak, it gives you, I think, some credibility. Yeah, if you can say, I’m mayor of a community of 55,000 people, there is a sense of, OK, this person has had responsibility and may be worth listening to.

RB: How do the politics differ, though, from out there to in here?

BS: Oh well, city–non-partisan, state–partisan. That’s the big difference. Manhattan was non-partisan elections held in April the whole time I was on the City Commission. That was the beauty of it. It’s non-partisan, it’s not like I’m a Democrat or Republican or Independent, and that’s where it guides my thinking. It’s I represent 55,000 people elected at large, so what’s in the best interest of my community over the long term should be my guiding principles. When you come over here and enter through the doors, two sides, right? There’s Democrat and Republican, and what party, partisan issues, and the interpersonal activities of Republicans and Democrats together and against one another. Working through that partisan structure was the challenge, more so than I’m working with three, four other equals who have come from the same orientation, non-partisan, what’s in the best interest of our community to what’s in the best interest of me keeping power here or having authority or accomplishing my goals as an individual as part of a party. I never really liked the partisan politics of it, that’s why I never ran for state office. I remember asking, I think it was maybe [Representative] Joan Wagnon or [Senator] Lana Oleen, I said, could an Independent run for state representative or state senate. And she just looked at me, shook her head and said, “no, you’d be basically ostracized and outside the realm of power, because you can’t be part of the party.”

RB: So, I assume that’s a frustration when you walk into this building and see the difference between the way things operate.

BS: Sure, it can be very frustrating if it’s people are guided by partisan goals, partisan beliefs versus what’s right, what is fair, what’s just. Yeah, that’s very frustrating. It can be. But there’s also very good people that’s part of both parties, obviously. They have to have good people in order to get things done, to compromise.

RB: Do you think that that partisanship is part of the reason for the lack of creation of that energy office we talked about or sort of a unified statewide energy policy deliberately?

BS: Yes and no. I think there have been incidents that over time where, yeah, it’s been this is the party’s position or the leader of this party has this position, that’s why nothing’s happening, or it’s not going to happen. Then there’s been times where things have happened, where Governor Sebelius, Governor Parkinson took initiatives and did things to advance energy policy.

RB: So, the lack of that kind of institutional structure, it exists in a lot of other states that are just as partisan as Kansas is, so by definition, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to fail because of partisanship. Is that fair?

BS: No. Can it be a factor at certain points and time, sure. But it doesn’t mean it’s not possible just because things are partisan. Clearly not.

RB: I think we’ve covered most of the things that I had here. Anything that we haven’t touched on that you were active in your career in that we should have talked about, do you think?

[Pause]

BS: One of the interesting things I was part of was the Take Charge Energy Challenge. Remember that?

RB: Yeah, I do.

BS: This was a competition between Manhattan and Lawrence and Kansas State University (K-State) and The University of Kansas (KU )and I think there was a $100,000 prize for the community effort that could save the most energy and I worked with Noel Schulz, who was the wife of Kirk Schulz, president of K-State and I was mayor at the time of Manhattan as we went through this year-long energy challenge with outreach and education and going to high school football games and handing out lightbulbs. That was really a lot of fun. It was one of the most enjoyable energy efforts that I was part of because of the competition. That kind of was a unique experience working on the issues to demonstrate that. That was a lot of fun.

RB: Do you have solar in your home?

BS: In my current home I do not. The solar access, we’ve got great shade. The nature and structure of my house just doesn’t lend itself to adding solar panels virtually anywhere. The first house we had in Manhattan, we bought in 1976 and were there for 10 years. I added solar air heating to that with a water heater exchange. I also built a passive solar addition to that bungalow style house on Laramie Street in Manhattan. And I designed passive solar homes in Brewster, Kansas. I designed other passive solar homes here with my partner here in design and construction build for about four or five years. I led construction of the passive solar greenhouse at the University for Man (UFM) in Manhattan. That was a federal appropriate technology grant that enabled me to lead the construction of that passive solar greenhouse.

RB: Do you drive an electric car?

BS: No. I don’t have an electric car. The nature of the cars that we’ve needed and used hasn’t, I haven’t made that transition yet.

RB: I wasn’t going anywhere with this other than I’m always sort of curious as to how the kinds of background with people like you and I have influences their day to day lives in this process.

BS: Well, I renovated the house that we live in now. We bought in 1986, and I renovated, just tightened the heck out of it, replaced the windows, did all the things that I knew would make it more economical to live in and operate in terms of utilities. I’m proud that I’ve been able to help thousands of people with energy decisions over the years with my work at Engineering Extension, just telling them, helping them figure out, all right, can I afford a heat pump or should I have a gas furnace or a combo. That’s been very rewarding because I can help influence energy decisions for the public.

RB: I worked with Dave Kendall on a documentary about climate change [Hot Times in the Heartland] and one of the big lessons that I took away from that was collective action is everything here. I mean, you can make individual decisions about what you’re going to do related to energy use, but at the end of the day it’s really the collective decisions in terms of transportation, in terms of building, in terms of a lot of those things that we don’t think about as individual choices, that’s really going to determine how well we do. In a lot of respects what you’re saying is through the political process and the work you’ve done in Extension, that’s how you’ve influenced that process.

BS: Yeah. I really appreciate you bringing up the climate change. That was supported by the Flint Hills Discovery Center Foundation of which I’m a part, ex-officio board member and worked with Dave on all of the projects that funded it and very proud of that climate change video and what it has shown us. We’re all in this together. Climate change is a perfect example of a sustainable issue. A problem of sustainability over the long term, which is what I advocated for. I was able to bring funding in for sustainability efforts in Manhattan when I was on the City Commission. Because I went for grants and contracts, I was aware of these grants and contracts that municipalities could go for. So that was another opportunity to bring my own background, expertise, and knowledge to bear on the city.

RB: One of the things that also in that process of working with Dave making clear that while there’s a need for collective action, in effect that’s political action in a lot of cases. It appears that the time we most need our political process to be effective is a time that it appears to be, at least to somebody like me, pretty close to dysfunctional. We’ve picked a bad time to be disunited.

BS: As I look back over the last 25 years, clearly what happened with the election of 2000, if Al Gore had been elected [U.S. President], our paths would be different today than it is. I just believe that given the advocacy he had for climate change. That was a pivot point nationally, for sure. We have come back around with subsequent administrations, and certainly the Biden administration has made significant progress in climate change with what’s been passed in the last four years. We’ll see what happens, but national leadership makes a big difference. When you can invest federal dollars in climate change effective policies, and projects it just makes a huge difference.

RB: I think that’s the first time Al Gore’s name’s come up in these conversations we’ve had. But it really is a good example of that elections have consequences thing. Because in an area like this that is so much federally derived, who’s in charge of the federal government . . .

BS: Oh yeah.

RB: . . . is really critical.

BS: Absolutely. In terms of energy there’s no question about that. Yeah, it just is. Federal level leadership for a national, a global problem is just fundamental.

RB: We’re about to find out how much longer this’ll continue

BS: You bet.

RB: Within a couple more months we’ll have a clearer answer whether that process continues or maybe doesn’t. I appreciate the chance to have a conversation about these issues because, particularly the energy office question is on that has been one that’s been kicked around particularly in these halls for a long, long, long time and sometimes not to decide is to decide, as a friend of mine used to say, and that in some respects is what we’ve done here.

BS: Yeah, there’s a lack of action and I hope I haven’t presented a negative feeling. It’s just trying to be realistic as I look back at the decades that I’ve been involved and what has happened. But the wheels of progress move forward, and Kansas is better now than it was when I started working on this stuff in 1982. I believe that, but I believe we can always do more. There’s always an opportunity to improve. and if we can make decisions with long term best interest sustainability in mind, that’s what we want to try and do.

RB: I appreciate your perspective, Bruce, because again, the combination of politics and energy background that you bring to bear here are pretty singular. Thanks for being willing to do this.

BS: I feel fortunate to have the opportunities I’ve had because of where I worked and where I was elected. It gave me just a wonderful opportunity to try and make a difference in both realms.

RB: You blurred some lines in this process, which is all to the good, right?

BS: Absolutely. Being part of decision making for a community is one of the best things I ever did. Running for office and getting good people to run for office is really important to people who are willing to be in meetings that last forever but are willing to make those tough decisions and choices for their community or their entity, whatever it is.

RB: Well, I think you just provided an advertisement for why people should do the things we’ve been talking about throughout this series, so appreciate the chance to visit with you today and I appreciate you coming over here and sharing some of your insights.

BS: Great. Thank you, Rex, it’s been my pleasure.

RB: Thank you.

[End of file]