Topeka ? When the price of gas peaked at more than $3 a gallon last year and winter promised steep increases in home heating costs, some legislators assumed promoting renewable energy and conservation would be big issues this year.

They turned out to be wrong.

With the start of the 2006 session’s ninth week Monday, the Legislature had made relatively little progress on conservation and renewable energy legislation. At least nine bills were introduced this year, and so far only one has passed a single chamber.

Some lawmakers believe their colleagues lost interest in the topics when gasoline prices dropped and the winter turned out to be much milder than anticipated. Some of the proposals would cost state and local governments tax revenues, and the potential for short-term utility rate increases also have become an issue.

“Essentially, a majority of legislators don’t feel a lot of pressure right now to take action,” said Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, a member of the House Utilities Committee. “The energy crisis furor of last fall has dissipated.”

Considered bills

The only bill to make significant progress would provide $875,000 a year in state incentives to biodiesel fuel producers. The Senate approved the bill unanimously last month.

The House last month rejected a bill aimed at giving utilities an incentive to start programs to help customers make their homes more energy efficient. A bill that would put a small surcharge on electric bills for state assistance is stuck in committee.

The House Utilities and Taxation committees still are considering other legislation, including a bill to give property owners income tax incentives if they add insulation, install energy-efficient doors and windows or improve heating or air conditioning systems. House Utilities Committee Chairman Carl Dean Holmes, R-Liberal, said he’d still like pass the latter measure this year.

But the two committees also are considering legislation to give tax incentives to companies that build or expand oil refineries or crude oil pipelines, or that convert Kansas coal into a gas to power generators or make fertilizer.

Thus, the session has been frustrating for proponents of renewable energy and conservation such as Charles Benjamin, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club’s Kansas chapter.

“The Legislature doesn’t seem to see the urgency of it,” Benjamin said.

‘A difficult question’

Legislators have been concerned in recent years that Kansas has become a net importer of energy, instead of an exporter, particularly as demand for electricity has increased.

Like others, Benjamin argues that reducing the demand is the cheapest way to address the problem in the long term.

But relying on incentives to spur conservation has some legislators nervous. House members rejected the bill designed to encourage utilities to start energy efficiency programs for their customers after some members worried it would lead to higher utility rates and harm consumers who have efficient homes.

“You get into some really interesting questions of who gets what and why and who should have to pay for it,” said David Springe, the chief attorney for the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayers Board, which represents residential customers and small businesses.

Springe added: “I wouldn’t say there’s not a lot of interest. I would say that we haven’t really jelled on the appropriate mechanism to do it.”

Other issues

But conservation advocate Bruce Snead, an energy specialist for Kansas State University’s extension service, said legislators shouldn’t focus too much on per-unit electric rates.

For example, the bill calling for an efficiency surcharge on energy bills would raise $550,000 a year – and, Snead said, raise electric rates between 15 cents and 20 cents a year. But if consumers cut energy use, he said, their overall bills will drop, despite a rate increase.

“What people want are energy services,” he said. “In the summertime, they want a cold drink and cold air conditioning. In wintertime, they want hot coffee and hot showers.”