soundenergypolicy.net website is registered to Sunflower Electric
January 17, 2008
Just up in DeSmogBlog – I will reprint here in its entirety:
Kansas coal kings have set up another front group to fight back against an October decision to block construction of two coal-fired electricity generators.
The Alliance for Sound Energy Policy advertises itself as “a statewide, non-partisan organization committed to balancing our growing energy needs with environmental stewardship.”
But there are no “environmental stewards” on its list of members, and its slick website is registered directly to Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, the failed proponent of the canceled power plants.
This is the second time that coal interests, including Sunflower, have launched an Astroturf group to fight the October decision. In early November 2007, a group calling itself “Kansans for Affordable Energy” ran a series of expensive and outrageous ads, suggesting that Kansas legislators were playing into the hands of people like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But the Washington Post quickly discovered that the ads had been purchased by Sunflower and by coal giant Peabody Coal.
If you’d like to see the website registration for yourself, just go to this link: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=soundenergypolicy.net.
Right now, as of 11:12 a.m. January 17, that site is registered to: Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, PO Box 1020, 301 West 13th St., Hays KS, 67601.
So if Sunflower owns and administers this site – what else connected with www.soundenergypolicy.net (the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy) do they run as well? To what extent are they dictating its entire agenda?
How can an organization with such a mammoth stake in current Kansas energy policy – in the midst of a brutally partisan-ized battle, where many Republican legislators firmly identify with Sunflower’s agenda, and see their main target as Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius and her adminstration’s decisions – credibly claim to be “a non-partisan organization”?
The exact relationships here call for further explanation and investigation. It’s important for the public – and for the legislators who serve us – to know what these connections are.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to learn more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
morning news updates
January 17, 2008
Here’s one note on the energy special interests money flying around KS right now – yesterday, the state ethics commission declared that anti-coal, pro-natural gas group Know Your Power, sponsored by Chesapeake Gas, was a lobbying group. This means that they had to disclose their expenses, which ran around $405,000. Kansans for Affordable Energy, sponsored by Peabody Coal, spent $100,000.
My thinking – this is only a drop in the bucket.
Along those lines, there’s at least 15 energy bills up for consideration this session (LJWorld). There seemed to be two interesting “shell” bills that could later be filled in with language regarding the coal plants and/or KDHE. (This is going to make me seem woefully uneducated about the legislative process – but I had no idea you could do that. Fill in the blank legislation…? That sounds way too much like Mad Libs.) Quotable:
However, Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, also a supporter of the coal plants, said he didn’t think lawmakers had the authority to reverse the decision, which was made by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Morris said some of the bills may eventually deal with KDHE’s regulatory process when considering plant permits. He said KDHE took too long to make a decision on the plants.
Nice bit from Spain, who is light years ahead of the U.S. on developing wind power – yesterday, wind power briefly provided 25% of their electrical needs (Reuters). President Bush has set the U.S. wind goal at 20% by 2030. NREL, the Utility Wind Integration Group, and a study by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Part I and Part II) all estimate that in its current configuration the U.S. electrical grid can handle up to 20% penetration by wind without significantly impacting base load.
— Maril Hazlett
Want to know more about climate and energy in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
KDHE DID NOT CREATE REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY
January 17, 2008
BY NANCY JACKSON
reprinted from the Wichita Eagle, 1/17/2008
In Kansas energy debates, we have heard a lot lately about “regulatory uncertainty.” But what does that mean, exactly?
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. CEO Earl Watkins has asserted that regulatory uncertainty is bad for business (“Regulatory process needs to be certain, impartial,” Jan. 15 Opinion). So has Amy Blankenbiller, CEO of the Kansas Chamber. They are right. Businesses do need a set of clear and consistent rules.
Ironically enough, that is precisely why some of the nation’s leading corporations — and largest greenhouse gas emitters — are calling for carbon dioxide regulation.
As Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers said last year, when elected to chair the Edison Electric Institute, “I’ve seen several surveys that say 70 or 80 percent of the executives in our industry think there will be carbon regulation. In a sense, we’re all building our business plans around the carbon scenario. The only issue is what the regulations will look like and when they’ll be implemented.”
Duke and other corporate superstars — including Caterpillar, Deere & Co., Dow Chemical, General Electric and Shell — have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Together, they are working toward a cap-and-trade system that would, in effect, put a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
These Fortune 500 companies believe they can “slow, stop and reverse the growth of U.S. emissions while expanding the U.S. economy.” Presumably, they know a little something about economic success and regulatory certainty.
They also know that if you’re not at the table when the rules get set, you’re on the menu later. That is why they are actively working to shape carbon dioxide regulations. Kansas businesses should do the same.
Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby’s decision in October did not create regulatory uncertainty; it reflected regulatory uncertainty:
• As of July 2007, members of the 110th Congress had introduced more than 125 bills, resolutions and amendments specifically addressing global climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Decisions made now under the specter of such regulations may be deemed imprudent under law and subject retroactively to penalty.
• In the past 18 months, proposals for 20 coal plants have stalled nationwide because of public concerns about air pollution, increases in greenhouse gases, rapidly climbing economic costs and future liability.
• Regional agreements between governors in the Northeast, West and, most recently, Midwest provide clear targets for emission reductions and allow for a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on carbon emissions.
Neither Bremby nor Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is “out front” on this issue. They are, in fact, arguably behind — 22 states already have climate action plans and another 14 are creating plans.
Regulatory certainty is needed, and in the wake of Bremby’s decision, Kansas has a historic opportunity to lead the nation in creating it. Let’s stop considering false choices between economic vitality and climate stability, and start talking instead about how we achieve both.
Nancy Jackson is executive director of the Climate and Energy Project at the Land Institute in Salina.
Want to know more about climate and energy issues in the Midwest? Check out www.climateandenergy.org.
