Live Blogging: We’re baaaaaaaaaaaack…
April 30, 2008
Location: Kansas Capitol, Topeka KS - mainly the House Chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW of coal-fired generation, and the role of the KDHE Secretary in protecting Kansans’ health and environment
Bills/ Legislative Action:
- At 9:00 a.m. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is scheduled to make an official response to Sunflower Electric’s proposed compromise of 1200 MW. Press only is allowed into the room. CEP is not press. We will just stand outside and listen really, really hard.
- At 10:00 a.m., the legislature convenes. We await a possible veto override vote on SB 327, the first Holcomb bill.
- Also in play is SB 148, which awaits veto override attempts by both House and Senate.
- A new trailer bill on the Sunflower issue has been introduced into the Senate - we only have a summary available so far. NUmber - Senate Substitute for House Bill 2802.
- Today is also Pack The Capitol - when Kansas citizens can come show support for the Governor’s veto, as well as for clean energy in Kansas.
- If you have only recently come to this issue, check out CEP’s FAQ’s on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
- If you would like to contact your legislators, here’s the House roster and Senate roster. For how the House members voted the last time coal legislation came to the floor, please check here.
- Please hit your refresh button during the day to check for updates.
- 99.9% of this entry is hidden below the surface - be sure to hit the “read the rest of this entry” link to see the full, er, glory
Summary/ Action: (To be filled in later) SB 148 has been overridden in the Senate. A new trailer bill has been introduced in the Senate. The House adjourned with no action on any energy bill. The Senate has passed a new trailer bill for the coal plants - Sen Sub for HB 2802.
************************
Hi all. Welcome back. We had a break that didn’t feel much like a break, and now - here we are again. Yay. Today the Kansas legislature begins its wrap-up session (also known as the veto session). CEP’s plan is same as usual - hang out at the Capitol, wait for something energy-related to happen in the Kansas policy debate, then write it up and post it on the internet.
Mind you, there’s lot going on besides the coal issue. Budget, abortion, health care, immigration, etc. For the coal-focused, there will probably be long spells of ho-hum. I apologize for that in advance.
How long will all this last? In a surprise move, opinions radically differ. Supposedly, the wrap-up session is scheduled for four days. However, some glumly expect to be held here until sine die on May 29 - the day the final gavel falls and the legislature closes its 2008 session.
Other factors that might influence the length of the wrap-up session - this is an election year. This fall, all 165 seats in the House and Senate will be up for re-election. The filing deadline is June 10. The longer legislators spend in Topeka arguing about coal, the less time they have to plan campaigns. President Bush is soon scheduled to visit Greensburg, which was leveled by a tornado almost one year ago.
Last, House Speaker Melvin Neufeld has in the past shown himself to be a conscientious steward of taxpayer dollars. It is unlikely that he wants to spend the funds to hold legislators in Topeka for too long.
What in the world is going to happen? From the insane volume of totally contradictory rumors flying around, and the many bright shiny bluffing smiles that are pasted over clenched teeth, my guess would be that no one really knows for sure.
“Right now, this is the best spectator sport in Kansas,” one wise soul told me. “So everybody’s talking. Everyone wants to get on the record for making the right prediction, too, so they’re all saying a lot of broad and totally opposite things.”
And then there’s the people whose “oh dear” button is just flat broke, because it’s been pressed too many times over the past months. They’ve got the votes! Oh dear. We don’t have the votes! Oh dear.
When that button breaks, the result is a lot of people - on all sides of the debate - who have pretty much had it with drama. I just watched this happen - one person just scurried up to another, told them something fairly high-voltage (if true) - and that person merely said, “Yeah?”
We’ll all find out at about the same time, I suppose.
***************************
Governor Sebelius has rejected Sunflower Electric’s proposed compromise. She did so before a standing room only crowd of legislators, lobbyists, and press, while members of the public thronged the hallways outside her office. Read the rest of this entry »
by Eileen Horn
At a recent Community Energy Forum held at Wichita State University, one of the audience members asked a panel of Kansas legislators, “What is the best way to communicate with all of you? What is the most effective means to make our voices heard?”
Their answers might surprise you.
Although many of us forward those mass emails prompted by Action Alerts from our various organizations, Rep. Nile Dillmore of Wichita stated that these aren’t that persuasive for him. He said that it’s easier to dismiss a mass email with talking points that have clearly been cut and pasted from an Action Alert than to dismiss a personal letter. Rep. Dillmore noted that what makes the biggest impact on him are personal messages, crafted from the person’s values and in their own words.
For Rep. Jim Ward, it’s about personal relationships. Rep. Ward stated that when a constituent has a personal relationship with a legislator, provides them with good information, and allows the legislator to explain themselves, it is much more effective. “Nobody likes to be threatened,” he said.
Rep. Josh Svaty pointed out another useful tactic. “Go to public events that your legislator is at,” he said, “and if you want something, remind them over and over in public. Follow their voting records, and be there to remind them of what you want and expect of them.”
For more ideas and links to contact your legislators, visit the “Pass It On” page of CEP’s website.
—Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org
by Eileen Horn
“I feel like I should send Sunflower one of those big ‘Thank You’ cookies,” said Rep. Nile Dillmore of Wichita KS. “This issue has generated more phone calls, letters and grassroots passion than any other in recent memory.” According to Dillmore, the numerous contacts he has received on the Holcomb power plant issue have really helped him stay in touch with his constituents.
Staying in touch with constituents was exactly the point of last night’s Community Energy Forum held at Wichita State University. The event, co-sponsored by the Climate and Energy Project, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club Southwind Chapter, and the WSU Elliot School of Communication, brought together legislators and constituents to have a balanced discussion on state energy policy. Panelists included Rep. Nile Dillmore, Rep. Dale Swensen, Rep. Jim Ward, and Rep. Josh Svaty.
Now, if you’ve been paying attention (or are as obsessed as we are at CEP), you’ll note that the four panelists all voted NO on SB 327 and SB 148, the bills to permit Sunflower to build 1400 MW in Holcomb.
As Pat Dooley, co- President of the League of Women Voters- Wichita Metro pointed out at the beginning of the forum, “The league of women voters wanted very much to have a balanced panel, and to have both pro and anti-Holcomb viewpoints represented. We invited many of the pro-Holcomb legislators, but they all denied the invitation.” The Wichita Eagle, which covered the event, noted this as well.
Despite the apparent lack of diversity on the panel, there was still plenty to discuss! In their introductory remarks, the legislators explained their reasons for voting against the proposed Holcomb plants:
For Rep. Svaty, the risks to ratepayers far outweigh the potential benefits of the plant, especially in light of the skyrocketing costs of new coal plant construction, and pending carbon legislation at the federal level. For Rep. Jim Ward, the CO2 emissions, water usage, and the fact that Colorado will get the energy while we get the pollution were central reasons for his NO vote. Nile Dillmore acknowledged that while KS will eventually need to build another coal plant for baseload, in his opinion this plant is not the one. Dillmore noted that we have time to consider a comprehensive energy plan for KS, one that includes renewables. And finally, Rep. Swensen cited several examples of China’s booming economy as evidence of a looming worldwide energy crisis that we should begin to prepare for. Swensen stated that government should “prime the pump” to allow consumers and industry to take advantage of new renewable energy technologies.
While they all had varying reasons for their opposition to the Holcomb legislation, the legislators all nodded approval when Rep. Ward noted that he was disappointed that this session didn’t provide the opportunity for a real energy debate about KS future. Instead, coal became the centerpiece of this session, and became politically polarizing and divisive. As Rep. Dillmore noted, the “900 lb. lump of coal was always in the room.”
The floor was then opened for a Q & A session. The questions from the 50 attendees ranged from the possibilities of net metering legislation, the impact of Holcomb on water supplies, mercury emissions from coal plants, the possibility of building another nuclear plant, and the potential “green jobs” that Wichita might be poised to deliver (with their expertise in building turbines of all sizes and shapes).
As I listened to the forum, I was immediately struck by a) how civil and respectful attendees were in asking their questions, and b) how candidly the legislators answered. This led to an open discussion, as legislators felt comfortable to express their opinions in this crowd, and the crowd seemed satisfied with their responses.
On my drive home from the forum though, I was struck by what may have been the most important outcome of the event: the attendees created a discussion about Kansas’ energy future that bypassed the 900 lb. lump of coal in the room! Through their questions about future policy on net metering, the possibility of nuclear plants, and the new “green” economy, Kansans clearly were ready to move past coal and onto a more diverse and exciting energy future.
In fact, it almost seemed like the forum attendees created just what Rep. Ward pointed out that the legislators had been unable to do: have an open debate about Kansas’ energy future.
- Eileen Horn
News Updates: China and wind, reprocessing fuel rods from nuclear plants, biofuels and the food crisis, etc.
April 29, 2008
China setting bonkers targets with wind. (Yes - bonkers is a technical term.) From the WSJ Env Capital blog, China is raising its wind power goal from 30 gigawatts to 100 gigawatts by 2020. How much is 100 gigawatts? The equivalent of 100 nuclear plants, or more generation capacity than in all of France.
What does this mean for Midwesterners? (1) For those purchasing wind turbines, you now will have even more international competition, and (2) for those producing wind turbines, you will have more markets.
Don’t forget the nukes. During this recent legislative session, even Kansas experienced a resurgence in the nuclear debate - one that would have gotten a lot more attention if it hadn’t had to compete with coal.
During the nuclear discussions that did occur, reprocessing spent fuel rods got a lot of attention. Good idea? Bad idea? Impossible? Too expensive to even contemplate? A gimme to terrorists who can use the resulting plutonium for dirty bombs? A great way to let future generations and technology solve the spent fuel and radioactive waste issue?
Opinions differed. Also from the WSJ Environmental Capital blog, more research on the topic.
Biofuels and the food crisis. A combination of factors has led to the current world food crisis - according to one measure, “market prices of cereals, dairy produce, meat, sugar and oils, was 57 percent higher in March 2008 than a year earlier” - and the recent explosion of corn-based biofuels is part of the problem (Reuters). Another part of the problem is higher fuel prices. Without fuel, farmers can’t farm as much acreage, so they grow less.
The situation: High demand - populations in the developing world are even growing. Limited supply - there’s less food to feed them. Result - food prices increase, and many people go hungry.
When people are hungry, they often riot. At the very least, they’re not very happy with their governments. Unhappy populations experience high incidences of civil unrest. Civil unrest contributes to international upheaval, even terrorism.
Biofuels originally promised to increase the energy security of the United States. Instead, they have become caught up in a cycle that is undermining it. How do alternative fuels disentangle themselves from this cycle? How much can we safely mix our sources of food and fuel?
TBD.
Anglican minister on climate change. Via NPR. Quotable: “It is not about, if we pray hard enough to God, he will end climate change. Yes, we should pray to God. We should also get off our backsides, get out there, and do something about it.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
As folks no doubt know, the Kansas legislature reconvenes tomorrow, Wednesday, April 30, at 10:00 a.m.
Kansas citizens are invited to Pack The Capitol, also convening at 10:00 a.m., in order to show support for the Governor’s vetoes of the coal bills, and for clean energy. PBS Frontline will be covering the event for a documentary.
The legislators have a lot to wade through during the wrap-up session - abortion, the budget (which still has to address home services for aging populations), immigration, health care, housing and water conservation.
CEP will be live blogging the wrap-up session, which means we will watch all these issues play out. Our focus, though - like much of the nation - will be on the fate of the coal bills. (For more info, see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy).
Both SB 327 and SB 148 have been vetoed by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. The Kansas Senate has overridden SB 327, and we await an override attempt in the House. SB 148 awaits a veto override attempt by both chambers. The Senate will doubtless get the votes. In both cases, the House is the question mark.
The two bills are essentially the same in the major respects - they would both allow Sunflower Electric’s 1,400 MW coal-fired plants to be built in Holcomb, Kansas, by means of removing the KDHE Secretary’s authority to regulate the health and environment of Kansas.
While hard to imagine - the provision against the KDHE means that this issue is actually much larger than 1,400 MW of coal power. If the legislation passes, Kansas would be left wide open, without protection against future coal development.
So. Big issues. Lots at stake. And the good news is - many thoughtful people in the state are asking excellent questions.
- Do these bills represent a prudent approach to carbon dioxide emissions generated from fossil fuels? Is 1,400 MW and eleven million tons of CO2 emissions reasonable, or excessive?
- In this uncertain economic and regulatory climate, is now the right time to be constructing such large sources of new coal generation?
- When we already gain 70% of our electricity from coal, does increasing coal power help move us toward a renewable energy economy?
- Has the intense legislative battle over coal allowed all Kansans to participate in an open-minded, productive conversation on long-term energy policy, leading to substantive green initiatives that will shape the future of this state?
- How do the “green” policies in these bills measure up to the renewable initiatives of our neighbors - Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri?
- And most important, does the scale of these coal power proposals match up with the words that Kansans hold dear? Like - Reasonable. Balance. Prudence. Common sense.
These questions come from editorials and letters to the editor from all across the state - KC Star, Hutch News, Wichita Eagle, and others.
From the Hutch News, on Sunflower Electric offer of a compromise last week:
Give Sunflower credit for bending a little from what previously had been a decidedly rigid position. Still, it isn’t enough. It remains a long way from Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ proposal to scale back the coal generation to a total of 660 megawatts - still plenty more than needed to satisfy the state’s demands - along with 132 megawatts of wind energy. That is a plan with balance.
Sunflower now is willing to commit to develop its renewable energy to 20 percent by 2016, but that’s 20 percent of its peak power requirement, and it is still not an immediate, and serious, commitment to wind energy. And this compromise remains part of legislation that would strip authority over air quality permits from the state’s top regulator. Such legislation also would remove Sunflower from rate regulation by the Kansas Corporation Commission.
No matter the size of the plants and the emissions, that is bad legislation… Legislators should leave the Sunflower matter alone and concentrate on the bigger picture, which is comprehensive energy policy that charts a sensible - and balanced - approach for the whole state.
Perhaps later today or sometime tomorrow, we will hear the Governor’s response to Sunflower Electric’s offer. Later this week (and maybe even next week - and the next - oh gosh) we will wait to see if the Governor’s vetoes are sustained or overridden.
And after that - we’ll all still be here. Energy issues are going to be on the table for Kansas, for a long time to come. Long after this chapter of this particular controversy draws to an end.
That said, see you tomorrow.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
As CEP’s readers know, when the legislature reconvenes on Wednesday, April 30, our worthy representatives will be considering important, weighty issues - like overriding Governor Sebelius’s veto on the coal bills.
That same morning is scheduled for PACK THE CAPITOL, an event where concerned citizens can come support the veto, and a clean energy future for Kansas.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but until all this energy stuff got started, the last time I had been to the Capitol building in Topeka was during grade school.
I’ll admit it, when I showed up on February 5 to cover the Holcomb hearings, I was very very very nervous. Impressive building. Important people. Eek.
This state of awe and terror lasted for a bit. Then I realized - my childhood, spent showing horses on the 4-H and Quarter Horse circuits in Kansas, had in fact perfectly prepared me to hang around the Capitol. In particular, watching legislators was much like hanging out at the American Royal, which I can only describe as a livestock extravaganza.
I realize that half my readers know exactly what I am talking about. The other half are thinking oh dear, they just wandered into a digital stockyard, and are now checking the bottom of their shoe.
If you’ll allow me, I’ll explain.
First off. Whether it’s the American Royal, the KS State Fair, Denver Stock Show, the legislature - get there early. Not much will be actually happening in the arena, but back in the stalls and out by the trailers, things are really hopping.
Wander. Observe. Smile nicely, find some coffee, steer (ha!) clear of single cowboys - and watch where you step.
Second. Grab a program. In the Capitol, this means that you go by the Documents room - enter at the visitors entrance on the building’s east side, Documents is on the right just before you get to the rotunda - and pick up a copy of the House and Senate calendars. They’re just laying on the shelf out front. Grab one. Say hi to the very nice people who run Documents.
If you know the bill number you are interested in - probably SB 327 or SB 148 - just ask for a copy.
Third. Be prepared for the program to bear no relationship to what actually happens in the main arena. Show organizers - and legislative leaders - have the power to switch classes and bills around pretty much at will. Show organizers actually get a lot of grief when they do this. If legislative leaders do, that I haven’t noticed.
Fourth. There’s no shame in asking. If you’re new to any of this, horse shows, stock shows, the Capitol - remember, it’s all still Kansas. People are basically nice. If you need someone to hold your horse, or watch your stuff while you run off to grab a candy bar or take a bathroom break, or just to tell you what the heck is going on - ask. It’s no big deal.
Last. When it comes to the Capitol, remember - you’re the judge. Seriously. All those people parading around down there and performing on the floors of the House and the Senate - they had better impress YOU. You - the voter, the constituent, the citizen - are the ultimate judge.
See? American Royal, Capitol, whatever. No problem. If you’ve been to a lot more stock shows lately than you have been to the Capitol, you might think about coming to Topeka to observe your state government in action.
It’s not all that different than what you’re used to.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Kansas Coal Controversy
April 28, 2008
Opening rounds are being fired. As many folks know, the Kansas legislature heads back for their wrap-up session (also known as the veto session) on this Wednesday, April 30.
This is also the day of PACK THE CAPITOL, when citizens can show up to support those legislators who are voting to sustain Sebelius’s veto, and to advance clean energy in Kansas. PBS Frontline is covering the event for their documentary on the Kansas coal controversy.
But why wait until Wednesday to get back into it? Accusations of vote trading are flying as thick as - coal dust. My favorite lead so far comes from David Klepper of the KC Star: “Put enough pressure on a lump of coal, you get a diamond. So what happens when you put the squeeze on a Kansas legislator? We’ll find out this week.” Quotable:
What’s being offered to entice votes? Promises to support causes and bills important to individual lawmakers. Or promises to block the same.
At times, votes on big projects such as a new Cessna plant in Wichita, the Gardner intermodal freight hub and a federal biodefense laboratory in Manhattan have all been tied to the coal plant, with rumored threats to block each unless votes for the coal plant were forthcoming.
Both sides can also promise help — or the opposite — on the campaign trail before this fall’s legislative elections. The governor has other benefits to offer — flights on her airplane to University of Kansas basketball games, for instance.
Sebelius, Neufeld and others deny that this kind of arm-twisting is going on.
What I find inspiring - although I am sure that others find it frustrating - energy and environmental issues are redrawing the traditional bipartisan map. Lest anyone think that this controversy breaks down along traditional lines, with all Republicans for the plants and all Democrats against it, nothing could be further from the truth.
Rep. Terrie Huntington, a Fairway Republican and a consistent “no” vote on the coal plant, called the trading of votes “shortsighted” when it comes to an issue this big.
Huntington said she may have been able to support the Sunflower project if it came with a comprehensive energy plan to reduce emissions and require renewable energy. As it stands, her feedback from residents is running 60 percent to 70 percent against the plants.
Even without the politics, she said, it’s a tough decision that will have an impact for years to come.
As the Salina Journal notes in detail, though, there’s a lot more to deal with in the wrap-up session than just coal. Or as the Topeka Capitol-Journal summed it up: “Legislators return Wednesday to a slew of unresolved issues. Choose your hot-button topic, and it is on the menu: abortion, budget spending and immigration.”
Hello, America. Welcome to the microcosm of the Heartland! Will we see some of these same themes reappear when carbon regulation hits Congress after the next election?
I just bet.
Carbon, schmarbon. Think about those construction costs! As the Wichita Eagle puts it: “Two proposed western Kansas coal-fired plants face a challenge that no amount of political wrangling can fix: rising construction costs.”
During the past year, several new coal plants have been canceled due to the rising costs of copper, steel, and cement. As a result, new coal generation is not the cheap energy source that it was only a few short months ago. The Eagle also mentioned that it is unknown what impact these rising costs will have on western Kansas ratepayers.
(CEP: To go into a little more detail on how exactly this works: The rates of rural electric cooperatives are not regulated by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC). Nor are their costs publicly disclosed, as are those of investor-owned utilities like Westar and KCPL. If those two utilities were building plants, their finances would be an open book for the KCC and ratepayers. Sunflower’s cost projections are not.
In terms of KCC oversight, Sunflower is a bit of a strange position, because they are such an enormous cooperative. In the past, some of their activities have come under KCC jurisdiction. If the veto on one of these coal bills is overridden, though, then the language gives Sunflower the option to exempt itself from all KCC regulation.)
Regardless. As the battle over these plants rages on, the costs will probably only increase. However the legislative chapter ends, the judicial chapter is likely just beginning. The Kansas Supreme Court just returned three of Sunflower’s cases against the KDHE to district and appeals court.
In the event that the veto is overriden, Sunflower will probably drop these cases - but then opponents of the plants seem very likely to start filing.
The resolution is unlikely to be speedy. Would a compromise between the Governor and supporters of Sunflower Electric make a difference? Who knows.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Interesting energy approaches in western KS, how they do it in Colorado, Cizik speaks on creation care and the Pope
April 28, 2008
Innovative approaches to power in western Kansas. Goodland Energy Resources not only got its permit for its 22 MW coal-fired power plant renewed by KDHE - but it also updated its capacity (Hays Daily News).
Located 5 miles west of Goodland, the plant sits with an ethanol plant also under construction. Steam from the coal plant would be supplied to the ethanol plant to aid in its manufacturing process.
Although the plant has had its air permit for burning of coal for some time now, the plant’s owners went back and asked for permission to modify its permit so it could burn other waste products, including tire chips and municipal waste.
That option, according to a release from EHL, would allow for emissions credits — “an asset with significant future value.”
Under terms of the permit, emissions of carbon dioxide would be limited to 270,000 tons a year, according to Kansas Department of Health and Environment spokesman Joe Blubaugh. Other pollutants, he said, all are limited to less than 100 tons per year…
… (A spokesperson said that) the company went back in and asked to modify its permit, seeking permission to burn other products, such as sunflower hulls — presumably from the ADM sunflower processing plant a few hundred yards to the south — along with wood, tire chips and municipal waste.
“That’s a new technology coming on in power plants,” Sederstrom said. “It might not be something we do right away.”
But it’s a possibility.
Colorado has some minor energy drama of its own. Readers of this blog know that I have a touch of Colorado-envy. In terms of getting productive energy policies on the books - and renewable technologies on the ground - they have a really great track record.
As happens, though, there has been a little pushback. As the Telluride Watch reports, there are currently 18 renewable energy bills fighting their way thru the Colorado legislature. One of the more controversial measures broadens the scope of the state’s Public Utilities Commission (in Kansas, we call our equivalent the Kansas Corporation Commission, or KCC) by allowing it to consider renewables in rate cases.
Opponents argue that this means the PUC will privilege electricity generated from renewables over that from traditional fossil fuels, and also that the PUC has no business worrying about the environment.
Other Coloradoans seems to think energy and environment are VERY related - there are also plans for a ballot measure that would prevent not only the construction of new coal-fired power plants in Colorado, but also importing coal-fired power from states like Kansas or Wyoming (Rocky Mtn. News).
Rev. Cizik speaks on the Pope’s visit. Reverend Richard Cizik, a leader in the evangelical vision (I first typed “incarnation” - whoops!) of creation care, recently spoke to the Christian Post regarding the Pope’s recent visit to the U.S.
According to the Post, “the pope during his U.N. speech last week argued that environmental protection is a moral obligation, and urged global leaders to do more to preserve God’s creation.”
In Cizik’s words: “Pope Benedict’s statement about ‘rediscovering the authentic image of creation’ are helpful and reflect our own evangelical ‘creation care’ movement’s effort to take responsibility for the world that God created and love.”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
As released by the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE) and the Sierra Club:
Join other concerned citizens Wednesday April 30th in Topeka to show our support for Kansas’ clean energy future! PBS Frontline will be there to film the KS coal controversy. (For a .pdf flier of this announcement, please click here.)
As lawmakers return to Topeka next week for the fast-moving “veto wrap-up” session, an attempted override of the Governor’s veto of SB 327 and SB 148 is expected to take place upon arrival at the Capitol. A two-thirds vote is required in both the Senate and House to do so. And while the Senate stands poised to deliver more than the votes necessary to override, proponents of both bills in the House have twice fallen short of gaining the 84 votes needed.
But time and political pressuring have worn on some legislators, and facing the end of the session, some seem prepared to cast their vote in support of the bill in order to simply put the energy debate behind them.
However we MUST let those lawmakers who are waffling know that this is no issue to simply “put behind them” - that energy policy isn’t ONE of the pivotal issues facing Kansas, it is THE issue.
TO ALL CONCERNED KANSANS STATE-WIDE:
JOIN TOGETHER TO ENSURE AN ENERGY FUTURE THAT BENEFITS ALL KANSANS -
TODAY, TOMORROW, AND IN GENERATIONS TO COME
TOGETHER, AFTERWARDS, WE WILL ATTEND THE FULL SESSION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOLLOWED BY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRAFT AND SEND A LETTER TO YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER’S EDITOR.
THE DAY ENDS WHEN YOU MEET WITH YOUR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE.
WHERE: KANSAS CAPITOL BUILDING 3rd floor elevator, TOPEKA
Energy policy cuts across political divides. It affects all ages, each of our communities, and those of every ideological view.
We have made a powerful statement so far, but one incredible opportunity remains. Join us next Wednesday in Topeka to show lawmakers that 84 votes is no match for the voice of ONE Kansas.
If you have offered your time previously, your continued support is much needed - bring someone new this time if you can.
If you simply can no longer stand to sit back and watch as powerful interests seek to undermine Kansas’ future prosperity - then make your first act to be a part of this historic day.
There is no time to wait. Make the commitment to a new future for Kansas.
ONE KANSAS.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30th, 2008
Find your Representative at GPACE.org. Schedule a meeting with her/him for Wednesday.
Visit www.kansascleanenergy.com to find a carpool leaving from your area.
Contact GPACE to learn more about the event. Email Chris Cardinal - ChrisCardinal@gpace.org
Want to know more about the Kansas coal controversy? Check out CEP’s FAQs.
News Updates: KS Supreme Court says Sunflower Electric’s cases on Holcomb air permit must first be heard by KDHE and district court
April 25, 2008
Legal eagles, listen up. As reported by the AP, the Kansas Supreme Court has just decided to put the three Sunflower Electric cases before it on hold, until the cases are heard by the KDHE and the district court.
Huh what?
OK. Last October, when KDHE Secretary Bremby denied the air permit for Sunflower Electric to build the Holcomb coal-fired power plants, several court cases then were filed. The newspaper reports from then are a bit contradictory with today’s regarding exactly who filed what, where - but. Near as I can tell (and don’t take it for gospel):
(1) Sunflower and Tri-State Generation filed in Finney County district court (the proposed location of the plants).
(2) Sunflower, Tri-State Generation, and the Finney County Commission (and possibly also the Garden City Chamber of Commerce) all filed separately with the state appeals court to appeal the KDHE’s ruling.
At the end of November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the latter three cases. They did not set a date.
In early February, Sunflower Electric and their supporters then began a battle in the legislature for the air permit.
During the hearings on the coal bills, many expressed concerns about the ongoing nature of the judicial review and the legislative process. Environmental and administrative law expert Karl Brooks submitted testimony on this issue.
Later, the Wichita Eagle published a piece that Brooks wrote on the same topic, titled “Coal Plant Bills Play Politics with the Law.” Which I can’t link to, because it is now electronically locked into the archive section of the Eagle…. wait! Checked my files, I actually had a text copy, woohoo.
To read it, please click below on “read the rest of this entry.” Especially if you aren’t sure about the constitutional issues that can arise from these cases, it’s a good introduction.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Research and Resources: Wind power in KS, wind webinar, guide to PPAs, businesses adapting to climate change
April 25, 2008
More wind forums coming soon in Kansas. Dan Nagengast of the Kansas Rural Center has to take a bit of a break on holding community wind forums - it’s planting season right now, and that takes precedence - but he has several others in the planning stages.
Stay tuned for dates and locations.
Conference calls on wind power. The National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL) and DOE/EERE’s Windpowering America are sponsoring a series of webcast/ conference calls on wind power, targeted at the ag community. The next is Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 11:00am, with time for Q&A.
The topic, “Wind Farming,” will be presented by David Kolsrud, who has helped to develop, organize and fund over 20 renewable energy projects – primarily ethanol, biodiesel and wind projects. He will talk the steps in getting wind farming projects underway.
If you want the info on how to connect to the call, just email Maril at “hazlett at climateandenergy dot org” EDIT: Or, I found the info online as well - click here. You can easily attend this webinar from a computer at home - as long as you have access to both a phone and an internet connection at the same time (dial-up users with one line, this might be tough for you). If you are in search of a better connection, ask your local librarian.
How to negotiate power purchase agreements (PPAs). Windustry has added a new tool to its Community Wind Toolbox - tips on negotiating PPAs. A PPA is a contract where energy providers enter into long-term agreements with energy purchasers. Getting a PPA signed is a crucial part of getting a wind farm developed.
How businesses can adapt to climate change. Is your business possibly at risk from climate change? If so, is that risk short or long-term? How can you adapt?
As a recent report by the Pew Center observes, not all business sectors are at the same level of risk. Their conclusions:
The report finds that susceptibility to the physical effects of climate change varies considerably across sectors of the economy. For example, higher demand for air conditioning during prolonged heat waves could stress and possibly overwhelm the electricity grid. Longer and more intense rains could restrict access to construction sites and slow productivity in the buildings sector. And the agriculture industry is at risk of extreme drought that could render previously arable land unusable. While some sectors are more at risk than others, all businesses face the possibility of property damage, business interruption, and changes or delays in services provided by electric and water utilities and transport infrastructure.
The Pew report is based on three different case studies of large corporations trying to adjust to environmental concerns.
Another - slightly scarier - scenario-based report was also released last year by Global Business Network and the EPA. It’s aimed at corporate business management, but right up front the report offers concrete strategies that businesses and entrepreneurs of any kind would also find helpful.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Reactions to the KS coal compromise proposed by legislators on behalf of Sunflower Electric and Midwest Energy
April 25, 2008
Cool Earth Day home page from Department of Energy (DOE). While this link holds, take a chance to check out the Earth Day homepage from DOE. It features a cross-section of a home, and you can click on certain target areas - hot water heater, attic, appliances, etc. - for tips on how to practice better energy efficiency.
Since consumers are of course only one piece of the energy solution, I look forward to a similar page where someday producers can also drag a cursor over certain target areas and receive tips on how to improve their energy efficiency as well. It’s only fair. I’m sure they anxiously await their chance. (Otherwise they’ll be paying millions to consultants to figure out the same information.) Not that there’s anything wrong with consultants! Quagmire, stepping out now.
U.S. military goes to CFLs. CFL stands for compact fluorescent lightbulb. They are much more energy efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs, which only use 10% of the energy they draw for lighting. The other 90% is wasted as heat. EnergyStar-qualified CFLs (check for the label on the packaging) use 75% less energy than incandescents, and last up to 10 times longer. They save you about $30 in electricity over the life of the bulb. They also produce 75% less heat than incandescents, so they are safer.
All that should help explain why, with “Operation Change Out,” the military is making the switch to CFLs in their on-base housing. At Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune alone, 17,500 CFLs have been installed. Over their lifetime they will prevent more than 7.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions, saving nearly 5 million kilowatt-hours of electricity and at least $500,000 on energy bills.
FYI, KDHE has a great handout on FAQs about CFLs and their small amount of mercury. For a pdf, click here.
It ain’t just in Kansas. Also today from the Warming Law Blog, updates on how other states are handling their concerns re carbon dioxide regulation, in absence of prompt EPA action after the Supreme Court’s findings in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Speaking of CO2 drama. Folks probably know by now that Governor Sebelius is considering a compromise on the Kansas coal bills proposed by legislative leaders on behalf of Sunflower Electric and Midwest Energy (AP, Houston Chronicle).
Reactions to the compromise range, naturally, from “what do you mean, this offer represents a compromise?” to “maybe this is as good as we can get.” One thing the reactions all have in common is “wow I am so tired of this mess.”
For the coverage, see the KC Star, the Hutch News, and CEP’s thoughts on this yesterday.
Do you want to know more about coal…? Really? It’s OK, some people do. Then check out the Center for American Progress’s progress report on coal, for a huge accumulation of facts on the topic.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Multimedia: The Kansas coal controversy, MTV style
April 24, 2008
To my everlasting joy, someone just sent me a link to a video of an artist’s interpretation of the Kansas coal controversy.
To my everlasting aggravation, I can’t find it on YouTube so I can embed it into the blog!!
So instead please click this link to get there. Please don’t miss it. The drawing of the little sunflowers. the drawing of the governor… don’t miss this video.
For a lighter note 
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
The Kansas coal controversy took a new twist today. Senate President Steve Morris and House Speaker Melvin Neufeld have established an April 30 deadline for Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to respond to a compromise proposed by rural electric cooperatives Sunflower Electric and Midwest Energy (TCJournal).
The terms of the proposed compromise:
- The plant would reduce its size from 1,400 megawatts (MW) to 1,200 MW. By CEP’s calculations, that would only drop the carbon dioxide emissions from eleven million tons per year to around 9.5 million. From what we can ascertain, the plant complex would still be the largest currently proposed in the United States.
- The utilities would also accelerate their timeline for developing renewable energy. Provisions in the news story were not specific as to how, and to what penalties there would be for non-compliance, if any.
- Sunflower would join the Climate Registry, a third party that tracks greenhouse gas emissions. If federal carbon regulation is implemented under the next presidential administration, this reporting would have to happen anyway.
- The powers of the KDHE Secretary would still be severely curtailed.
The provisions of the compromise, however, aren’t the most interesting part. What’s interesting is the process - especially the Senate President and House Speaker’s roles in trying to force the Governor to agree to it. Basically, these are elected officials using the legislative process to negotiate business deals on behalf of special interests.
This precedent should disturb all Kansans, regardless of their position on the coal plants.
Remember - there are already two Holcomb bills in play during the wrap-up session (which uncoincidentally also begins on April 30), waiting on attempts at veto overrides. The legislature cut corners on the democratic process when it came to these bills, rushing them through committee and chamber votes, only to have to sit and wait for lobbyists and Sunflower supporters to work on getting enough votes for override attempts that never came (for more information, please see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy).
However, the manner of this compromise makes that process look more democratic. Not to sound politically naive, but however flawed, isn’t the legislative process supposed to ensure that bills stand or fall on their merits? Our elected representatives voted on the language of those bills. They won’t have a lot of opportunity - if any - for input on the compromise.
Which returns us full circle, to the basic issue in this chapter of the Kansas coal controversy. Why are legislators even involved in this mess? Especially when their involvement short-cuts the judicial process of administrative review of the denied air permit.
Process is important. There are plenty of utilities in Kansas, they all have their concerns, they all have to respect the process for addressing them. The same with voters - citizens who support any cause have to respect the democratic process as well.
To do otherwise is to change the rules of the game.
EDIT: For audio of Sebelius’s courteous response to the proposal - she’s going to take some time to look at it - check the LJWorld.
— Maril Hazlett and Eileen Horn, www.climateandenergy.org
Pope Benedict traveled to the U.S. last week for his first official visit. He spoke at the United Nations (New York Times) (the text of his address is available at that link).
His comments ranged widely. In essence he argued that human rights - guarantees of justice and equality - are essential to the common good, and that both politics and religion offer ways to secure these rights for all peoples.
His words also contained points of interest for conversations on climate and energy. For example, the Pope called attention to a general problem in international politics - that consensus “continues to be in crisis because it is still subordinated to the decisions of a small number, while the world’s problems require from the international community that it act on a common basis.” He continued:
Indeed, questions of security, the development goals, the reduction of inequalities, both locally and globally, the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require that all international leaders act together and show a readiness to work in good faith, in respect of the rule of law, to promote solidarity in the most fragile regions of the planet.
These remarks take place against the background of international conflict over a proposed treaty that would establish targets for greenhouse gas reductions. The United States has been one of a small yet powerful number of nations who have resisted such targets. One of the Bush’s administration’s concerns has been the economic costs of carbon regulation.
The Pope’s remarks offered another general perspective on how regulations impact the common good. Rather than economic costs, he is worried more about the human costs of not acting, on whatever the issue may be.
These regulations do not limit freedom. On the contrary, they promote it when they prohibit behavior and actions which work against the common good, curb its effective exercise and hence compromise the dignity of every human being.
In the name of liberty, there has to be a correlation between rights and responsibilities, on the basis of which every individual is called to shoulder responsibility for his or her choices, while taking into account relations with other people.
Previously, few of us have probably thought of our society’s development of science and technology as something for which we bear individual responsibility, let alone about how it impacts our relations with other people.
But as the Pope pointed out - if these developments compromise creation, then they definitely affect spiritual and community life as well:
Here our thoughts turn also to the way the results of scientific research and technological advances have sometimes been used. While recognizing the immense benefits that humanity can draw from them, some of the uses constitute a clear violation of the order of creation, to the point where not only is the sacred character of life contradicted, but the human person and the family are robbed of their natural identity.
Likewise, international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation.
This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives.
The Pope’s words raise the question: When it comes to climate and energy issues, can the larger community of nations achieve this vision?
If so, then to some extent they will have to transcend the limited confines of the current debate. Protecting sovereignty is one thing. Acting nationalistically against the common good of the international community is another.
The Pope phrased this broader tension a bit differently.
The action of the international community and of its institutions… should never be interpreted as an unwarranted imposition or a limitation of sovereignty.
On the contrary, it is indifference or failure to intervene that do the real damage.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Whoops, climate change will be more expensive than previously thought - and climate and energy in Missouri
April 24, 2008
Influential economic forecast of climate change underestimated the financial risks. Former World Bank economist and climate change expert Nicholas Stern stated that his 2006 report on the financial risks of climate change didn’t capture the full depth of the problem (Reuters). He had based his calculations on the IPCC reports, which have proven to be too conservative in certain respects. Quotable:
“Emissions are growing much faster than we’d thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we’d thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates, and the speed of climate change seems to be faster,” he told Reuters at a conference in London…. Stern said that to minimise the risks of dangerous climate change global greenhouse gas emissions should halve by mid-century. He said the United States should cut its emissions by up to 90 percent by then.
Climate and energy in Missouri. Two big pieces of news today. First, the proposed coal-fired power plant for Carroll County, MO, has officially been canceled (LJWorld). The 780 megawatt (MW) plant had already been approved, but its construction was delayed a few months ago. The utility, Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. of Springfield, stated the reasons for cancellation as increased construction costs and regulatory uncertainty.
Note to KS legislators: This utility meant regulatory uncertainty over CO2 regulation on the federal level. There’s not much states can do to resolve that until the EPA comes up with its rules on CO2. That probably will not happen until the next presidential administration.
Second important climate and energy development in Missouri - KCPL has come out in support of Renew Missouri, the petition drive to place a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) on the ballot in November (Business Wire). Quotable:
The ballot initiative — which would require obtaining more than 90,000 voter signatures on a petition by May 4, 2008 — would require that investor-owned electric utilities generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower equaling at least two percent of retail sales by 2011. That requirement would increase incrementally to at least 15 percent by 2021, including at least two percent from solar energy. The initiative also protects utilities and consumers by ensuring that cost of compliance and associated rate impact is limited to 1%.
“Our endorsement of the renewable energy initiative proposal underscores our continuing commitment to achieving regional sustainability by supporting investments in clean energy sources,” said Michael Chesser, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Great Plains Energy. “A strong renewable energy policy benefits our customers by reducing costs and stimulating the growth of the renewable energy industry locally. Policies such as this, coupled with tax credits for construction of new renewable electricity generation, benefit consumers as the sources of electricity are diversified and renewable electricity generation costs are low.”
RPS legislation has previously been proposed in Missouri, but it crashed and burned in the legislature. Since then, they have leaned toward milder, voluntary proposals without meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Lessons from Earth Day
April 24, 2008
Cost of CEP’s Earth Fair display board: $64.99
Flyers and photocopies for events: $100
Hearing a fourth-grader school me on the benefits of CFLs: priceless
CEP recently participated in several Earth Day Celebrations- held in high schools, community colleges, parks, and churches in the state. At these events, CEP staff spoke to hundreds of Kansans about climate change in the Midwest, and our two most cost-effective and readily-available tools to reduce our GHG emissions: energy efficiency and renewable energy.
In addition to sharing our fact sheets and energy tips, we also fielded a ton of questions from attendees. Here are a few of the questions we heard most often:
Q: CFLs have mercury in them, right? Where can I take them if they break or burn out?
A: The Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment recently created a fact sheet addressing this very question. Here’s the basics: CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing, roughly enough to cover the tip of a ball point pen (5mg). This mercury is NOT released when the bulb is in use. CFLs for your home are not considered hazardous waste according to state and federal standards. Still, CFLs should not be tossed in the regular garbage if preferred options exist, such as recycling centers or Household Hazardous Waste facilities.
If you live in the KC metropolitan area, check out MARC’s recycling website, or for other locations in KS, check out this Kansas Recycling Centers search.
Both sites allow you to search by county and material you want to recycle.
NOTE: CFLs are fluorescent bulbs, listed under “Household Hazardous Waste.”
Q: Kansas has lots of wind. Why don’t we just use our wind to create electricity?
A: Good question. Very good question. In fact, just last week, we celebrated WIND WEEK on the CEP blog. Some of my favorite resources to share with people interested in wind energy in our state include:
Kansas Wind Energy Resource Map (pdf from the KCC)
CEP Fact Sheets: The Difference Wind Makes (pdf) or Harnessing the Wind (pdf)
Also, the American Wind Energy Association and Windustry have excellent and informative sites.
Q: What’s happening with the proposed coal plant?
A: CEP has been following this issue very closely, and Maril has compiled a great resource- FAQs on the Kansas Coal Controversy.
Also, check out some more photos on our Flickr account!
-Eileen Horn, Community Outreach Coordinator and Earth Fair Junkie
News Update: Kansas and coal - the rhetoric spikes
April 23, 2008
Sparks are flying in the wake of Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson’s comments at an Earth Day event yesterday. He spoke in regards to upcoming legislative wrap-up, or veto session, where legislators will consider veto overrides on two bills that would allow Sunflower Electric to build its proposed 1400 MW coal plant in Holcomb.
The plants are the largest complex currently proposed in the United States, and would emit more than 11 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. Only 15% of the power would stay in Kansas, the rest would be sold to Colorado. The air pollution, water use issues, and CO2 emissions liable under future cap and trade scenarios would all still belong to Kansas. (Also see CEP’s FAQs on the Kansas coal controversy).
Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed both Holcomb bills. Speaker of the House Melvin Neufeld, however, has promised for months that the House will deliver the plants to Sunflower Electric and its backer, Tri-State Generation, which would own 1200 MW of the project. However, the House couldn’t manage to do this during the regular session.
So, when Lt. Governor Parkinson made the following statements (by Sarah Kessinger, in the Hutch News):
“If Sunflower is out there telling people that all they need to do is get this veto overridden and the plants will be built, and if they believe that, they’re sadly mistaken,” Parkinson said.
He vowed the administration would continue fighting a permit for the plants near Holcomb, even if legislators override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes of bills on the issue.
“There are multiple options, and we’re looking at them all. But I don’t want to comment on anything. We haven’t committed to any of them,” Parkinson said, adding that “legal action is inevitable” from environmental groups.
Speaker Neufeld then released his own statement:
“Any agreement we reach would represent months of substantial bi-partisan consensus building. To ignore that work for the satisfaction of a fraction of Kansans and a politically calculated governor would be pretty regrettable,” he said.
“Eighty-three representatives and 32 senators serving all 105 Kansas counties voted to allow the expansion. The majority of Kansans and their representatives made it clear the time for political grandstanding by the governor is over.”
Quick fact check - if you count the noses of legislators who supported the proposals, then yes, you do have a majority of elected officials. However, plenty of evidence demonstrates that constituents across the state are way ahead of their legislators regarding the excessive burning of fossil fuels.
Polls show that Governor Sebelius, who has taken a very strong position against the plants, is more popular among voters than ever. These continued results support the findings of an independent statewide poll commissioned by CEP and released in January, which showed that a majority of Kansans agreed with the decision to deny air permits for the plants, with overall support rising to fully 70% in the Johnson County region. In western Kansas – the proposed location of the plants – only two in five citizens oppose the decision while 51% favor it.
At the time of the poll’s release, supporters of the plants dismissed the results as biased. The wording of the polling questions is (as it always has been) available for download. If you have any doubts at all whether the questions were phrased in a leading manner, you may read them and decide for yourself.
Back to the Hutch News story. Supporters of the plants also denied that the possibility of federal carbon regulation was a reason to delay the plants’ construction. According to Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller:
Miller said the company doubts that will happen and that the country’s “been going to pass a carbon tax for years.”
“When people understand the cost of something like that, they realize people can’t afford it,” he said. “If you are worried about global climate change and you think Kansas can make a difference, that’d be a policy you could advocate, but that’s not a policy we support.”
The comments contradict those of a Wall Street investment banker, who testified to Kansas legislators last month that energy rates would double or perhaps triple in the next decade. The Morgan Stanley official attributed rising costs to Washington’s expected cap on carbon emissions in response to climate change and to growing consumer demand for power and replacement of aging power plant and transmission infrastructure. An official with Edison Electric Institute, the national association of shareholder-owned power companies, gave similar testimony.
But legislative leaders, who represent parts of western Kansas, stick with Sunflower’s contention that rates will remain lower by building the plants.
“Lost in the governor’s rhetoric is the real fact my part of the state faces much higher energy costs and a future energy shortage,” said House Speaker Melvin Neufeld in a statement e-mailed to reporters.
But the Kansas Corporation Commission’s latest rate map shows the highest rates for Kansans are in rural central and eastern Kansas. Southwest Kansas enjoys some of the lowest rates as well as some rates in the mid-range, according to the map based on 2006 data.
Not to gripe - but those same maps showed my little tiny northeastern KS rural electric co-op as having some of the highest rates in the state. Along with a good chunk of southeastern and south central Kansas… wait, I’ll just post the map again. Hang on.
This map comes via the Kansas Corporation Commission. It represents EIA (Energy Information Administration) data current as of January 2006. The highest rates in the state are in red.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
Posting this CEP Conversation during the week of Earth Day seemed like a good fit. All too often, we think of the environment in terms of an immediate, looming crisis.
While environmental concerns are indeed major - and many require action sooner rather than later - sometimes it also helps to take a longer view. This perspective can make it easier to appreciate the larger meaning of the earth, and creation.
Renowned environmental historian Donald Worster recently sat down for an interview with CEP. He spoke of the environmental history of the Great Plains – its volatile weather and climate, history of water use, agricultural development, and the risks of climate change in this unpredictable realm of the natural world.
He also discusses how fossil fuel usage began during the industrialized era, and visions for a future that makes better use of renewable energies.
Dr. Worster is also a Kansan. His parents were from Reno County. They moved to California during the World War II era (which is where he was born) but they soon moved back. Dr. Worster was raised in Reno County and still has family who farms in the area.
For a .pdf download of this interview, please click here.
*****************
Maril Hazlett, CEP: Why don’t you start out by telling us a little about yourself, and how you got involved with environmental history.
Donald Worster: Well, I was raised along the banks of Cow Creek in Reno County. There are a lot of good people out there. I also grew up deeply impressed by the landscape. Some people find it monotonous or uninteresting, but I grew up with a prairie sense of sky, land, climate… the big broad rivers rippling through…
This all mattered a lot to me. All the seasons of Kansas, the wildlife and bird life, the weather patterns and so on. These always were very much part of my awareness.
When I became a historian I got very tired of simply reading about politics, theology, etc… It all seemed like such an urban view of history.
MH: I noticed that, too, when I went to school. Back East is a very urban perspective.
DW: During the late sixties, I was a graduate student at Yale. The rise of the modern environmental movement very much influenced me – writers like Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, Barry Commoner, Paul Ehrlich. Earth Day 1970.
I ended up combining my own background with all these new environmental ideas. What emerged for myself, and several others, was a new discipline called environmental history.
Environmental history looks at how human societies, at all scales, are related to the natural world. And we don’t define the “natural world” as the countryside alone. It includes all kinds of things that come under the category of the creation - the world that humans didn’t make - including plants, animals, micro-organisms, weather patterns, climate patterns, etc.
So we have really invented a new field of history. Sometimes it sounds a bit like agriculture, sometimes a bit like geography. It also has a lot of science in it. It studies how people have thought and felt about their relationships to the natural world - what they wanted in the way of living, what they wanted emotionally from the world around them, economically, all of that.
As an historian, I bring humans and nature together by crossing the lines of other academic disciplines. Environmental history can be carried out anywhere on the face of the earth, but to me the best places to study all this is right here at home, on the Great Plains.
MH: What in particular makes you say that?
News Updates: Earth Day meets coal in Kansas
April 22, 2008
Focus on carbon regulation increases Kansans’ awareness of Earth Day. As reported by Sarah Kessinger, when the Supreme Court decided that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, that pretty much rocked Kansas’s world (Hutchison News).
The decision was in regards to emissions from transportation sources, but it seemed pretty logical that regulation of all CO2 would soon follow (what - the EPA is going to regulate CO2 from the transportation sector but not from electrical generation? That doesn’t seem rational). Quotable from Sarah:
The high court’s majority view of CO2 led state regulator Rod Bremby several months later to nix a permit for Sunflower Electric Power Corp, which sought to build the plants with two other utilities, Colorado-based Tri-State Electric Generation and Transmission Association and Texas-based Golden Spread Electric Cooperative.
As grueling as the ongoing legislative session has been, Stephanie Cole of Sierra Club noted one good effect - the controversy has definitely raised enormous awareness of the issues, offering Kansas environmental groups opportunities to reach new audiences.
“People are researching, asking questions, getting educated,” Cole said. “We’re seeing new faces. It used to be a pretty tight-knit group interested in these things. But not so much any more. The attention this has gotten has people asking, ‘What about climate change and what can we do to respond to it?’ ”
OK, I’ll see your veto override (if it happens) and then raise you something you REALLY won’t like. Speaking at a local Earth Day event -the source did not specify where - Lt. Governor Mark Parkinson had a few major points for legislators who support the two Holcomb bills to be considered for veto override in the legislative wrap-up session next week (49 News).
First - the fight against two proposed coal-fired power plants will continue, even if the legislation achieves an override. Sebelius’s administration will continue to take action against the plants. “Legal action is inevitable.” Oh boy.
Second - the rising costs of plant construction make it likely that the plants won’t be built anyway.
Third - if you are voting for these plants, don’t even TRY to say you are an environmentalist. No way. “You cannot say that you are an environmentalist, that you support the environment, that you are part of the green movement, and vote for coal-fired plants that are not needed for this state.”
Speaking of inevitable litigation… Are you a legal dork? If/ when the Kansas coal drama moves to the courtroom, will you find yourself enraptured with the incredibly fascinating issues wrapped up state carbon regulation?
If so, I suggest you prepare yourself by reading a pretty neato blog, Global Warming Law. I like it.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
