Climate and energy

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