Climate and energy

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