Climate and energy

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