In terms of the legislative process, the coal controversy in Kansas is officially on hold. We’re hanging out waiting to see if (1) the governor vetoes the third coal bill, and if she does (2) whether there will be an override attempt at sine die on May 29.
In terms of media coverage and everyday conversations, the debate rages on. In a recent speech, House Speaker Melvin Neufeld offered his opinion that the session was actually a success in terms of economic development initiatives (Wichita Eagle). He was speaking to the Wichita Independent Business Association. Earlier this session, however, Neufeld voted against an economic development initiative for Cessna – a Wichita corporation – to punish members of the Wichita delegation for their votes against the coal plants.
Letters to the editor on energy issues. A recent series of letters in the KCStar discusses coal, Kansas, and the recent legislative session. I’ll reprint my favorite in full:
Many of our Johnson County legislators, including Rep. Pat Colloton and Sen. David Wysong, have been quoted in the media as saying that their constituents made the difference in why they voted against new coal plants in Kansas. This is the way it should be. Lobbyists and big business should not make all the laws just because they have the money and power.
Regardless of your beliefs on the need for clean energy solutions to curb climate change, we should all feel good that many of our lawmakers are doing exactly what we ask them to do: Listen to their constituents and stand up for what is right.
Everyday citizens can make a dramatic difference in their world when they educate themselves on issues and develop a dialogue with their elected leaders.
Government works for you when you work at it, too.
Kim Hanson
Leawood
Another letter in the TCJournal looks at a different side of the energy issues – renewable energy does have its own downside. The letter takes a different tone than the one above, but still raises some important points:
Preface any project or technology with the word “renewable,” and it is almost guaranteed to generate automatic public support and popularity… How renewable will bioethanol from corn be when our aquifers are exhausted, not just from growing corn where it shouldn’t be grown, but from distilling the ethanol to obtain a fraction of the energy expended in its production? How renewable will our farmland be when thousands of acres of prairie are fragmented by access roads, power lines and wind turbine foundations? How renewable will our precious rural ecology be when soil profiles are disrupted, native plant ecosystems damaged and wildlife driven off by the noise and intrusion of monstrous wind turbines?
To those of you who just stood up and hollered at your computer – “WHY DID SHE REPRINT THAT?” – well, now, deep breaths, here’s why:
CEP says it a lot, but I don’t think we can say it enough – All energy technologies have environmental impacts, and they all have benefits and burdens. And the balancing act can no longer happen offstage.
Whether you agree with all the facts as cited in the second letter, I think most of us would agree that too much of any one technology is probably not great. Not everything about renewables is great (although many of them are a lot better compared to their fossil fuel equivalents). Does that mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater?
There’s a lot of wonderful things about living in an industrialized world. There’s also a lot of it that really stinks. Your benefit today might turn out to be a burden on tomorrow.
I don’t think anyone – on any side of the various energy issues – finds that a very comfortable thought.
Back to the point that the first letter makes: Lucky us! We get to figure all this energy mess out through a representative DEMOCRACY.
Which brings me to Missouri. As a Kansan, it kind of pains me to type this next, but in the interests of fairness here it goes – nonprofit group Renew Missouri did an awesome job of getting the 170,000 signatures (from six Congressional districts) that they needed to put a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) on the ballot for voters to consider in November.
Sob! No, it’s great. Really. Missouri policymakers had repeatedly fumbled an RPS, so citizens got involved.
Which brings me to a funny story. Everywhere I go these days, people just want to talk about climate and energy. Which is cool. But they do this in very different ways. I had one gentleman sit me down, and he just wanted to know who to vote for.
Of course I can’t tell anyone that, we’re a 501(c)(3), and we’re nonpartisan. I was explaining this and he cut me off.
“Fine!” He waved his hands around. “I don’t care if they’re Democrat or Republican anyway! Just find out where they stand on net metering!”
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
News Updates: Saline county zoned for small wind, McCain on climate policy, rising electric rates
May 14, 2008
Saline County zoning to allow home wind energy systems. The county commission unanimously approved the proposal (Salina Journal). Quotable from a supporter of the measure:
“I’m getting older, and someday I might not be able to cut firewood,” Nelson told commissioners Craig Stephenson, Sherri Barragree and Randy Duncan. “Even though I won’t pay for this in my lifetime, (wind energy) is still something I can utilize to reduce my utility bills, and then pass it on to somebody else.”
McCain makes big climate speech. As widely reported, presidential candidate John McCain recently unveiled his climate policies (Reuters, also see Grist). Quotable:
“”Whether we call it ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming,’ in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple common sense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly. I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.”
His policies would include working with China and India to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a cap and trade system.
“Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy,” he said.
Environmental groups had a range of responses to McCain’s proposals (were they all listening to the same speech…? One wonders) but the one I found most interesting came from Republicans for Environmental Protection.
“It’s really refreshing to have a Republican nominee that truly understands climate change and the need to act, and is really pressing for that,” said David Jenkins, government affairs director for the group. “We’ve been dealing with eight years of a president who has not felt the need to press on this issue.”
Jenkins said he was impressed by McCain’s emphasis on “building the infrastructure for a non-carbon energy future” — expanding development of wind, solar, plug-in hybrids, and biofuels. He also praised the speech as a sign that the Republican Party is coming up to speed on science and public opinion, while returning to traditional conservative values that place an importance on environmental preservation.
“I don’t think we’ve had a nominee since Teddy Roosevelt who truly understands that stewardship is supposed to be inherent to conservatism,” said Jenkins. “Hopefully it will help the rest of our party leaders get more in sync with where rank-and-file Republican voters are on this issue, and where Americans are in general.”
KCPLs rates to be forced up by increasing construction costs of new coal-fired plant. As we learned at great length in the recent Kansas coal controversy, construction costs of all energy sources are rising recently due to the current commodity bubble (especially for copper, steel, and cement). Coal plant costs across the nation have risen nearly 30% from their original estimates. (Wind turbine costs have risen as well, actually.)
The KCStar covers how this recent trend has affected KCPL. To add to the Star’s coverage, electricity rates across the nation are actually expected to double over the next few decades. (This projection was made by a Morgan Stanley presenter at a joint House and Senate Energy and Utilities committee meeting this spring.) Not only are regular construction and operations and maintenance costs increasing, but carbon regulation will affect rates as well.
— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org
