Climate and energy

Because I was working on two entries at once, I almost messed up this blog headline with the headline from the previous entry. That would have been bad. It’s probably too early to be trying to put reliable information on the internet, before the coffee has sunk in.

Reprinted in full from Harris News -

Coal plants could be key issue in some races

By Chris Green

TOPEKA — As the battle shifts to a handful of political campaigns, the debate over whether to build new coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas could start heating up yet again.

Several incumbent lawmakers on each side of the divide find themselves being pressed to defend their positions by challengers who see the plants as a key election issue.

The two westernmost House Democrats to oppose legislation authorizing the plants face opposition from Republicans who criticize their votes on the matter.

At the same time, two powerful central Kansas GOP lawmakers who backed bills allowing the plants must now fend off challenges from environmentally minded Democrats.

The debate over the issue is expected to be prominent in several eastern Kansas races, as well, meaning the Nov. 4 general election could either shore up support for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ opposition to the plants or give supporters the votes they need to override her vetoes in the future.

Yet some observers remain unconvinced that the plant issue — which consumed much of the 2008 Legislature’s time — will have all that much sway with voters this fall.

“I would be very surprised if it decides very many races,” said Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, a plant supporter.

Bill Griffith, energy chairman for the Kansas Sierra Club, he thought the plants would likely be a factor in just a handful of mostly eastern Kansas races.

“I think it will be in voters’ mind in specific districts,” said Griffith, whose group opposed the plants.

But the issue is certainly a hot one for several challengers in central Kansas, particularly in and around Salina, where an environmental research group, The Land Institute, is based.

Emler’s strong support for legislation allowing the plants motivated for Cynthia Nelson, a retired educator who lives in Lincoln, to challenge the two-term senator in the Nov. 4 general election.

The chairman of the Senate Utilities Committee, Emler played a key role this past session in helping shape legislation this past session that would have allowed Hays-based Sunflower Electric to add two new generators to its existing Holcomb plant.

However, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed those measures and lawmakers failed to override them by margins that amounted to just a handful of votes. As result, her administration’s decision to reject air-quality permits for the plants stood.

Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby initially blocked the plants last year over concerns that their carbon dioxide emissions would contribute to global warming, a decision that remains under legal challenge.

Nelson said she was upset the Emler would support the development of more coal-power in Kansas. Coal already produces about three-quarters of the state’s power and she said she’d rather see the state more fully utilize its potential to produce wind energy.

“I felt like I needed to stand up and not just talk about it, not just be angry about it, but try to make a difference for Kansas,” Nelson said.

But Emler counters that there’s tremendous support for Sunflower’s plants in his district, not to mention the western half of the state, and says his vote was about upholding the “rule of law.”

He said he supports wind energy at every opportunity but didn’t think it was right for an unelected bureaucrat — Bremby — to make a sweeping policy decision in regards to CO2 without input from the Legislature.

“I don’t see the vote being extremely detrimental to me, ” Emler said of his support for bills allowing the plants to be built.

Raising the issue

Emler isn’t the only central Kansas lawmaker facing opposition because of his votes on the coal plants.

Abner Perney, a Salina city commissioner, said he’s challenging two-term incumbent Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, largely over his support for the project.

“Obviously, it is the main area of disagreement with our entire existing Salina area designation,” Perney said.

Perney said he’s upset that Brungardt — along with Reps. Charlie Roth and Deena Horst, both Salina Republicans — showed consistent support for legislation that he characterizes as favoring “dirty old coal.”

“By implication, they’ve not taken any action to try to support the No. 1 growing industry in the world, which is wind power and its related fields,” Perney said. “That’s where we need to be, because Kansas is really No. 1 in wind power potential.”

Brungardt, who represents the 24th District, voted in favor of most bills that would permit the plants. But he voted against a final measure that packaged the coal plant bill will several other economic development measures.

For a related story, click here.

He said that while he understands the concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants, there’s also an increased demand for electricity in Kansas that’s most affordability met by coal right now.

“You have to work a little bit with what you’ve got,” Brungardt said.

Brungardt also said he doesn’t think that the plants will even be the most prominent issue in his district, citing even more interest in health care affordability, education, job creation and economic development.

The westernmost lawmaker to vote against coal-plant legislation, Rep. Josh Svaty, D-Ellsworth, also said he doesn’t hear all that much about the plants when he goes door-to-door in his district.

But the rural Salina County Republican challenging him, Dave Smith, said he believes that voters in the district are clearly upset with Svaty’s stance.

“It was a pretty major one,” Smith said. “That along with the generally liberal positions that he’s taken. This one is really significant, I believe, to the voters in our district.”

Representing the district?

Smith said one of the reasons the issue is important is that energy issues are foremost on people’s minds right now. He said it doesn’t make sense to prevent Sunflower’s central and western Kansas customers access to what he considers a cheap source of power.

But Svaty, the 108th District representative, said that he doesn’t oppose Sunflower and wants the nonprofit cooperative to able to provide power to its customers. He said he opposed the lengthy legislation because it was written to benefit a single company while reducing regulatory oversight of it.

“Usually when I have time to explain it people, they’re very understanding,” Svaty said.

Joe Siewert, the Pretty Prairie Republican challenging Rep. Mark Treaster, D-Pretty Prairie, said people in his district are seeing increases in auto and heating fuel prices and worry about similar jumps for electricity.

He said in talking with voters he’s found at least 10-to-1 support in favor of Sunflower’s coal plants and disappointment with Treaster’s votes against bill allowing the plants.

“I think that was one of their major concerns — that he didn’t represent them,” Siewert said.

But Treaster said he felt caught in the middle when lawmakers and the governor couldn’t reach a deal that would allow the plants to be built and also spur further development of renewable energy in Kansas.

“I would say I was very disappointed that a compromise wasn’t reached,” Treaster said.

Better position?

Elsewhere in the state, Griffith said there are indications that the plants could emerge as an issue in eastern Kansas legislative races, particularly in Lawrence, Manhattan and Johnson County.

Lawrence residents were some of the most vocal in expressing opposition to Sunflower’s plant last year when the state conducted public hearings on whether the project should receive air-quality permits.

One district where the issue could emerge most prominently is the 3rd District Senate race between incumbent Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, and Rep. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City.

Pine, first elected four years ago, represents an area that includes the part of Lawrence, eastern Douglas County, Jefferson County and part of Leavenworth County. Holland presently represents parts of Douglas and Franklin County.

Holland, who opposed legislation authorizing the plants in the House, could not be reached for comment. But Pine said he was concerned about the amount of opposition to the plants that had emerged from Lawrence.

But he said he also believed that the state needed to utilize all of its energy options to produce power and that supporting the coal plants represented the best decision he could make.

“Sure, I’m concerned about that. There’s no question about that,” Pine said of the Lawrence opposition. “I think I feel strongly enough that I believe it’s the right thing to do.”

When all is said and done, though, Griffith of the Sierra Club said he doubts that there’s much potential for this year’s election to substantially change how the Senate might vote on coal-plant legislation.

This past session, that chamber’s members voted overwhelmingly in favor of bills allowing the plants. However, in the House, which narrowly failed to override Sebelius’ vetoes, Griffith said he expected the governor to gain supporters in this fall’s elections.

As a result, unless some major compromise is reached in the future, Griffith said he thinks Sebelius will be more likely to win on the coal-plant issue, should it re-emerge next session.

“It’s going to be, I think, harder for the other side next year,” Griffith said. “I think the governor will be in a better position to sustain a veto.”