Kansas Coal: "How a deep-pocket special interest can seek to bend the legislative process"

By Diane Silver

Bending the process while "doing an end run around regulation" is how the Wichita Eagle's WE Blog describes Sunflower Electric Power Corporation's $2.5 million carrot and stick.

Big Coal in Kansas: Dare we call it a bribe?

By Diane Silver

I've both covered and observed the Kansas Legislature for 23 years, and I've never seen anything like this: A corporation's $2.5 million donation to the state is announced on the House floor as the House is debating a bill to determine the corporation's financial future. To make this even more, ah, fascinating, the corporation declares that it won't give the money to the state unless the Legislature passes the bill.

I'm a little foggy on the definitions, does one call this a bribe or extortion? And no, I'm not joking.

This is exactly what happened during yesterday's debate in the Kansas House about a bill that would allow the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build two coal plants near Holcomb, Kan. The Lawrence Journal-World reports:

And (Speaker Melvin) Neufeld, R-Ingalls, noted the plant’s developers, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., have entered into a memorandum of understanding to pay $2.5 million to Kansas State University over 10 years for energy research if the plants get built.

If Sunflower Electric doesn’t get state permits to build by June 1, there’s no deal with KSU, according to the memorandum of understanding, which was distributed to all House members for their perusal.

I don't know what's more disturbing -- the fact that Neufeld and Sunflower did this, or the fact that almost no one in the state seems to care. Except for this one Journal-World story and a few paragraphs in the middle of a Topeka Capital-Journal piece, this bit of legislative maneuvering has been soundly ignored by the media.

The only good news is that the final House action was seven votes short of the number needed to override an expected veto by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

Pro-coal lawmakers like Neufeld will now start working to find those votes. They have until the last second of the session in May to do so. No doubt one of the weapons they will use is the $2.5 million -- vote yes or the money vanishes!

And I thought I'd seen everything.

Fact checking the Kansas House on climate change & coal

The Climate and Energy Project does a great job of fact-checking the House debate on the Holcomb coal plant bills. No surprise, but there are more than a few errors.

Big Coal: Holcomb plants take another step closer to reality

By Diane Silver

The Kansas House says yes to coal and comes close to getting a veto-proof margin.

Image: Wichita Eagle cartoonist Richard Crowson is not pleased. See the full cartoon here. His earlier take on the Senate's vote approving the coal plants was even better.

The Incredible Kansas coal plant resurrection

By Diane Silver

I've never seen a corporation take such total control of the Kansas Senate before and pay so little attention to the opinions of the people. This afternoon Sunflower Electric Power Corp. succeeded in ramming a bill through the state Senate to resurrect the two huge coal plants it wants to build in western Kansas.

The final vote was a decidedly veto proof 33-7. That is six more than the total number of votes needed to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' promised veto.

What's even worse is that the bill is a "gut and go." This means the Senate gutted a bill passed by the House and inserted the coal plant language. Technically speaking, this bill has already passed the House, even though House members never voted on this issue. The bill could be rushed through a conference committee, get a quick vote in the House and be sent to the governor before you or I could blink.

What's even worse than that (yes, really) is the fact that this bill keeps the Kansas Department of Health and Environment from using global warming as a rationale for blocking new coal plants. In short, the Kansas Senate just told KDHE to ignore its duty to protect the citizens of this state and to just shut up and sit in the corner.

Any attempt at creating environmental regulations or at coming up with a comprehensive energy policy was dumped from the bill.

The House is currently working on its own version of the Sunflower-gets-whatever-it-wants legislation. That may be passed, or the House could simply agree with the Senate.

If there was ever a time to call your legislator, this is it.

This bill is Sunflower's baby, but the utility isn't the only Daddy of this weird love child. This legislation was born of two western Kansas lawmakers who lead the Legislature, Senate President Steve Morris and Speaker Melvin Neufeld. Other folks and businesses in the region also support the coal plants, but not as many as one might think.

The real issue, in my mind, is what happens next -- not just to this bill, but afterwards. This is an election year. Will Kansas voters care? Will they throw these bums out?

Here's the Kansas City Star's first take on the vote, an Associated Press story, and the live blogging of the vote by the Climate and Energy Project.

Details of Sebelius coal compromise

By Diane Silver

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius wrote to legislative leaders today revealing that Holcomb's developers, Sunflower Electric Power and Midwest Energy, had rejected a compromise plan from her administration.

Perhaps, the power of the Hive Mind of the web can help us understand this more. What do you all think? Is this a good compromise? Should she compromise at all?

The governor's letter says the compromise involved the following points.

• Build one new plant similar in size to the Sand Sage permit previously approved (660 MW);
• Kansas base load power needs must receive top priority;
• Plant must be able to implement carbon sequestration technology;
• Commitment for 20% wind power (132 MW)
• Commitment for 100 MW of energy efficiency
• Net metering allowed in the Sunflower service area

Sebelius battles back on coal

By Diane Silver

The fight is on. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has just issued a statement opposing legislation that would resurrect new coal plants her administration has tried to block.

The two Holcomb plants in western Kansas would emit 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. Legislative leaders support the plants.

Whether or not you think the plants are a great idea, one thing is clear. The struggle over these plants may well tie up and impact other legislation for quite a while.

In the statement issued at 4:35 p.m., Sebelius praises some parts of the legislation, but she talks clearly about her opposition, and she reveals that she had proposed a compromise plan.

Here is part of the governor's release:

Unfortunately, there are some very troubling components of this bill that put Kansans at risk, and would put our state at odds with the rest of the country in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I cannot support these components.
...

Under the current bill, any coal plant, from anywhere in the country, applying for a permit and meeting the very minimum standards established by the EPA would have to be given a permit. It wouldn’t matter whether Kansas needed the energy or not. All the coal plants that have been denied permits or withdrawn applications in other states would be knocking at our door. Why wouldn’t they? Given the lack of zoning requirements in many of our counties, these plants could be sited anywhere. Kansas would be the coal capital of the country.

The so-called “carbon dioxide emission offset act” will actually promote greater carbon emissions. Around the country the proposals that are being developed for carbon offsets require scientifically-based, verifiable, additional, permanent, and enforceable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or increases in biological sequestration.

There is simply no relation between the offsets allowed under the bill and actual offsets that occur. The bill provides credit for wind facilities built anywhere in the country since 2000. It allows triple credit for carbon dioxide offset through use of the algae process proposed in the Sunflower plant, and triple credit for converting cultivated land to pasture. The bill also allows credit for one ton of carbon dioxide for each dollar invested in experimental project, regardless of whether carbon dioxide emissions are ever reduced.

The proposed legislation sets such a low monetary penalty for failing to offset ($3 per ton), that there’s no incentive to invest in real offsets. This “penalty” is not in line with the $20-30 estimates made by utility companies or financial analysts, or contained in any of the proposed Congressional legislation. It will not result in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. If anything, it appears to be an attempt to mislead Kansans that significant action would be taken.

I do not support the section of the bill that prohibits the Secretary from taking action where the federal government has failed to act. Even though the United States Supreme Court told the EPA that it was obligated to regulate carbon dioxide, the EPA has refused to take action. Prohibiting our state agencies from filling voids resulting from federal inaction unnecessarily places our citizens at risk.

I do not support the sections of the bill that strip the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Environment of his critical authority to insist that coal plants meet more stringent standards than those established by the federal agencies to protect the health and environment of Kansans.

Finally, there are critical missing pieces that must be an element of any real and meaningful discussion regarding future Kansas energy policy.

The proposed energy package does nothing to encourage the further development of commercial wind power in our state or enhance transmission development. Nor does it further our voluntary renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that I announced last year. Both of these features are needed to support alternative energy expansion in Kansas and make use of our abundant natural resources.

As I suggested in my State of the State, we need to join the 36 states that have begun or completed development of a comprehensive climate change action plan. It is clear the people of Kansas welcome an informed discussion about our energy future, economic opportunities, and the protection of our environment.

A Blue Ribbon panel of Kansas experts composed of distinguished citizen leaders from business, environment, government and other key sectors of our state economy should be assembled to begin this process. I would welcome the opportunity to partner with the Legislature on moving this process forward as soon as possible. We can rise to the challenges we face only if we commit ourselves to moving forward.

Coal Bills: A "danger buffet" that would turn Kansas into the "astray of the Midwest"

By Diane Silver

Not everyone is pleased with the bills just introduced into the Kansas Legislature that would resurrect the two Holcomb coal plants.

The Climate and Energy Project blog calls the bills a "danger buffet."

First and foremost, it’s really hard to build new coal plants that will spew 11 million new tons of CO2 into the air, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think therapists refer to this phenomena as “magical thinking.”

The KC Star reports that Bruce Nilles, director of Sierra Club’s Midwest Clean Energy Campaign, says the legislation could make Kansas the “ashtray of the Midwest.

“Kansas is the first state that we know that is proposing to accelerate global warming,” Nilles said. “That is a real black eye for Kansas to be the one state right now proposing to accelerate global warming.”

Kansas coal plants see new life -- with the help of bills written in secret

By Diane Silver

Kansas' controversial Holcomb coal plants appear to be on the verge of resurrection with the help of two bills written in secret. The bills -- House Bill 2177 and Senate Bill 515 -- were introduced yesterday.

The Lawrence Journal-World reports that the plants’ developer, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. "had input into the legislation." The bills were crafted by the Republican chairs of the House and Senate committees that deal with energy legislation and the ranking Democratic members on the committees.

I've made a few calls and have learned that as of last week, even pro-coal lawmakers who normally participate in energy discussions were kept out of these talks.

The Journal-World reports:

Tom Thompson, a lobbyist with the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, which opposes the plants, said he didn’t think that was right.

“Obviously, it was not an open process,” Thompson said.

BREAKING: Poll shows that Kansans overwhelmingly reject coal plants

By Diane Silver

Even in Kansas -- even in western Kansas -- people don't want to see new coal plants built. That's the word from a poll of 1,007 Kansans that was released today.

By a two-to-one margin, the poll found that Kansans support the Department of Health and Environment's rejection of two coal plants planned for Holcomb in the western part of the state.

Even those living in the 1st Congressional District, which takes in all of western Kansas, support rejection of the coal plants by a slim majority.

These findings could potentially have huge implications.

For Kansas, this could mean that the expected legislative attempt to resurrect the coal project may be dead on arrival. This is especially important because both houses of the Legislature are led by lawmakers from the west. Both House Speaker Melvin Neufeld and Senate President Steve Morris have vowed to take action to bring the coal plants back to life.

These poll results make it much harder -- if not impossible -- for Neufeld and Morris to claim that Kansans actually want these plants. The poll makes it darn near impossible for the two to claim that even their own constituents want the plants.

However, I think the implications of this poll go beyond the Sunflower State. The poll shows a keen awareness and concern about global warming in, of all places, out - in - the - middle - of - nowhere and terminally conservative Kansas.

Even out here, people get it.

You can download details of the poll , which was done by Cooper & Secrest Associates of Alexandria, Va., for The Land Institute, a Salina-based organization.

UPDATE

More on the poll and legislative reaction.

Denying coal plant won't hurt wind power

By Diane Silver

The claim that Kansas' denial of a huge, new coal plant near Holcomb will hurt the future of wind power took a hit this weekend.

The companies pushing for the coal plant say blocking coal would stop the construction of transmission lines for wind turbines.

Although not everyone at the 5th Kansas Electric Transmission Summit agreed, the Salina Journal reported that "many experts" said nothing is going to stop the surge to wind power.

The Salina Journal reports (emphasis added):

(T)he message from many of the experts was that wind development in the Midwest, especially Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, is growing explosively -- with or without new coal-fired power plants -- and the next order of business is to figure out how to ensure that the electric grid is fortified to serve needs for the foreseeable future.

More coverage is at the Lawrence Journal-World.

Meanwhile, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius joined with two Republican governors and one other Democratic governor in pledging to work on clean energy at the state level.