What’s the matter with Kansas?

This Web-only Speakout has not been edited.

By Brad Jones

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Just as any good neighbor would welcome a visit from the folk next door, so should Colorado anticipate this week’s visit by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

Gov. Sebelius will be in Denver Thursday on behalf of Earthjustice (formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) to tout her actions in blocking the expansion of a coal power plant in her state — despite majority, bipartisan support from Kansas citizens and the state legislature, and despite the fact that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment recommended the project be approved.

The governor has made headlines for these efforts, which reflect a flawed and over-simplified position on a very complex issue: how we are going to affordably and securely meet growing electricity demand in a carbon constrained world.

By her reasoning, we should eliminate our country’s most abundant resource — coal — and focus instead on intermittent renewable resources and volatile, supply-constrained natural gas. This is a politically correct position but not a practical one in light of the fact that energy demand is on the rise. In our state alone, the Colorado Energy Forum says we could need 4,900 additional megawatts of electricity by 2025.

Gov. Sebelius should view her visit as an opportunity to learn from Gov. Ritter and other western governors about how clean coal technology is the answer for meeting growing energy demand, achieving environmental goals and keeping electricity affordable.

Some people suggest we cannot accomplish all three. But we can and we must, for three reasons:

The Environment

First, no single fuel has a monopoly on environmental ambition. The coal industry has spent decades making great strides in reducing emissions from its power plants. Even as America’s use of coal for electricity generation has more than tripled since 1970, emissions have been reduced by more than 30 percent, and air quality has drastically improved over that same period.

This is a result of advancements in technology.

The coal plant expansion that Gov. Sebelius derailed would have been much more efficient than the current fleet of power plants, with ultra-low emissions as a result. Further, the developers would have embarked on development of new pioneering technologies to address the lower emissions of carbon dioxide. She didn’t just block coal; she blocked progress.

Interdependent Energy Sources

Second, it is somewhat ironic that the advertisement for Gov. Sebelius’ speech in Denver superimposes her image against a backdrop of wind turbines. This is because the project she vetoed would have included construction of a massive transmission line that would have facilitated development of many new Kansas and Colorado wind projects. These projects, because of their remote locations, are not economically viable without a baseload power plant to fund the infrastructure and harness its electricity.

This underscores the fact that renewable sources and baseload energy resources like coal are not at odds but actually complement each other in providing a steady flow of electricity.

Electricity Affordability

Third, the governor’s single-minded focus on natural gas ignores the fact that states which choose to disproportionately emphasize high-cost fuels for electricity generation have seen drastically increased costs for ratepayers.

Thanks to her veto, Colorado and Kansas consumers will be faced with growing dependence on volatile and high-priced natural gas-based electricity to address growing energy needs. That aggravates a brutal situation for those already struggling to cope with higher prices at the pump and the grocery store.

Clearly, energy policy decision must note the potential impact on the average resident, an argument echoed by the Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel in a recent debate over power plants in our state.

Gov. Sebelius should not be in Denver touting her flawed leadership. Instead, she should spend her time here understanding how energy security, environmental stewardship and energy affordability are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are intertwined goals that can be met by a diverse energy portfolio which leverages the best aspects of renewables, natural gas, nuclear and, yes, coal.

Brad Jones is the west region communications director for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. He is a resident in Littleton.

• June 24, 2008

  7:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  kstater writes:

  I'm appalled by Mr. Jones' misuse of the facts. Despite the false rhetoric spit out by the proponents of the coal plant expansion, an overwhelming majority of Kansas did not support this project -- or legislators would have been comfortable overriding the governor's vetoes. I know of several state legislators who changed their votes on the issue based on constituent outcry.

  I'm proud of my governor and the state secretary of the environment for taking a stand on this issue and sticking to their guns. Governor Sebelius was willing to compromise on the coal issue, but the coal plant coalition wasn't willing to do so. The state department of health and environment was not overwhelmingly behind the plant expansion, as coal proponents continue to claim. I've talked to department employees, who believed construction of two new coal plants at Holcomb was not in the best interest of state health and environment. Instead, they were concerned that denying the plant permit would open the state up to legal wrangling -- which is precisely what has happened.

  What's missing in Mr. Jones' argument (among other things) is the acknowledgement that start-up technologies -- in any field -- take more money up front to save in the long run. The U.S. has been ignoring the issues of pollution (from all sorts of emissions, including greenhouse gasses) since the 1970s. Like thousands of other Kansans, I thank God for bureaucrats and elected officials like Governor Sebelius and Secretary Bremby, who aren't afraid to potentially be unpopular for doing the right thing.

  We can't ignore these issues any longer -- despite the federal approach to the contrary. Someone had to be proactive. I'm proud it was Kansas.

• June 25, 2008

  6:25 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  freethinker07 writes:

  Some start up technologies never work. Most people don't remember that some visionaries were planning to have the helicopter replace the family car. That we would use mechanical computers. Push-button automobile transmissions. Central kitchens which would deliver cooked food to homes via a network of pneumatic tubes. Teaching would be done by playing lectures while we were under hypnosis. And city planners were dreaming of making us all live in giant buildings where our combined body heat would power many civic services and we would never see the sun.

  Some technologies will be abandoned.

• June 26, 2008

  3:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Woogford writes:

  You know why the KDHE employees were concerned that denying the air quality permit would open the state up to legal wrangling? Because the permit applications demonstrated compliance with ALL of the Kansas air quality rules and the facilities qualify for an air quality permit. Kansas doesn't have a CO2 emissions limit, nor are there any ambient air quality standards for greenhouse gases. The denial of the permits was arbitrary based on a perceived threat due to greenhouse gas emissions.

  I'm amazed that the agency didn't deny the permit based on oxygen dihydride emissions from the cooling towers. While not regulated, studies have clearly shown that more people are killed every year by inhaling oxygen dihydride than all greenhouse gas emissions combined, and the cooling towers are saturated with oxygen dihydride!

• June 28, 2008

  12:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  gary writes:

  Coal is the best choice for power plants.

  Nuff Said!