Topeka — With a healthy state budget and three-year school funding plan in place, some say the Kansas Legislature should now turn its focus on energy.
"I see it as an important issue this year, and one that will stay on the front burner for several years," said Joe Harkins, natural resources adviser to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Politically, the timing may be right with energy concerns dominating everything from foreign policy to the cost of gasoline at the pump.
"Finally, we're turning a corner in Kansas," said Paul Johnson, a lobbyist for Kansas Catholic Conference, who has fought for programs to help people weatherize their homes.
When lawmakers start the 2007 legislative session in January, they will face a host of proposals, some of them put together by the Kansas Energy Council, which was re-energized earlier this year when Sebelius added legislators to the panel.
The council's recommendations are expected to be finalized later this month and will cover conservation, production tax incentives and even basic energy education.
These are subjects lawmakers should face head-on, said state Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, and a member of the council.
"Energy demand continues to grow," Sloan said.
Major decision
A major decision is awaited on the proposal by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build three 700-megawatt coal-fired plants next to its 360-megawatt plant in Holcomb. If built, the combined plant would be one of the largest in the Midwest, but most of the power would be exported to Colorado.
Environmentalists oppose the project because it will add pollutants to the air, suck water from the aquifer and, they say, the continued dependence on coal will thwart efforts to increase electric capacity through renewable resources such as wind. Permits for the plant are being considered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
Coal is burned to produce about one-half of the country's electricity, but in Kansas, coal produces 71 percent of the state's electricity, according to the Kansas Energy Report.
State leaders also are considering ways to make it easier for the development of so-called community wind projects, which are suited for smaller commercial operations financed by local investors who keep the electricity sales in the community.
Current wind facilities in Kansas have the capacity to provide about 350 megawatts of electricity. Sebelius has called on utilities in Kansas to have 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy installed by 2015. That would be about 10 percent of the state's current electricity generation capacity.
But battles continue on the wind front, especially in the Flint Hills where the prevailing winds make it an attractive area for wind projects, but many oppose cluttering the scenic landscape.
"You've always got Nimby (not in my backyard), whether it's a used car lot or wind turbines," Sloan said. "Nobody wants change if they think it will adversely impact them. Many opponents of wind power support it for somewhere else."
Johnson hopes the Legislature will work toward helping Kansans become more efficient energy users.
"At least a quarter of our energy, especially home-based, is wasted," Johnson said.
Energy audits
Some have called for a statewide program to get utility companies to provide energy audits, which would give customers information on the costs and benefits of updating their major appliances.
Meanwhile, amid high oil prices, ethanol - a fuel made from corn or grain sorghum - continues to generate enthusiasm nationwide and Kansas. Eight plants are producing in the state and another eight are under construction or nearing construction.
Proponents say ethanol will help reduce dependence on imported oil, while opponents say it's inefficient because it requires a lot of water to grow the crops needed to produce it.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Despite progress in reducing particulate air pollution over the last decade,
Texans are still suffering from its adverse health effects. Over the past
several decades, medical researchers examining air pollution and public
health have shown that air pollution is associated with a host of serious
adverse human health effects, including asthma attacks, heart attacks,
hospital admissions, and premature death.ii The adverse health
consequences of breathing air pollution caused by emissions from utility power plants are severe
and well documented in the published medical and scientific literature.iii
One of the air pollutants most carefully studied in the last decade is fine particles. Fine particles,
such as those that result from power plant emissions, can bypass the defensive mechanisms of the
lung and become lodged deep in the lung where they can cause a variety of health problems.
Indeed, the latest evidence indicates that short-term exposures cannot only cause respiratory
damage, but also cardiac effects, including increasing the risk of heart attacks.iv Moreover, long-
term exposure to fine particles
increases the risk of cardiac,
respiratory, and lung cancer
death and has been estimated
to shorten life expectancies of
people living in the most
polluted cities relative to those
living in cleaner cities.v vi In
recent years, researchers have
documented fine particle-
related mortality at low
concentrations, demonstrating
that there is no lower threshold
for premature death from the
long-term inhalation of
particles.vii
merrill (anonymous) says…
what are fine particles?
Fine particles are a mixture of harmful pollutants (e.g. soot, acid droplets, metals) that originate primarily from combustion sources such as power plants, diesel trucks, buses, and cars. In 1997 EPA set national health standards for fine particles (referred by EPA as "PM2.5" or particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (2.5 millionths of a meter in diameter less than one-hundredth the width of a human hair and smaller).
Fine particles are either soot emitted directly from these combustion sources or formed in the atmosphere from power plant sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Among airborne particles, the smallest (fine) combustion particles are of gravest concern because they are so tiny that they can be inhaled deeply and be absorbed into the bloodstream, thus evading the human lung's natural defenses. Individuals dying prematurely from exposure to particulate matter lose an average of 14 years of life.
Wind can allow particles to travel far and wide not to mention the acid rain effects.
This new activity will no doubt shed some light on reasons to phase out our local coal fired or certainly cut back dramatically. Solar and expanding our local hydro producing source would be the opportunities.
What can populations do now?
http://www.b-e-f.org/GreenTags/
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"while opponents say (ethanol is) inefficient because it requires a lot of water to grow the crops needed to produce it."
The water required is just one of the components of its inefficiency.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Tax subsidies would be wisely spent developing new jobs by providing a positive boost in the existing energy industry.Multi billion dollar exisiting
energy giants do not need nor deserve subsidies. Our government has provided avenues to outsource jobs yet has failed to replace jobs for hard working americans. Here right before our eyes is one practical solution. Apply the subsidies to a practical solution. NEW energy sources.
LawSW (anonymous) says…
Coal is a step backward. I recall the coal bin in the basement of my grandparent's home outside Chicago. It's so turn-of-last-century. My grandfather would go into the city with a white shirt on and it was black by the time he got home. Have you ever seen the sky over a major industrial area like Chicago? It is absolutely disgusting, depressing, and disturbing to see--or should I say--not see--the sky! I've lived through a birth defect in my family from factory emissions--not a pretty thing. Harnessing and converting wind energy is the best thing for us. And who wants to produce energy--for Colorado?
snowWI (anonymous) says…
I believe that there is someone on Sebelius' staff that is in charge of developing plans to build new transmission lines throughout Kansas. Kansas needs more time to develop our transmission line infrastructure before we consider our energy options. If we get additional transmission lines built in Western Kansas, more opportunities would exist to build wind farms in varying locations.
compmd (anonymous) says…
ethanol is good for two things:
1) drinking
2) cleaning
anyone who thinks its a great fuel clearly is suffering from its effects from my first listed use of it.
I'm working on the wind power thing. theres some new ideas out there to improve it to the point that the nimbys that don't want it will be making themselves look more stupid than they do now.