Developing diversity in electric power sources would be a benefit to Kansas consumers if done in an all-around reasonable and sane manner.

But pursuing a new pathway can be a costly proposition, and before pursuing changes, a business or a state needs to weigh all potential benefits and risks.

That’s the situation Kansas is in as it considers new power sources, to ensure new power development will be appropriate.

Westar is asking the Kansas Corporation Commission for permission to raise its rates to cover the costs of proposed wind power, along with a 1 percent rate-of-return bonus.

The Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board (CURB) has determined Westar is underestimating how much their proposed wind power project will add to customers’ electrical bills, and if the proposal will benefit Westar investors at the expense of Kansas users.

If done properly; diversifying energy sources in the state serves the public, especially in the long run. And it’s reasonable to consider investing in such projects, and to consider whether that means installing new biomass power, or new nuclear power, or new wind power.

KCC Chairman Thomas Wright affirms that KCC intends to support alternative energy and energy efficiency projects in the state. That doesn’t mean the state should be quick to approve a blank check to help Westar.

Instead Kansas should choose its energy and environmental pathway through the 21st Century very carefully to avoid taking a wrong and costly turn.

Kansas should use the opportunity that the proposed new coal-fired power plants and other alternative energy proposals such as Westar’s present, to carefully consider and choose wisely.

Kansas should be installing smaller-scale alternative/ renewable energy power plants nearer to population centers instead of installing huge wind turbines in far-off locations. Any new approach should serve the long-term interests of all Kansas consumers and should become an important element in the long term energy and environmental plans.

Kansas could provide incentives for local self-sufficiency, and local governments could design local codes to remove obstacles to local and on-site power generation. Currently codes provide guidelines for the installation of energy efficient appliances. They should be updated to include new guidelines for the installation of local power plants designed to convert locally available biomass and waste resources.

Virtually any organic waste that can be rounded up from within a 20-25-mile distance from town that other people would let rot or, better, pay to get rid of could be used for power generation and combined with locally grown biomass.

Individual projects might cost about $10 million or more depending on their size. These could generate electricity for sale into the electric grid and would yield millions of gallons per year of ethanol and other liquid fuels to local outlets.

As long as the price of ethanol stays above $1.25 a gallon and the price of oil stays above $40 per barrel (it’s over twice that now), projects will be profitable and create local jobs.

Government shouldn’t be wasting people’s money. We’re taking garbage and burying it in the ground. That just doesn’t make sense when the garbage is loaded with BTUs that can be converted into electricity and liquid fuel.

A reliable supply of biomass feedstock is available. Private or public sector financing of distributed generation plants can be obtained. Federal loan guarantees can reduce investor risk.