Archive for Saturday, April 5, 2008
Second coal plant bill OK’d
April 5, 2008
Advertisement
Kansas Legislature
Topeka — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Friday vowed to veto a second bill approved by the Legislature that would allow the construction of two 700-megawatt coal-fired plants.
"I am disappointed that again, we have the same elements in a bill that I cannot accept, and will not support," Sebelius said in a prepared statement.
Asked about the prospect of another veto, Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, said, "We'll deal with that when it happens."
Lawmakers approved the bill before they ended the regular legislative session to take a three-week break. The Legislature will reconvene April 30 for a wrap-up session.
Last year, Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby denied the coal-fired plants, citing concerns with its annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming.
Since then supporters of the $3.6 billion project have been trying to overturn the decision in the Legislature and strip Bremby of key regulatory authority.
The new coal-fired bill was approved Friday in the House, 83-41, and then in the Senate, 32-7.
The House vote was viewed as something of a test. Despite keeping the roll open for nearly an hour, House leaders fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority of 84 votes that would be needed to overturn a veto.
Last month, Sebelius vetoed a similar bill and while the Senate was able to override it, House leaders have been several votes short.
The standoff over the coal-fired plants has loomed over the entire legislative session that started in January.
Under the proposed project, Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and out-of-state partners would build the plants near Holcomb. More than 85 percent of the power would be used by customers in Colorado and other states.
Supporters of the plants say they will be among the cleanest burning coal-fired units in the country, boost the local economy and provide the transmission lines needed to develop more wind energy.
State Sen. Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, said the plants will be needed to handle the state's future power needs. "I really don't want a brownout in Kansas," Pine said.
Environmentalists, however, say the project should be rejected.
"Endorsing this bill leaves Kansas wed to an obsolete energy technology that will pollute our air, deplete our water resources and prevent clean energy jobs in western Kansas," the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club said.
Sebelius has offered to support a 660-megawatt unit and environmental commitments to renewable resources, but Sunflower Power has rejected that offer.
Here is how area legislators voted on House substitute for Senate Bill 148, which would allow the construction of two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants in western Kansas.
SENATE
Yes
Roger Pine, R-Lawrence
No
Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence
HOUSE
Yes
Anthony Brown, R-Eudora
Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence
Lee Tafanelli, R-Ozawkie
Kenny Wilk, R-Lansing
No
Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence
Paul Davis, D-Lawrence
Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City
Ann Mah, D-Topeka
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Truth is greatest victim of Bush presidency November 23, 2008 · 22 comments
- Poll: What affects you more right now? November 22, 2008 · 10 comments
- On the street: Is your company cutting back for the holidays? November 23, 2008 · 5 comments
- Blog: If An Apple A Day Keeps The Doctor Away... November 23, 2008 · 7 comments
- Blog: Backyard Fence Blog 4: Cozy Up October 17, 2008 · 462 comments
- Blog: Your Favorite Side November 20, 2008 · 49 comments
- Trend worries D.A. November 23, 2008 · 25 comments
- Prospects high for health care reform November 23, 2008 · 12 comments
- U.S. developing bug-sized spies November 23, 2008 · 9 comments
- Blog: Building The Internet Barn, Going Greenish November 22, 2008 · 1 comment
- Getting his respect November 23, 2008
- Mother of student injured in fall reads statement as part of settlement August 7, 2008
- The great 8: Phoenix Awards honor visionaries in Lawrence arts scene November 23, 2008
- Questioning authorities November 22, 2008
- Widower to celebrate 100 years young November 23, 2008
- The truth about 'athlete-students' November 23, 2008
- Reflections on the 25th anniversary of “The Day After” November 21, 2008
- Needless expense November 22, 2008
- Dedications to Danny Manning November 23, 2008
- Transportation taxes gain favor nationwide November 23, 2008
5 April 2008
at 7:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Pine needs to go. Please someone run against him.
Only a neanderthal could continue to push coal in the face of global warming and the danger it presents.
Just yesterday news broke that Ted Turner said global warming would reduce us to cannibalism. Why? It's drastic effect on the food supply. But who cares? If Sibelius and the RepubLICKlan leadership have their way, Kansas will host a bio-defense plant soon (really a biological warfare plant) that will house the deadliest toxins known to man. Whether any of these toxins escape the plant and poison our environment remains to be same.
The spectre of death is in front of us all. We willingly board the Titanic.
Here's Turner's comment to Mike Morris of the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
Failure to address global warming will have us all dead or eating each other by mid-century.
So says Ted Turner, the restaurateur, environmentalist and former media mogul….
If steps aren't taken to stem global warming, 'We'll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow,' Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS's Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.
'Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals,' said Turner, 69. 'Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state - like Somalia or Sudan - and living conditions will be intolerable.'
One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.
'We're too many people; that's why we have global warming,' he said. 'Too many people are using too much stuff.'
And:
Turner went on to say that military budgets need to be cut 'way back.'
'Right now, the U.S. is spending $500 billion a year on the military, which is more than all 190 countries in the world put together,' he said.
'The two countries that the military industrial complex and some of our politicians would like to demonize and make enemies are Russia and China,' Turner said. 'China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States, and Russia wants to be our friends, too.'
He said that despite the United States' huge military budget, 'we can't win in Iraq.'
'We're being beaten by insurgents who don't even have any tanks, they don't have a headquarters, they don't have a Pentagon, we don't even know if they have any generals,' Turner told Rose.
Turner called the Iraqi insurgents 'patriots' who 'don't like us because we invaded their country and occupied it. Nobody likes to be invaded.'
And a great Logrithmic Amen!
5 April 2008
at 8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
speedykitty (Anonymous) says…
I'd certainly believe Sen. Roger Pine before I'd give any credibility to the blatherings of Ted Turner. Leaving him is virtually the only thing I ever agreed with Jane Fonda about! If Ted's 109 in 40 years and still around, he can gnaw on a chunk of one of his buffalo. Hope his teeth are strong.
5 April 2008
at 8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Ruppert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal credible? Now that's a laugh.
Only in the little mind of the rightwing….
5 April 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ibroke (Anonymous) says…
why do you listen to ted turner?
5 April 2008
at 11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…
“wake up people - get out there an tell the 'lobbyist politicos' NO COAL”
–––––––––––
And when that doesn't work lets get together and discuss a more direct old school 1760's style approach. Just kidding, please don't release my data to big brother.
5 April 2008
at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Drumtaculor (Bradley Klamm) says…
Anyone else amused that ALL of the R's are under the 'Yes' heading and ALL of the D's are under the 'No' heading?
5 April 2008
at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I'm more against the plants because of their water usage in an area that is already way over irrigated. Just check the Arkansas river in that area (or more precisely the Arkansas sand bed) and you wonder why they would want coal plants & ethanol plants there. I also think it is wrong to say that this is for western Kansas when only about 14% of the generated energy would stay there. They need to insist that more of the energy stays in Western Kansas to help keep energy rates lower there and to encourage job creation beyond just electrical plant jobs. Yes wind energy should have been a bit part of the total portfolio of this proposal. Keeping that in mind realize that wind energy alone will not meet the total domand. If everybody started conserving on their energy usage maybe that would be different.
On the flip side I think it is disingenuous for many of these people here that are 100% opposed to any plants out there to claim they have solely environmental global warming concerns. If tomorrow the KPL plant blew up & electrical rates went way up, they would be some of the first people to be really pissed.
Alternative energy is great, but has anybody recently tried to price what it takes to put up a wind system or solar system for an entire house? Have you checked the prices of ground geo-thermal heating & cooling systems? It takes a lot of money that most individuals don't have. Plus any appliances that are super efficient cost a lot. Looking at solar panels, I saw a 190-Watt 5x3 foot one for $1,100.00. 190 Watts isn't a lot in today's world of computers, kitchen appliances, power tools, giant LCD TV's, etc. 190 Watts might power your computer and a few light bulbs (florescent of course), but that is about it. Going with 100% alternative energy means changing to a vary spartan way of living. Until one is willing to live that kind of existence, they shouldn't expect their neighbors to do it instead.
8 April 2008
at 12:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
I saw that Turner interview and it was terrific! Turner speaks the truth and has a lot of money- a very rare thing! The land he buys up is restored and bison are put back where they belong.
Turner knows-as do we all- that if action isnt taken soon havoc will indeed be in our future as far as global warming is concerned. Act now is all he is saying and I agree with him….
13 April 2008
at 9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tennesseerader (Anonymous) says…
It's funny that Al Gore, the most vocal proponent of the global warming frenzy flies around in his own personal jet, has several mansions (each of which consume more power in a month than a normal house does in one year), owns land that is the biggest environmental eye sore in Tennessee and is poised to make millions from the trading of Carbon Futures.
If he really believed this crap he would live like it!
Wake up America! Without cheap energy we are doomed to becoming a third world country, which is exactly where the democrats will take us.