LJWorld.com

• Email
• Comments (4)
• iPod-friendly
• Print

The state’s current strategy on energy and the environment doesn’t reflect the kind of unified effort that’s needed to set a productive course for Kansas.

At least three different state groups have been formed to consider issues related to energy and greenhouse gases. They appear to be working independently of — if not at cross purposes with — one another, in a way that may be setting the stage for a political train wreck on the issues.

In May, the governor appointed members of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, which she created by executive order “to address greenhouse gas emissions in Kansas.” Last week, Kansas House Speaker Melvin Neufeld announced the first appointments to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy, which is charged with reporting to the Legislature on state energy and environmental policy issues.

Apparently, both KEEP and JCEEP are necessary because the Kansas Energy Council, created by Sebelius in 2004, and its Greenhouse Gas Policy Committee wasn’t sufficiently examining these issues.

Or, more likely, the new groups are a reflection of an ongoing political struggle over these issues and especially the approval of two coal-fired power plants in western Kansas.

KEEP was entirely appointed by the governor and includes a broad range of university scientists, business officials, utility representatives, environmental groups and other people interested in energy and environmental issues. In announcing his appointment to the JCEEP, however, Neufeld expressed the view that KEEP was tied to “alarmist” environmental groups.

Perhaps to counteract what he saw as a bias toward environmental concerns, Neufeld chose four proponents of the coal-fired plants as his appointees to the legislative committee. Other appointments to that 11-member group will be made by the president of the Kansas Senate and by the House and Senate minority leaders. Two of those three leaders also supported the coal-fired plants. If they follow Neufeld’s lead, the result could be a committee that brings a certain mindset to its deliberations.

This does not bode well for the state’s energy policies. Between now and the next legislative session, state leaders should be taking a broad, open-minded look at energy and the environment. They should be thinking creatively about ways to meet the state’s energy needs while taking reasonable steps to protect the state’s environment and meet expected federal clean-air regulations.

Most of all, they should be working cooperatively, hashing out ideas and trying to find common ground on these difficult issues. Having two or three policy groups working independently and likely staking out very different philosophical territories on these issues just isn’t productive.

Political battles over the coal-fired plants dominated the 2008 legislative session and sidetracked other important state issues. It seems that the stage is being set for a similar scenario in 2009.