Archive for Thursday, May 1, 2008
Power plant struggle resumes
Senate overrides second veto, adds meter charge
Coal-plant opponents line the corridors of the Kansas Capitol as representatives make their way into the House Chambers on Wednesday in Topeka. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius rejected an alternative proposal for a coal-fired electric plant project, forcing an attempt to override Sebelius’ April 17 veto of a second bill allowing the plants in southwest Kansas. Today the House failed to override the veto by four votes.
May 1, 2008
Advertisement
Senate overrides coal plant veto
After months of blowing smoke, things heat up today between the two sides involved in a power struggle at the Statehouse. 6News reporter Ben Bauman has more. Enlarge video
Audio Clips
Sebelius rejects coal plant ultimatum
Reader poll
Topeka — As the standoff continued Wednesday over the proposed coal-fired power project in southwest Kansas, a new measure emerged that would hit every electric customer in the state.
A companion bill to the power plant bill was approved in the Senate that would assess a 2 cent per meter per month charge on all ratepayers for four years.
Funds raised from the charge would go toward helping Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. develop its bio-energy research center, and also statewide energy efficiency and weatherization programs.
Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, who opposes the power plant project, called the new charge a tax, and complained that it rocketed out of a hastily called committee meeting with little notice and no chance for opponents to testify.
But state Sen. Janis Lee, D-Kensington, who supports construction of the coal-burning plants, said of the proposed charge, “I doubt that is going to break the bank.”
Strategy-wise, the bill was seen by supporters of the project as needed to get more support behind the two 700-megawatt plants because it also included provisions to increase power from the project for use in the state.
Flurry of action
The commotion over the bill was typical of a whirlwind of activity as lawmakers started the wrap-up session.
Earlier in the day, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius rejected an ultimatum to approve the coal-fired project and the Senate voted to override her April 17 veto of a second bill that would authorize the plants.
House leaders promised an override vote today, but were uncertain of its outcome.
“We might lose some, we might win some,” said House Majority Leader Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell. “Depends on who twists the arms the best.”
The dispute is over the proposal by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and two out-of-state partners to build the coal-burning plants.
Sebelius has rejected the project, saying that its 11 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions would hurt the environment. She has also criticized legislation on the project because it would strip regulatory authority from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
And another major complaint from Sebelius is that 85 percent of the power would be sold to customers outside Kansas.
Legislative leaders and Sunflower Electric gave Sebelius an ultimatum to accept two 600-megawatt plants, but she refused the proposal.
“I am disappointed that, for the third time in a row, the Legislature is asking me to mandate that Kansas send the power we need — the power we create — to Colorado and Texas,” Sebelius said during a news conference.
Senate overrides veto
Within hours of her rejection, the Senate overrode Sebelius’ veto, 32-7, which was five more than the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.
State Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, voted to support Sebelius, while state Sen. Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, voted to override her veto.
But the momentum to try an override in the House bogged down as the day progressed.
The companion bill slowed down in the Senate because of technical problems and a number of amendments offered by Francisco, who opposed the proposal in committee. The full Senate adopted the measure, with Pine supporting it and Francisco passing.
As the Senate worked on the bill, the House adjourned for the evening. Some legislators had left earlier to attend the lecture by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at Kansas University’s Lied Center.
To override Sebelius’ veto in the 125-member House would require 84 votes.
House leaders said they would vote on the companion bill this morning and then try to override Sebelius’ veto in the afternoon.
“It’s too close to call,” said House Democratic Leader Dennis McKinney of Greensburg, who supports the project.
Questions on new bill
The companion bill produced numerous questions during Senate debate concerning both the new meter charge and the way it allowed more power to be used in Kansas.
Under the proposal, the Kansas City, Kan., Board of Public Utilities would have the option to buy 200 megawatts of power from the project for use in Kansas. If BPU didn’t exercise the option, the 200 megawatts would then be available to other Kansas municipalities or cooperatives to purchase.
Early in the day, about 200 people who oppose the project lined the hallways of the Capitol, while several dozen supporters of the project also jammed the building.
Tom Thompson, a lobbyist for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said he hoped the House would sustain Sebelius’ veto.
But, he added, if Sebelius’ veto is overridden, the issue will be fought out in court.
“I think we’re prepared to do whatever we need to do to keep this from going forward,” Thompson said.
“The rest of the country is trying to figure out what to do with carbon and Kansas is still trying to figure out if it’s a problem or not,” he said.
Top ads RSS
- Relief Cook Full-Time 11:30AM-8PM (2 days) Dietary Aide 8AM-2:30PM (3 ...
- SCHOOL NURSE USD 458 BASEHOR/LINWOOD For application info. Call Lori ...
- Clerks Needed For convenience store. Good Pay and Benefits. Apply ...
- MEDICAL BILLING & COLLECTIONS SPECIALIST Lincare, leading national respiratory company, ...
- Half Time Graduate Education Coordinator in the Department of Medicinal ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Tuition lawsuit cost state $175,000 July 6, 2008 · 1 comment
- Motorists, cyclists share responsibility July 6, 2008 · 11 comments
- Fewer swimmers surface at outdoor aquatic center July 6, 2008 · 5 comments
- Suspect in KU student's death commits suicide while in New Jersey police custody July 5, 2008 · 74 comments
- Body found on train tracks July 5, 2008 · 58 comments
- Former GOP Sen. Helms dies at 86 July 5, 2008 · 28 comments
- Suspect in killing commits suicide July 5, 2008 · 7 comments
- How does God view the killing of animals? July 5, 2008 · 24 comments
- KU team to test biodiesel July 6, 2008 · 2 comments
- Trading for fuel-efficient car may not save you money July 6, 2008 · 4 comments
- Self provides plenty of leverage on recruiting trail July 6, 2008
- Big Dub returns July 5, 2008
- KU team to test biodiesel July 6, 2008
- Suspect in KU student's death commits suicide while in New Jersey police custody July 5, 2008
- Mackey's life brimmed with friends, family July 5, 2008
- Overcoming obstacles July 6, 2008
- Power play: Kansas companies compete to upgrade electric power grid July 6, 2008
- How does God view the killing of animals? July 5, 2008
- Beasley’s sternum cracked July 5, 2008
- Anatomy of an autopsy: Real forensic work nothing like TV shows July 23, 2006
1 May 2008 at 3:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…
Then the coal company came, with the world's largest shovel,
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land.
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken.
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
-jp
1 May 2008 at 6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
Time to change the legislature.
Of course this will not happen. These “bought and paid for” rightwingers are relatively insulated from the power of the ballot box. Too much money…
But of course, our election system is not corrupt. And I have oceanfront property in Wichita too… LOL.
1 May 2008 at 7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JerryStubbs (Anonymous) says…
I don't understand why they want everybody in the state to chip in to fund the Sunflower power company. They will probably get fewer votes now.
1 May 2008 at 7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lets_Be_Proactive (Anonymous) says…
IGW - you can't get a sunburn from visible light. If you're going to put someone down, be sure you don't sound like an idiot.
1 May 2008 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
JerryStubbs (Anonymous) writes …
” don't understand why they want everybody in the state to chip in to fund the Sunflower power company. They will probably get fewer votes now.”
*****
I don't understand either. Of course we have the same problem locally - existing taxpayers being required to support infrastructure improvements from which they do not and never will receive benefit.
I hope your prediction holds true.
**************
(article) “She has also criticized legislation on the project because it would strip regulatory authority from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.”
*****
Not only that, the stripped power will be replaced after the end of her administration in 2011. That's a slap in the face of everyone. I also wonder if it's constitutional - separation of powers and all.
*************
Note to Pasadena. This is the second article today you've started writing filth. Please stop it.
*************
I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity.
1 May 2008 at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
Harderfaster (Anonymous) says…
It would take 37,328 wind machines to replace one coal fired power plant. This number doesn't count the wind machines needed to replace the wind machines that are down for service.
Then, when the wind quit blowing we would need the coal fired power plant until the wind started blowing again.
–––-
All of the above was 100% accurate in 1993. It is absolutely inaccurate in 2008. Don't argue for coal plants by spreading lies about wind power.
1 May 2008 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salad (Anonymous) says…
“It would take 37,328 wind machines to replace one coal fired power plant”
Actually, your numbers are not acurate. A standard wind generating unit is around 1 MW, a coal fired unit is typically 700 MW. The proposed plant in SW KS is to be two units (1400 MW). So it would be around 1400 wind units to replace the proposed plant. However….1400 wind units only looks pretty on paper. In reality it's a horrible eyesore, plus, they're a maintenance hog, only offer intermitant capacity, and no vars support!!!
Wind energy is a good idea, but not the way we're doing it currently. We should have small units attached to individual houses (rooftops) that would offset household useage. Units about the size of a box fan: light, and inexpensive.
1 May 2008 at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…
So this 2 cent tax is going to give Sunflower the $2,000,000 it said it was going to give to K-State for the bio-energy research senter?
1 May 2008 at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
Dirk, if you dispute fasters numbers please tell us how many wind generators it would take to replace 600 megs of 24/7 coal.
1 May 2008 at 9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
“tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…
So this 2 cent tax is going to give Sunflower the $2,000,000 it said it was going to give to K-State for the bio-energy research senter?”
Does it matter?? Would you rather it go to one of the other bioenergy research centers in Kansas??
You scream for clean energy, but will not allow for any research. You are nothing more than an activist looking for a cause.
1 May 2008 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salad (Anonymous) says…
“how many wind generators it would take to replace 600 megs of 24/7 coal.”
zero… because it's like trying to ask an apple to be an orange, or trying to find a heart inside a republican.
1 May 2008 at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…
I wonder if the community where the Dutchman who put up the first windmill thought it was an eyesore. Now they are quaint.
“Eyesore” is not a permanent thing. “Eyesore” is not an environmental issue, it's a personal problem and a generational issue. Get real.
Windmills are one way prairie owners can produce energy for the community without diverting crops. Plus they make a tidy sum doing it. In the end, everyone wins.
1 May 2008 at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
If we reduce our consumption, solar and wind alternatives become more practical.
1 May 2008 at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
Yesterday, george and igw were lauding Sunflower for their bioenergy plant.
Today, they decry anyone who questions why Sunflower has lied about being able to pay for it.
Nothing but a continuous stream of lies. They support 19th century energy, but lie about their desire to enter the 21st century.
1 May 2008 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
If we reduced our consumption, solar and wind would become more practical alternatives.
1 May 2008 at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fu7il3 (Anonymous) says…
“If we reduced our consumption, solar and wind would become more practical alternatives.”
If people didn't drive so much, gas wouldn't cost four dollars a gallon. Those things don't change overnight, or even in months and years. So rather than say, “well, if we reduced these things, did would work.” We really need to find other answers. That being said, wind and solar could supplement and reduce what would otherwise be drawn from coal.
1 May 2008 at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salad (Anonymous) says…
Most people don't realize that it takes 24 hrs. to bring a coal plant on-line, assuming everything goes well. That's 24 hrs. of burning coal with no energy generation. It takes about 30 min. to bring a gas turbine generator on-line, which is why most power plants have a gas turbine on site to handle peak load in the summer.
1 May 2008 at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
“jafs (Anonymous) says…
If we reduced our consumption, solar and wind would become more practical alternatives.”
If my grandfather was a woman he would have been my grandmother. But he wasn't.
1 May 2008 at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
S0uPnAzi (Anonymous) says…
Why in the world isn't anyone talking about Geothermal? I bet it would work, and it's renewable, and causes no pollution of any kind. I'm willing to bet that if you stuck a tube 500 feet deep, you could power several towns with the energy produced. Don't need wind, don't need batteries, just a real good digger.
1 May 2008 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
As far as wind turbine numbers and coal plants comparisons go, that is an oranges and tangerines comparison. Energy efficiency is not factored in to the equation like it would be in the non-virtual world. However, just for giggles we will leave ee out and do a straight across comparison. A standard wind turbine is now 1.5 MW. In western Kansas it will come in at about 40% efficiency. You would need 2350 turbines to supplant a 1400 MW coal complex IF the coal units were at 100% efficiency.-which they are not.
IF Sunflower did a 1% investment in ee each year and Tri-State matched that (Vermont is doing 3%), you could easily reduce the demand by 15-20% after about 5 years of investment. I am not going in to the economics of turbines and ee/jobs in this post-but they are a compelling argument. However, Garden City's economic argument is compelling for their niche because all of the jobs will be right there for their benefit. If one is not tied to GC then the first econonomic scenario should carry more weight.
1 May 2008 at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salad (Anonymous) says…
“Why in the world isn't anyone talking about Geothermal? I bet it would work, and it's renewable, and causes no pollution of any kind. I'm willing to bet that if you stuck a tube 500 feet deep, you could power several towns with the energy produced.”
Drilling holes is REALLY expensive, but it does work for reducing the heating and cooling of a building. The Linda Hall Library on the UMKC campus has a geothermal system that is used to reduce the energy consumption. It's pretty clever and very expensive.
If you're talking about drilling a hole into the earth for the purpose of steam generation to power a turbine and create electricity, then you'd need a hole about 12,000 ft. deep. That's an expensive hole, and a huge amount of pipe.
Iceland and New Zealand use geothermal because the heat source is right on the surface.
1 May 2008 at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
S0uPnAzi (Anonymous) says…
Why in the world isn't anyone talking about Geothermal? I bet it would work, and it's renewable, and causes no pollution of any kind. I'm willing to bet that if you stuck a tube 500 feet deep, you could power several towns with the energy produced. Don't need wind, don't need batteries, just a real good digger.”
Marion writes:
Sorry, there Nazi but you are hopefully merely uneducated about geothermal and not just plain stupid.
Drilling for geothermal in this area requires depths measured in miles, not feet! Not like in Iceland, an area of intense near-surface volcanic activity, where if you kick the dirt you get a geyser!
Geothermal is a very viable near-zero pollution alternate which needs developement.
1 May 2008 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…
I have never stated that I was against bio-energy research.
I am confused about a couple things.
1. Why does Sunflower need a legislature approved tax to fund it?
2. If productive research arrises out of this center, is it Sunflower's alone to use?
3. Is this part of a broader state energy policy? Can anyone submit a bio-research proposal and get a similar tax passed to fund their research?
Yeah, 2 cents a month is just two cents a month. I'll send a couple quarters out of my pocket if that is why they need. But its still a -tax-.
Let me repeat that.
It's still a -tax-.
Your taxes have been increased by 2 cents.
Why stop at two? Why not go for five? Hell, 10 cents a month is only a buck twenty. Everyone can afford a buck twenty to go to this, can't they? I mean if 2 cents can fund this, imagine what we can do with 5 times that! Five times the money means five times the resources…that should do what, get us results at least twice as fast?
Sunflower just raised your taxes. And Republicans voted for it.
Thanks a bunch.
1 May 2008 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
malcolm_x_obama (Anonymous) says…
Basically Queen Kathleen is saying to her constituents: “Let them eat cake”
It is time to recall the governor. She is destroying private job growth in Kansas. This woman is a disaster.
1 May 2008 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…
Synopsis of this years legislative season:
Regular session:
1. Banned a plant.
Extended Session:
1. Raised taxes.
1 May 2008 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sen_Fudgepack (Anonymous) says…
I'll take an eyesore on a planet that we can live over no eyesores on a planet devoid of life…
1 May 2008 at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ralphralph (Anonymous) says…
Clean. Safe. Reliable. Nuclear.
Solution: build Wolf Creek Unit # 2.
1 May 2008 at 3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
RalphRalph,
Tri-State isn't going to pay the prohibitive cost of a nuclear plant because they do not have the financial capital to take on that size of an investment. Nuclear plants have to be built usually by a consortium or a utlility with very deep pockets (Southern or PG&E). Sunflower and Midwest couldn't pay for the preliminary studies for WC#2, let alone anything else associated with it. Besides they only need a couple of hundred megs of power.
1 May 2008 at 5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ENGWOOD (Anonymous) says…
You wind Nazi's are all the same. Just like Tubby Kennedy and Obama's Mama. Wind Generation is great as long as we force it on Western Kansas and we don't have to view it. Heck Western Kansas is nothing but Hillbilly's and dust devil's anyway it can't hurt their sky scape.
Obama's Mama needs to realize that if our economy goes south we won't be able to gamble in her little Casino's that she is so in Love with. Typical lefty loon lets promote corruption in the State so we can build a few more prison's and add more social programs.
1 May 2008 at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
As to Geothermal, I think people forget that geothermal isn't just about Yellow Stone. The same term is used for geothermal systems to warm/cool homes. The heat pumps some now have work on a similar principal but with the air as opposed to the ground or water. I would have loved to switch to geothermal, but the systems are SO expensive. It would take $15K to do such a system. Why these prices don't come down I don't know. If you want people to conserve, then you have to make it cost effective.
Instead lots of these green energy ideas are too expensive for the average person. Encouraging people to go green by getting way into debt for years not only is foolhardy, but it also makes you wonder if the green movement is as full of the corporate bullying mentality as the corporate utility giants that many want to villify.
1 May 2008 at 6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
vpete69 (Anonymous) says…
“Tom Thompson, a lobbyist for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said he hoped the House would sustain Sebelius’ veto.
But, he added, if Sebelius’ veto is overridden, the issue will be fought out in court.”
=======================================
perfect example of the Left's reaction to the democratic process when it doesn't go their way. Cant win at the ballot box, take it to court.
1 May 2008 at 6:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
The bottom line is that Coal and Nuke power screw the taxpayer/ratepayer. They are cash cows for the industry due to tax subsidies. If it were not for tax subsidies neither would be in operation because only the top 1% would be able to afford the energy bills comfortably. Tax dollars being spent irresponsibly which is typical of politicians yet so many are cheering them on…. how odd.
Going green is as much about being conservative and saving money as it is an environmental concern. The legislators are truly screwing the ratepayers no matter where they live. Meanwhile the special interest campaign dollars roll in and very few give a damn or so it appears.