Topeka — The Sierra Club came under fire Thursday during a hearing on a bill backed by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. that is aimed at building two coal-fired electric power plants in southwestern Kansas.
During a meeting of the House Energy and Utilities Committee, state Rep. Joe Seiwert, R-Pretty Prairie, praised Sunflower’s vice president and general counsel Mark Calcara and criticized Kansas chapter of Sierra Club lobbyist Tom Thompson, who opposes the bill.
He said to Calcara that Thompson probably uses Sunflower Electric’s services and yet “he tries so diligently to put you out of business.”
Earlier, state Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, said he was bothered by Thompson’s statement on Wednesday that the bill was tailored for the special interests of Sunflower.
“Is the Sierra Club a special interest also?” Sloan asked Thompson. Thompson said probably everyone who appears before the committee represents a special interest.
While it appears a majority on the committee support House Bill 2182, it was also criticized by some.
State Rep. Milack Talia, D-Merriam, said the bill would overturn an executive branch decision. “What I have a problem with is the Legislature acting like the judicial branch,” Talia said.
The committee took no action on the measure, but the debate shows that the Sunflower proposal is likely to become a key issue in the current legislative session.
The bill would pave the way for construction of two 700-megawatt coal-burning power plants that have been denied by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has cited the project’s annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to climate change.
The issue dominated the 2008 legislative session as supporters of the project approved bills three times to ensure Sunflower got the permits needed for the project. Sebelius vetoed the measures and supporters of the plants were unable to overturn her veto. Sunflower also has taken the battle to state and federal court to try to build the plants.
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.
rusty2 (anonymous) says…
the Ogallala Aquifer is not a hoax and has nothing to do wth the Sierra Club.Depletion of the aquifer has everything to do with the proposed coal-fired plants located where there is no riverand they intend to use massive / massive / massive amounts of water.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"We know that CO2 forced AGW is a hoax"Still claiming certainty, I see. Do you have stock options wrapped up in this XD40? Or is it really just that you get all your news from biased sources?
Phillbert (anonymous) says…
XD40: "It is electricity itself they cannot abide."Oh, you got us, environmentalists hate electricity. Damn that Benjamin Franklin and his kite!
Fugu (anonymous) says…
"XD40 (Anonymous) says…We know that CO2 forced AGW is a hoax:http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/pre… "Think again XD40:http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
XD40 - The Arkansas River USED to have water and quite a bit. Don't know when the last time was you took a peek at it, but you can usually wade across it not even get your belt wet.
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
And my point is that the Arkansas River is not a viable, reliable water source for any sort of industry. The aquifer is already being depleted faster than it can replenish itself.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
"CO2 = 0.038% of our atmosphere."And in 1900 it was 0.028%, so it has gone up 35% in just over a hundred years.
George_Braziller (anonymous) says…
XD40 - It's not just the Sierra Club concerned about the future of the aquifer:http://geology.com/usgs/high-plains-aquifer.shtml
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
Stop CO2 production now! Breathe in; don't breathe out. Breathe in; don't breathe out.In all seriousness,gccs14r (Anonymous) says… “CO2…..in 1900 it was 0.028%, so it has gone up 35% in just over a hundred years.”How does the method of measurement of CO2 today compare with over 100 years ago? Have the meters become more accurate or sensitive? Are the same amount of locations and averages taken as 109 years ago? Were there any advances in technology and tracking in the past 109 years that could account for any of the variation? Is the measurement of 1900 an actual measurement or is it based on a model?
lounger (anonymous) says…
The Kansas State legislature is afraid of progress and the fear of the Sierra club proves it. I applaud the Sierra club and its position. In the future these worn out, old, crusty lawmakers will be looked upon in a very bad way if they keep pandering to the old guard. Lining ones pockets with money from Old technology is simply dumb. Look to the future pleeeaase! Its all our children have because the present is full of old Ideas under the capital dome. Thank goodness for our governor and her guts.
riverdrifter (anonymous) says…
"And my point is that the Arkansas River is not a viable, reliable water source for any sort of industry. The aquifer is already being depleted faster than it can replenish itself."Ding-ding-ding!!! Right on George and therein hangs the tale. Were I an irrigator within a hundred miles of this pile of crap I'd be raising hell.
tumbilweed (anonymous) says…
Time to put a stop to the cancerous growth of human civilization. Sunflower is greed realized. Maybe if the economy in W. Kansas sucks they should realize they live in W. Kansas. That's the way its gonna be.
rooster (anonymous) says…
XD40 gets his info from retarded thinktanks. Here's a little blurb about his national review.National Review (NR) is a biweekly magazine and web site, founded by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion."[1] It is usually considered the center of intellectual activity for the American Conservative movement in the twentieth century.WOW XD40 you can create links to biased material. You Are So Special. Do you really think anyone will ever give you a second of their time when all of your links are to conservative and biased reports. All of the national review material is worthless in the eyes of any real scientist. Until you provide links to unbiased reporting you will be relegated to "waste of time/space status"
fairplay (anonymous) says…
xd40:But, why do the enviro-agitators persist? It is electricity itself they cannot abide. They oppose developing reliable sources of electricity because it provides technological leverage which leads to economic growth, wealth creation and improved living standards. The green elite are terrified by the prospect of more people having access to what they themselves already enjoy.tumbilweed:Time to put a stop to the cancerous growth of human civilization. -----------------------------------In fairness to xd40, there are some on this board that fuel the fire. Why would s/he think any differently when comments like tumbilweed's are posted?Also, rooster, should thoughts that come from conservatives be disregarded? Likewise, should thoughts originating from a liberal publication be dismissed as incredible? Would you be equally willing to condemn Fugu for referencing a site dedicated to counter arguments to global warming dissenters?
rooster (anonymous) says…
To fairplay: Here is an excerpt on fugus links: Nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenryDoesnt sound too liberal does it. Not affiliated. "Rational Science and economics" Woah... Wayyyy too liberal huh. Just defending the drumbeat of the conservative party huh fairplay?
loosecaboose (anonymous) says…
As a retired railroad employee, I wonder how much money the BN and UP railroads are pouring into this effort so they can sell even more Wyoming coal.
fairplay (anonymous) says…
rooster, why so defensive? Why are you on the attack? Nobody called you names, no one is trying to offend you. Surely, you are not so naive as to assume that a mission statement on a website is an accurate depiction of the motives? I'm assuming, based on your defensive stance, that you are a liberal. I am also going to make the leap to assume that you do not find Fox News to be "Fair and Balanced." Yet, Fox claims to be just as Fugu's links claim to be free of rhetoric.C'mon...no one is attacking you. But if we are going to have meaningful dialogue we must have more than the traditional partisan arrows. By doing so, you are exemplifying the partisan arguments of xd40 and other conservatives.
rooster (anonymous) says…
Look Fairplay, One mission statement is clearly *trying* to be non partisan by claiming no affiliation and the other is overtly partisan even on face value. Sure you can bring up fox but even the naive, uninformed or convervative will admit that fox news is neither fair or balanced. So your claim that science and public policy is anything other than it's mission statement is baseless until you find a number of claims to the contrary.P.S. Fox lost 6 billion last quarter alone. The blinders have started to come off.
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
"State Rep. Milack Talia, D-Merriam, said the bill would overturn an executive branch decision. “What I have a problem with is the Legislature acting like the judicial branch,” Talia said."Ding! We have a winner!
levicircle2 (anonymous) says…
Not getting into the debate - just making a pair of corrections:Rooster - NewsCorp lost $6 billion, yes - it's a huge corporation. You distilled it down to Fox, by which I'm guessing you're referring to Fox News Net (as opposed to the network that carries the Simpsons). Fox News Net programming revenue grew 10 percent to $1.36 billion.Logicsound04 - No, Sunflower is not a "business that is trying to ramrod a bill down Kansans throat (in spite of a majority of Kansans being opposed to the construction of these dinosaurs) so that they can generate a profit."Sunflower is a NON-profit cooperative. It is NOT a "business" in the same mold of a Westar or KCP&L. In other words, Sunflower is a grassroots nonprofit organization designed to make sure that Western Kansans have electricity.Your "majority of Kansans being opposed" is also debatable, at best. The Land Institutes's poll showed opposition, but considering the source is as believable as a cigarette company poll on anti-smoking laws.The only independent poll taken on the matter was done by Rasmussen, with the results being 48% support for the plants; 32% against; and 19% unsure.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Sunflower is a NON-profit cooperative. It is NOT a “business” in the same mold of a Westar or KCP&L. In other words, Sunflower is a grassroots nonprofit organization designed to make sure that Western Kansans have electricity."I can agree with part a above, but part b is way off the mark.
levicircle2 (anonymous) says…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi... question in poll.If R.J. Reynolds doesn't actually do the calling, but hires a firm to do its polling for it, that doesn't add credibility to a poll about anti-smoking laws...and the fact that the Land Institute staff didn't actually dial the phones, but instead hired someone else doesn't remove the taint, either. As your own link states, the Land Institute is the headwater of the poll.The Sierra Club does, indeed, generate revenue - just not a legally-defined profit. They have over 500 paid staff members (apply to work for them here: http://www.sierraclub.org/careers/ ). Their annual budget exceeds $100 million. Just like for-profit businesses, they pour millions into campaigns every election cycle. There are bigger players, but it's not like the S.C. is just a poverty-stricken little group of eco-warriors - they're a major fund-raising organization.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
While the Kansas legislature continues to try to fit their round peg in an increasingly square hole, China is starting to move ahead of us in the better ideas department.China May Scale Back Coal-Power Spending In 2009.Bloomberg News (2/6, Ying) reports, "China, facing a possible oversupply of electricity as economic growth slows, may continue to scale back investment in coal-fired power plants while boosting spending in atomic reactors and wind farms to reduce carbon emissions." Xue Jing, director of information at the China Electricity Council, said that "spending on coal-fired plants will decline this year, extending a 22 percent drop in 2008, in a telephone interview in Beijing today." The cutback, however, "will be smaller than last year, Xue said without elaborating." Bloomberg also quotes Zhang Guobao, head of the National Energy Administration, as saying that "the oversupply of electricity offers a 'good opportunity for China to optimize its power industry' by shutting polluting plants and tapping cleaner sources such as nuclear and wind energy." There is still time for the Kansas legislature (Repubs) to back track on their foolish coal plant adventure.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
FYI:I am not a member of the Sierra Club. Personally, I don't even like them but we agree on this issue.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
fairplay: "should thoughts that come from conservatives be disregarded? Likewise, should thoughts originating from a liberal publication be dismissed as incredible?"I hope that I'm right in assuming that you meant uncredible, as incredible doesn't sound right in that context.No to both questions. Certainly multiple sides of the issue need to be taken into consideration. But it is also true that certain sides will present selectively chosen info in order to artificially sway opinion. It's as true for Al Gore as it is for the Center of Science and Public Policy, which claims to be above influence, but has accepted large donations from Exxon, which can hardly be saide to be a disinterested party. The big problem, again not limited to sides, is when one or the other claims certainty. There are reasons to suspect or believe particular things, but it's not correct to say that either way we can claim the absolute truth. I would also suggest that when your sources all come from homogenous sources that represent a certain viewpoint and agenda, then one is likely to have a biased and potentially untrue viewpoint.