Archive for Friday, May 22, 2009
Energy bill now state law
By 2020, utilities must provide 20% of power through renewable sources
May 22, 2009, 11:21 a.m. Updated May 22, 2009, 11:38 a.m.
Advertisement
Topeka — Gov. Mark Parkinson on Friday signed into law the renewable energy bill he wanted in exchange for his blessing of an 895-megawatt coal-burning power plant.
“Prior to this year, Kansas was falling behind many other states in the production of cleaner energy,” Parkinson said. “With this legislation, we are no longer at the back of the line.”
The bill will require that by 2020, utilities provide 20 percent of their power through renewable sources, such as wind. Supporters of the legislation say it also encourages conservation and will make it easier for consumers to use wind and solar power for their own needs.
But environmentalists said the so-called green provisions were too high a price to pay. To get the bill through the Legislature, Parkinson had to agree to allow construction of the plant in southwestern Kansas that will emit nearly 6.7 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.
“The governor’s coal plant deal appears to be an act of political expediency in the face of political extortion,” said Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy.
Parkinson negotiated the deal in secret with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. immediately after becoming governor last month. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who fought Sunflower’s earlier attempts to build two 700-megawatt coal-fired plants, left office to serve as President Barack Obama’s secretary of health and human resources.
More like this
- State reaches agreement to enable one coal plant to be built at Holcomb 136 comments / May 4, 2009
- Bill connected to coal plant clears committee 68 comments / May 7, 2009
- Legislators hope to bring swift end to coal battle with necessary legislation May 5, 2009
- Proposed federal wind regulations would benefit Kansas 36 comments / February 24, 2009
- Kansas Legislature passes bill allowing coal-fired power plant 146 comments / May 8, 2009
Top ads RSS
- The Oread Hotel targets concerns over fire November 27, 2009 · 11 comments
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009 · 37 comments
- Fear tactics November 27, 2009 · 5 comments
- On the street: Are you a Black Friday shopper? November 27, 2009 · 15 comments
- Kansas Athletics seeks football fans to invest $34M for Gridiron Club November 27, 2009 · 18 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 89 comments
- Santa arriving in Downtown Lawrence Friday night November 27, 2009 · 3 comments
- Blog: Six Wins Might Not Be Enough To Get Ku Into A Bowl November 27, 2009 · 7 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 48 comments
- Shoppers hunt for door buster bargains November 27, 2009 · 10 comments
- The Oread Hotel targets concerns over fire November 27, 2009
- Center of attention: New LAC director acclimates to challenging post November 27, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Jayhawks: We are focused on Tigers November 27, 2009
- Tight credit slows state’s business development November 27, 2009
- Heeding heart attack’s message November 26, 2009
- Oread owners share view from the top September 24, 2009
- High School Scholar Athlete of the Month: Drue Davis November 27, 2009
- Santa arriving in Downtown Lawrence Friday night November 27, 2009
- 100 years ago: Haskell celebrates win over Nebraska November 27, 2009
22 May 2009
at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…
Good for Governor Parkinson.
22 May 2009
at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“House Bill 2369 enacts net metering and sets up renewable energy standards.”
Well, sort of. Electric cooperatives are exempt, and they operate in areas where the bulk of consumer-owned power generation could be built.
22 May 2009
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Exempt from net metering, that is.
22 May 2009
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
If one of the stated goals of the Planned Parenthood crowd is to reduce the number of abortions in this country, i.e. to make abortion “safe, legal and rare,” I would ask: Why do you want to make abortions less prevalent? Why are you calling for fewer abortions? What is it about the abortion procedure that makes our society to want to have as few of them as possible?
I think we all know it's because abortion destroys an innocent human life.
22 May 2009
at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
HodgePodge (Erin Parmelee) says…
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
If one of the stated goals of the Planned Parenthood crowd is to reduce the number of abortions in this country, i.e. to make abortion “safe, legal and rare,” I would ask: Why do you want to make abortions less prevalent? Why are you calling for fewer abortions? What is it about the abortion procedure that makes our society to want to have as few of them as possible?
–––––––––––––––––––––––
How about because it is an emotionally traumatic option applied to a sad and unintended situation. Why wouldn't you want to prevent that?
22 May 2009
at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tvc (Anonymous) says…
I want to have as few medical procedures as possible.
22 May 2009
at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
feeble (Anonymous) says…
STRS, that question is easily turned around on those who actively campaign against abortion.
Why do you want to cut funding that, by law, cannot *ever* go to abortion procedures, and is specifically intended to fund education aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies and for subsidizing the cost of the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill for qualified, low income citizens?
Is it because you want to keep women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen?
22 May 2009
at 2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TobiasFunke (Anonymous) says…
Quit with the 'destroys and innocent life' bit. Try living in Iraq. We abort full grown humans there all the time, and I don't see you conservatives all up in arms about it.
22 May 2009
at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…
STRS-Preventative measures are always the optimal route to take in terms of costs and risk to the woman. The cost of an abortion is more expensive than the cost of birth control pills. Although there are risks to the woman's health even when using the pill or the IUD, it is less risky than an abortion or giving birth either one. Prevention is optimal for most health related issues.
The March of Dimes promotes good prenatal care to decrease the risks and costs of premature births. Regular checkups with your doctor, dentist or optometrist can help prevent disease or provide early detection and treatment. Prevention isn't that difficult of a concept to understand. By focusing on the minute portion of the overall Planned Parenthood budget that funds abortions, many folks like you want to eliminate an agency whose overall mission is to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and promoting health though regular gynecological checkups and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. I know that many people have bought into the propaganda that abortion is Planned Parenthood's ultimate goal, but that is simply not true. If you truly want to limit and eliminate abortions, then you should make a donation to Planned Parenthood. You could specify that your donation goes toward education and birth control and not to cover the costs of an abortion.
23 May 2009
at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Why are you all talking about abortion?
This story is about an energy bill.
23 May 2009
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DougCounty (Anonymous) says…
Maybe because meaningful energy efficiency standards, net metering for most rural areas, KDHE oversight and acting responsibly in face of the climate issue have all been aborted with this lousy legislation.
If there ever were a case for Right to Lifers AND Women's Rights activists to be outraged, this bill is it: Kansans' quality of life took a huge hit all in the name of financial bailout for the Sunflower Electric investors. And the bones thrown down in the name of renewables is a huge insult to the vast majority of Kansans truly interested in renewables, energy efficiency and the future. Classic greenwashing.
23 May 2009
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
Sunflower just kept writing checks till they got the Pay To line correct. And Parkinson then endorsed them.
23 May 2009
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
Parkinson is a suck a*s and a sellout. He must be getting his pockets lined something serious like. The coal plant will cancel out any gains in new/renewable energy. We miss you Kathy!!!!
23 May 2009
at 2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I wish the article would discuss more about why cooperatives were exempt from net metering. I do know there are two sides to the subject, but they should be explained.
23 May 2009
at 6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I wish the article would discuss more about why cooperatives were exempt from net metering. I do know there are two sides to the subject, but they should be explained.”
non2, net metering is Kansas is far out of reach for most folks anyway.
To do a proper setup you get to spend $50K and up with a payback period of many years, so the question is really moot.