Parkinson wants Kansas congressional representatives to get behind renewable energy bill / LJWorld.com

A new crop in Kansas

Poised as the third best state in the country for wind power and on the cusp of a renewable energy revolution, Kansas has the potential to be at the epicenter of the wind industry.

Topeka — If there were a bill in Congress that required states to buy Kansas beef, the Kansas congressional delegation would be first in line to vote for it, Gov. Mark Parkinson said Wednesday.

So he questioned why some Kansas members were not supporting legislation that contains national renewable electricity standards that could result in states buying electricity produced by Kansas wind farms.

Parkinson made the comment to about 700 people at the Kansas Wind and Renewable Energy Conference.

“A strong, national RES is the single most important piece of legislation for Kansas that is in Congress this year,” Parkinson said. He said the Kansas delegation should “lock up in favor” of this, as he put the telephone numbers of the Kansas congressional members on a screen.

A national RES would require the production of a certain percentage of electric power from renewable sources. Parkinson said he sees a national requirement as being a boon for wind development in Kansas, which sits in the middle of the “wind belt” and has been ranked as the No. 3 state in wind energy potential. States that don’t have the wind resource of Kansas would have to buy energy from Kansas, he said.

A national RES was part of a bill designed to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gases that was approved this summer by the U.S. House, 219-212. The measure would cap greenhouse gas emissions and then allow the buying and trading of emission allocations under that limit. The bill also would establish a renewable electricity standard and improved energy efficiency for a combined total of 20 percent of energy use by 2020.

The two members of Congress representing Lawrence split on the vote. U.S. Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., voted for it, while U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., voted against. Kansas’ two other House members — Republicans Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt — also voted against the bill.

Jenkins said the cap-and-trade part of the bill dealing with emissions would result in increased energy costs and loss of jobs.

“While Congresswoman Jenkins opposes the job-killing cap-and-trade legislation, she continues to pursue an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence that includes looking at a renewable energy standard and assessing the potential positive impacts on the Kansas economy,” her office said Wednesday.

Moore had an opposite take on the bill, saying that it would spur development.

“Changing the way we create and use energy will not only create new industries and jobs throughout the country — jobs that can’t be shipped overseas — it will revitalize our economy by making the United States a leader in the energy industry and increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” Moore said.

The Senate version of the climate bill was introduced last week and doesn’t include a national RES, but separate bills do have it.

Parkinson said the demand for wind energy that would be created by a national RES would increase wind generation in Kansas tenfold, from 1,000 megawatts to 10,000 megawatts, while also helping clean the environment.

“We’re not asking (the Kansas congressional delegation) to vote for bad public policy, and it will be great for Kansas,” he said.

Discussion

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.

7 October 2009
at 5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JackRipper (Anonymous) says…

It's too bad this is all a game. We should be doing everything to start reducing our energy use but of course politicians and major companies try to figure out how to enrich their pots. What happens when we discover that wind power will not be able to replace the enormous amount of oil we burn and if oil suddenly become prohibitively expensive then what? Do we really think we will continue the happy motoring world as we have come accustom to with electricity? And has anyone figured out what will happen if hit with a solar outburst that would charge all those power lines they want to build? This isn't unknown, in the 1800's telegraph stations caught fire from such an event.
7 October 2009
at 5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

johngalt (Anonymous) says…

Translation:

Parkinson wants your utility bills to increase.
7 October 2009
at 6:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

audball (Anonymous) says…

I'd like to see Kansas offer some of the incentives and rebates and tax breaks other states offer for homeowners to install renewable energy systems. There's such a great selection of products available to lessen dependency on the electric grid/oil/gas. Lightweight solar shingles, geo-thermal heating and cooling, solar water heaters, etc. I don't know how many homeowners could use a windmill, but farmers and country folks would have the space, if they were made a little more affordable with some help from our fearless leaders. And the more of these systems that get installed, the more systems get produced, and theoretically the less expensive the systems become.
7 October 2009
at 6:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

Other than fact that Parkinson is a firm Republican, why should anyone other than rightwing nutcases listen to him. Next 3 of these so-called reps have been too busy running for another office to pay attention to any constituents interests. The 4th one is too busy acting cute, hot and mindless to do anything. The 5th, since he 's a dratted liberal means LJW totally ignores him.
8 October 2009
at 6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

zstoltenberg (Anonymous) says…

The studies I have seen of the dollar outcome of cap and trade could result in up to a 90% increase in overall utility costs to the average families. That's why our responsible representatives voted against it, that and the lobbyists in their pockets. However, Kansas is absolutely bass akwards when it comes to individual options for clean energy. They are one of only 3 states I believe that still doesn't require net metering. They offer no incentives to upgrade appliances, incorporate green building products in new construction, nothing. Let the big boys keep throwing up windmills along I-70 but squash the guy trying to put solar panels on his house. Parkinson is litterally talking out both sides of his mouth, glad he's not running, although the other options aren't much better.
8 October 2009
at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

zsoltenberg; I encourage you to expand your research on the cost projections of cap and trade. It looks very apparent that you are studying a narrow band of reports. The second point to become aware of is that Kansas has passed a net metering bill and the KCC is hosting a roundtable discussion on Tuesday, October 13th to receive input for staff as they get the program up and running for the investor-owned utilities. The KCC should enact an order on net metering shortly after that.
8 October 2009
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

levicircle2 (Anonymous) says…

The big problem is in the first line of the story.

“If there were a bill in Congress that required states to buy Kansas beef, the Kansas congressional delegation would be first in line to vote for it, Gov. Mark Parkinson said Wednesday.”

Would they? Really? Then they would certainly lose my vote for any future election.

It is not the Federal government's role to force people in other states to purchase something I create. IF they are a free people…if they have liberty, then they can choose to purchase what they want.

To force them to purchase something I produce (I won't even go into how much more expensive my product is, compared to what the COULD purchase) is wrong, plain and simple.

If they want Kansas beef, that's great! I love it, myself! But if they'd prefer to fill themselves with Oregon pine needles, then that's their right - the government shouldn't force them to buy my beef.

Or my wind power.

8 October 2009
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fishcat (Anonymous) says…

Belexus: Look at the article on 1-A about the “savings” of billions of dollars by investing in rainforests. Is this not cap and trade? The evil US needs to give the fastest growing economies in the world money to stop more “greenhouse gas” production than all the planes, trains, and automobiles combined? Something is out of whack!
And if our Governor is calling for RES, then sir, call it what it is: Cap And Trade. A fart by any other name…
8 October 2009
at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

whynaut (Anonymous) says…

audball - very much agree. Providing incentives for consumers could get the demand ball rolling, while providing incentives for entrepreneurs could get the supply ball rolling, allowing them to grow together at their own rate of success. Moreover, it could create a more environmentally aware population which certainly wouldn't hurt in helping to garner the interest of electric companies, who are already drawn to our natural wind resources. Furthermore, stimulating the smaller markets of energy efficient products could aid in shifting our current fossil fueled culture, which JackRipper astutely points out is going to have to come along (however reluctantly) with a future of dependence on primarily renewable energy.

Energy production of any kind on a large scale is not simple, and drags behind it a lengthy supply chain with a lot of opportunities. The new Siemens plant in Hutch is a good example. We're also likely going to need some serious work to our infrastructure, better battery technology, software and hardware to manage it all, construction crews, welders, electricians, machinists, etc.

Marketing our notch in the wind belt to electric compaines with the multimillion dollar means to build wind farms is a good first step, but it goes hand in hand with providing incentives for smaller businesses and individuals to play the support roles, allowing for a more robust growth of an industry that could turn out to be very very lucrative for KS.
8 October 2009
at 2:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

krisg (Anonymous) says…

whynaut (and audball) make good points — and I think this is where this legislation steps in. Right now there aren't the right incentives in place to make renewables affordable on a small scale, but a bill that requires us to diversify our energy sources through market mechanisms will establish that. Limiting pollution from energy sources like coal and oil will pump investment into renewable energy sectors … and the more we produce and the more we innovate, the more cost effective wind mills, solar panels, etc will become. JackRipper asks what happens if oil become prohibitively expensive - that's exactly why we need to invest in domestic renewable energy now. Whether we like it or not the oil supply is going to dwindle at some point, and I for one am not enthusiastic about relying on OPEC to keep prices low. Passing a renewable energy bill now is an essential path to energy independence … otherwise we'll just continue with business as usual, and Big Oil execs and foreign countries will reap all the benefits of the billions of dollars we spend a day on oil imports.
9 October 2009
at 11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fierisq (Anonymous) says…

I would like to thank Gov. Parkinson and Rep. Moore for supporting renewable electricity standards. Moore is right on, when he says that a clean-energy economy will generate major employment benefits for Kansas and the rest of the U.S. economy. The Center for American progress released a report that determined Kansas could see a net increase of about $1.4 billion in investment revenue and 17,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean energy investments.

The open plains of Kansas provide some of the best wind for energy production in the country and only ranks behind Texas and North Dakota in potential wind capacity.
Already home to the Meridian Way Wind Farm and TradeWind Energy, Kansas should continue to pursue and develop wind power projects and serve as an example to states throughout the Heartland. The Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy found that a nationwide investment in green infrastructure of $100 billion over the next two years could yield 1,313 jobs in solar power and 1,125 jobs in wind power for Kansas. That's 2,036 more jobs than an equivalent investment in conventional power would create.

Clean-energy investments create 16.7 jobs for every $1 million in spending versus spending on fossil fuels which generates only 5.3 jobs per $1 million in spending. Renewable energy technologies create more jobs than fossil fuel technologies because a larger share of the expenditures for renewable energy is spent on manufacturing equipment, installation, and maintenance, all of which are typically more labor intensive than extracting and transporting fossil fuels. Renewable energy facilities also do not need to export cash to import fuel from other states, regions, or countries (with bioenergy, money is spent on locally produced fuel), keeping money circulating in the local economy.

The climate bill will create the new jobs needed to manufacture, install and maintain wind turbines, solar energy, geothermal power, and the many other clean energy technologies. Manufacturing and installing energy efficient doors, windows, and insulation will create jobs in glass and hardware manufacturing. In addition to high-quality jobs in manufacturing and construction, there will be jobs in operations, maintenance, finance, sales, and shipping. Jobs will also be created when these workers spend their income on goods and services and when consumer energy bill savings are spent in the local economy.

I too, urge Sen. Roberts and Sen. Brownback to invest in clean energy alternatives to create and protect jobs in Kansas, save families and businesses money, and make America more energy independent.