Sebelius Plays Chicken with Kansas State Legislature Over Coal

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed Senate Bill 327, whereby the state legislature would have constrained the powers of Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby, prohibited "consideration of any standards beyond the Clean Air Act" (which, remember, US EPA refuses to apply to CO2, despite the Supreme Court's orders), and green-lit two new coal plants -- 11 million tons of CO2.

This is from Sebelius' statement:

Instead of building two new coal plants, which would produce 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year, I support pursuing other, more promising energy and economic development alternatives.

With the increasing pressure for the federal government to develop national standards for carbon emissions, there is a high probability coal will become a lot more expensive in the next several years. Countries throughout Europe and South America already have standards in place and states are following suit.

Federal legislation has been introduced that would have the net impact of taxing carbon. If any of the proposals are adopted, utility companies and their customers will pay far more for energy which produces carbon. It will also require spending billions on equipment to clean the atmosphere as thoroughly as possible. Building additional coal plants now is likely to create a significant economic liability for Kansas in the future.

Note that this is not an environmental argument. You don't have to care about climate change to see its logic. Events are likely to conspire to sharply increase the price of coal. You build two new dirty coal plants and you're hanging them around your own neck for the next 50 years. That's short-sighted.

Here's what Sebelius offers as a compromise:

• Build one new plant similar in size to the Sand Sage permit previously approved (660 MW);
• Kansas base load power needs must receive top priority;
• Plant must be able to implement carbon sequestration technology;
• Commitment for 20% wind power (132 MW)
• Commitment for 100 MW of energy efficiency
• Net metering allowed in the Sunflower service area

Sebelius frames this as the "middle ground," but it's actually quite ambitious. They get a single coal plant with sequestration -- unlikely to come on the grid for years -- and she gets large-scale commitments to R&E.

Maybe she likes that deal. Maybe she just thinks they won't take it. This is doozy of a game of chicken. Pass the popcorn!

grist.org

Comments

[ragtopdodge]

She is simply awesome!

I would love her to be the VP.

Get the white AND white women vote that has gone for Hillary.

She is extremely competent and likeable and a breath of fresh air from compared to Hillary's poison.

[joebhed]

I think there is good reason to say this is a compromise position.
As an environmentalist who wants to keep coal in the mix of future generation options, this is clearly not a NO-COAL position.
But it is a pro-coal position that includes the policy considerations of "not-until".
Not until coal can be combusted in a plant that includes sequestration, to some degree.
Not until we have committed to and have online in Kansas at least 132 MW of wind power.
Not until we have done 100 MW of energy efficency investments.
Not until it is shown that is real Kansas base-load needs for which the coal plant will be built.
In so doing, Kansas creates tremendous "green" economic development activity that will serve it well in the future.
Kansas can easily accomplish the Wind and Efficiency goals in five or so years.
The result of which will likely turn to phase II - an additional 200MW of R&E potential.
All before the 600MW of clean coal technology comes on line.
This is an extremely sound energy policy for Kansas, and a model posture for other states to adopt.
The only policy I don't see the need for is the net-metering.
The wind and the efficiency can be brought into being for 5-6 cents per kWh.
Why net meter at 10 cents?
Its just not necessary.
Way to go, Gov.
New question.
What's right with Kansas?

[Calcutta]

I have to agree with the other posters. Obama/Sebelius sounds like winner if there ever was one.

[ocdemocrat]

from the front page of Huffington:"Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed a Senate Bill and green-lit two new coal plants -- 11 million tons of CO2."
Shouldn't Dave have a proof reader. From my interpretation, she vetoed a Senate bill and suggested 2 new coal plants instead. I know this is a mistake, but the rest of the blog also is confusing in the poor language and sentence structure that Dave uses.

"Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed a Senate Bill and green-lit two new coal plants -- 11 million tons of CO2." should be" vetoed senate bill THAT would have". One small word can easily give the wrong meaning to what is being said. Also, shouldn't Dave have mentioned after Gov. Sebullus's name (D)?

[loper2008]

She is cool. I want her to be Obama's VP.

[jdm58]

Go Kansas! If ANYONE can produce WIND power, it's Kansas! Would have liked to see more solar proposed too, but this is a great start.

[Quaoar]

She might make a better president than either Hillary or Obama. It's too bad she doesn't have better name recognition. Maybe she can run in 2012 if McCain wins.

[nazgul]

Good for her! Give 'em hell!

[robXdion]

Why is this on HuffPo? Trying to get her name in the press as an Obama VP choice? She'll be a good one. Sounds like a sensible female leader men will have to respect, in contrast to what we have seen lately.