Among the many names swirling in the Obama VP buzz is that of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. A second-term Democratic governor in what's traditionally seen as a bastion of conservatism, Sebelius earned national attention as the chair of the Democratic Governors Association in 2007 and for delivering the Democratic response to this year's State of the Union. But for many environmentalists, she made her mark with something else entirely.
Earlier this year, Sebelius went head to head with a major utility company and the state's Republican-controlled legislature, three times vetoing bills that would have allowed two 700-megawatt, coal-fired power generators to be built in the state.
The battle began in October 2007 when a state environment official rejected Sunflower's permit to build the new plants on the basis of carbon dioxide emissions -- the first such rejection in the U.S. The state legislature fought back with bills that would have allowed the plants to proceed and stripped the state's environmental officials of the authority to grant permits, and the coal industry waged a nasty campaign against the governor. But Sebelius held firm, and in May vetoed the legislation for a third time, to the cheers of climate champions across the nation.
Grist caught up with Sebelius by phone this week to talk more about the coal fight in Kansas, the lessons it can deliver for other states, and what she would bring to Obama's ticket should she get the nod.
Grist: Every major coal group came to Kansas to fight you on this coal plant issue, because they thought it was the heartland and they could win there. So what happened?
Sebelius: I think that Kansans began to understand that there were some real choices to be made. A lot of the debate became about whether or not we were incurring too much harm for the good that would come out of additional power. Very little of the power that was scheduled to be produced was for Kansas. It actually was electricity that would be exported to Colorado and Texas, yet we would own the carbon. And Kansas already has a tremendously heavy footprint -- I think we're 10th per capita in the country in terms of our current carbon footprint. So we would get all the carbon, and we didn't really need the power.
[An] additional factor was that we have an enormous asset in wind energy, and folks in our state are very supportive of maximizing that renewable energy source before we do anything else, recognizing that it's underutilized right now, it has enormous potential, and it has no negative environmental impact. And so before we build any more coal, we should really ramp up wind. So the debate and the discussion was unlike what I think a lot of the coal companies expected, which was just basically a yes or a no, and this was all about economic development and jobs. It became [about] the consequences to that -- what are the choices and the health costs, the environmental costs. And I think for a lot of legislators that became a real tipping point.
Grist: Your message in the coal fight was that building additional plants now is likely to create a significant economic liability for Kansas in the future. So how do we promote this sort of message on a national level?
Sebelius: In the very least it's compelling to make an argument based on the uncertainty of [the future costs of coal]. Virtually everyone acknowledges that there will be some additional financial costs, and until Congress sets a clear set of rules, nobody knows what that is. That leads to an argument about [whether] it is just economically foolish to make a significant investment when you don't know what the final costs will be if there are other alternatives.
For every state in the country there are alternatives in terms of renewable energy sources. There are alternatives in terms of much-enhanced energy efficiency programs, new building standards, things that could be put in place right away which won't have an economic liability, which won't have an environmental liability and at least get us to the point where there is a clear set of rules so that in the future making strategic decisions then becomes easier ... [With coal] you are incurring a liability of uncertain amounts. You can't tell your shareholders with a straight face that this is going to make us money into the future, because you don't know that.
Grist: What sort of precedent do you hope this coal fight sets nationally?
Sebelius: [Kansas is] a state where we've had relatively inexpensive and very reliable energy sources, and our citizens were ready to engage in a fairly complex discussion of where we go from here. We were not a state where energy prices were high and that drove consumer behavior, or where were running out of power, which has happened on the East and West coasts. I think it's an indication that the citizenry is ready to engage in some serious discussions about what our comprehensive energy policy should be into the future.
There's no question that this administration and Congress has done a huge disservice by not developing a clear energy strategy and refusing to join the world community in a plan where America agrees to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our greenhouse gases. I think that's really got to change, and I think that notion is very much alive and well across the country as we demonstrated here in the heartland ... I think people are ready for that discussion, and I think it should give some momentum to a new administration and a new Congress. If this kind of battle can occur in Kansas and be successful, I think it's an indication that it can occur in Congress in the future.
Grist: What role should coal play in the national energy portfolio? Is there a future for coal?
Sebelius: I think there certainly has to be a lot of accelerated research and technology emphasis on whether or not we really can reach a design for clean coal technology ... Most recently the feds pulled the plug on FutureGen, which was supposed to be entirely focused on that. Given our enormous supply of coal in this country, I think it's wise for us to spend some real resources on that technology. Is it feasible? How far away from it are we? ... Most people I talk to say 10 to 15 years, if it ever exists at all. So as you look out at the next 25 years of energy policy of this country, that's a big "if." I think we need to make that determination. But yeah, I think if there is a process that can capture carbon and sequester it for long periods of time that becomes economically feasible, you bet coal's going to be part of our future.
Grist: Kansas recently received a $50,000 grant from the National Governors Association Center to pursue clean energy research. What are the big plans for the grant?
Sebelius: We honestly just received that. One of the things [we already have underway] is a comprehensive climate change study led by one of our key business leaders, Jack Pelton, who is the president of Cessna Aircraft. It includes folks from the agricultural, transportation, business, and manufacturing sectors, as well as key cabinet officials and legislators to really develop a long-term strategy for Kansas for lowering our greenhouse gas emissions and determining how we keep our economy thriving at the same time we make some real changes in long-term energy policy. A number of states have done that already. I think it's an opportunity for us to have a dialogue across the state to bring various sectors and representatives to the table to really take a look at how we make smart, strategic decisions which don't negatively impact the environment and yet allow the economy to grow. That's exactly the sort of framework I'm hoping Congress will undertake as they take a look at a new administration to develop new energy policy.
Grist: You're working on getting a renewable portfolio standard in place in the state. How's the progress on that?
Sebelius: Actually, we have kind of an interesting situation, where I was aware that we would not be able to pass a renewable portfolio standard through the legislature. They've made it pretty clear in previous discussions that kind of mandate was not appealing. So instead I brought together all of our utility companies almost a year ago and asked for a voluntary RPS to be put in place: 10 percent wind by 2010 and 20 percent wind by 2020, and at least a 10 percent reduction in overall energy uses, and to my somewhat surprise, they all agreed, and we signed a kind of memorandum of understanding. In fact in Kansas we will be ahead of the goal of 10 percent wind by the end of this year. We have already exceeded that goal and we're two years ahead of the timetable we agreed to. And the companies are taking it very seriously. Even the company that I did battle with on the coal plants has kept their commitment on wind because, quite frankly, they see it as an economic incentive that folks are eager for.
Grist: You've been mentioned as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, and you've praised his energy plan. What do you think you would bring to the Democratic ticket on climate and energy policy, should Obama ask you to be his running mate?
Sebelius: I think he's going to have an array of dazzling choices of people who are eager to help him in any way they can. And I do think whatever happens I am going to work as hard as I possibly can to make sure he's the next president because I think he has the leadership, talent, and capabilities and vision to make the changes that we need in this country. This experience I've had in Kansas I think is helpful in helping to provide some lessons to the members of Congress on what some of the issues are and what some of the polarizing battles are likely to be, and who some of the special interest groups are who show up to to do battle. Whatever we've had in Kansas will be on steroids as the Congressional debate unfolds.
Grist: You and Obama are both strong voices for putting aside partisan battles. But on climate change, it seems like the maximum of what's politically possible is well short of the minimum we need to do to solve the problem. It's an issue where consensus won't get us where we need to go. What would you do to fight the political battles needed to move the consensus on this issue, even if that means aggravating partisan rifts?
Sebelius: I think that the experience here gives me a lens into a little bit about what folks are thinking about. I do think that in this country we may be at something of a tipping point, where the momentum is beginning to shift ... I think there's a real willingness to engage in strategic, longer-term thinking, understanding that what we're doing right now is not sustainable. It's not sustainable for our planet, it's not sustainable for our health, it's not sustainable financially, and it doesn't make any sense.
It's not going to be easy. I think that we have these two major challenges facing a new Congress on a domestic level -- the delivery of health care in a much more universal fashion, and developing a comprehensive and sustainable energy policy are enormously important, and both require very heavy lifting, challenging special interest groups who have made a lot of money off the current system, figuring out ways to tell people things they may not want to hear. There's no silver bullet, there's no easy fix on either of those. But I think in both areas I am optimistic that folks are ready to move ahead.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Katheleen Sebelius for VP
Kathleen Sebelius is a true American hero. And, I'll agree on the record, she'd make a great VP!
-Ben Jervey
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-jervey/#blogger_bio
Thanks Kate. I loved your interview. Since January of this year, I have been promoting her heavily in the blogosphere. I know her STATE OF THE UNION speech was widely panned, but it is not her charisma (or lack thereof) that impresses me. Its her strength and fortitude as a principled Democrat in a state that's heavily Republican.
I love this woman and I hope that Senator Obama picks her as his VP.
I liked her State of the Union speech and thought at the time she should be on the nominee's short list of VP picks.
As long as Sebelius shows the same wonky insight on foreign policy that she does on energy, her lack of experience doesn't strike me as any more of a barrier than it was for governors like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton to get elected.
After someone as simple-minded as Bush, it'd be refreshing to have a president as intellectual as Obama. After someone as corrupt as Cheney, it'd be good to have someone as trustworthy as Sebelius.
Not the only strong ticket but definitely a strong one.
To all those people who say Sebelius would make a lousy VP and base it on her boring SOTU response, just remember Bill Clinton's first appearance on the national stage. It was when he gave the keynote address nominating Dukakis. That was the most boring speech where even convention goers were happy to see him end it. Bill obviously learned how to be a better speaker. I'm sure Sebelius can as well.
Big problem...if this anonymous Governor can be right on coal, why isn't Obama? Not a good match for this reason, obviously.
Kathleen is more in touch with the common people than most high-level politicians.
She's even cool enough to go to the New Orleans Jazz Festival, and has been going for years.
Now this is my dream ticket! (probably won't happen though)
This question that people keep asking, "Why do some HRC supporters won't support Obama?" is really very simple to answer: They are conditioned, as we are, to see everything as a sport contest! You don't switch teams to the opponent's team that just beat you... especially when you've managed to convince yourself that the referee stacked the game against you and your quarterback suffered career ending injuries caused by dirty play! They won't admit it, but they are just stuck in a pugilistic paradox... supporting Obama is paramount to abandoning all they fought for(their team) and admitting that he was the best candidate after all; not supporting him means abandoning their identity as progressives and switching side to teach him a lesson!
The team you speak of is the Democratic Party, not the Obama Party. If HRC's supporters cannot get on board with that, then it is best they do what they have to do.
Now that is a strong powerful woman. She is gutsy.
She's a hottie and smart too !
Sibelius is a wonderful governor in this red state. She's strong and smart and gets things done, which is saying a lot in this red state. She's a true feminist - does business with the guys and doesn't whine about it. She is well respected by both parties. Getting elected twice in a red state is huge.
Anyone who says she is boring based on her SOTU speech should know that was not her best moment. She is much better than that. I don't know what got her that night - stage fright maybe. She'll be great stumping for O if he chooses here.
No one too "new" (or inexperienced with foreign affairs) for Veep, please. It will let the media distract (and detract) from our candidate.
Sibelius would be good in the cabinet.
Clark is still the best for VP.
I'm just thinking "experience with foreign affairs" gave us George H. W. and also Richard Bruce Cheney.
Give me someone new who is not a D.C. insider any day - someone who is not bought and paid for and brought into the fold. How hard could the job be, really?
McCain cannot even remember his history lessons.
I am a fan of you Olivia, but I don't think experience is a problem as much as what one does with it. The best heart surgeon in my area did my bypass surgery and i wouldn't have it any other way.
Sibelius would be a quick study. That is one smart woman.
Find her on YouTube. You'll be surprised.
No!
OBAMA / CLINTON 2008, 2012, HRC Prez 2016, 2020!
Let's lock up the White House for the NEXT 2 decades!
I checked out the PUMA website. They want nothing to do with VP. For them it is an upset at the convention or McCain.
I hope you're not one of those.
The more I know about her the more I like her.
That's the usual reaction here in Kansas as she wins over Republican voters! Two terms now. It doesn't get any tougher for a Democrat than in Kansas and she shines.
so far they haven to posted my comment refuting the democratic governor of Kansas myth. Ince 1957 we have had 29 years of Democratic governors: George. Docking 2 terms, Bob Docking, 4 terms, John. Carlin 2 terms, Joan Finney 1 term after 16 years as state treasurer, and Kathleen Sebelius 2 terms. She is the only one to run twice with Lt. governor candidates who changed parties to run with her. Almost all the others have been much more moderate republican governors than the state legislature republicans. Kansans tend to want a veto in the mansion of some of the loonier locally elected reps who manage to get into the statehouse. I hope this one gets posted so people will understand that the Governors of Kansas are usually not the types who support actions of the religious right and in fact we tend to get rid fo them at state offices as soon as possible, for example, Phill Kline the anti abortion attorney general who went on O'Reilly. We have had several women, including Joan Finney and Gov. Sebelius who ave served at the other state jobs such as Sec of state and Insurance commissioner.
Olivia, I do not know how young you are, but George Docking served 2 terms, , Robert Docking 4 terms, John Carlin 2 terms, and Joan Finley 1 terms...all in the past 50 years in Kansas. All were democratic governors. It is more unusual for a republican governor in Kansas in the past 50 years as 29 of the years have had democratic governors...I voted for all but George, because I was too young, but he was a friend of my republican father who had no qualms about voting for a demicratic governor as he usually did. Kathleen has been the only one who both times ran with former republicans who changed their parties to run with her...perhaps because of the long history her husband's father had with the republican party in Kansas. All the rest were able to win the old fashioned way.I wil give her credit as a good governor, but I don't put her wins on the altar of "It never happens in Kansas" and most who firly support her for BP seem to do. The general public should be told of KS recent history of democratic governor wins. And, no, she is not my first choice.
I really don't know anything about her, but everything I have read is very positive. I'd LMAO if Obama chooses her. However, I really really think, he'll pick a male. Only because there are some in the nation that won't take well to a Black President and are baised enought too, not to have a woman, so to have one of each on the ticket. I don't think so.
If I had to guess and my choice would be Joe Biden.
Nuclear energy for the generation of electricity is the answer. CO2 and air pollution free and the US has near half the world's uranium. Problem solved.
No.
Nukes can provide only 25 years of the worlds energy,
The the Uranium wars start.
plus 1 Million years of deadly waste.
it takes 10-15 years to build a reactor.
20 reactors worth of wind power were installed last years.
Wind is 200 times faster to install.
and the fuel is free.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
Kingcityguru, Great, fantastic, marvelous, I am all for it. Bring on the nuke power, as long as the nuke waste in buried in your back yard.
Why Joe? The guy is a permanent fixture in the Senate and talks too much. Not effective. He is entrenched and part of the problem in the Capitol.
Posted July 11, 2008 | 08:42 AM (EST)