The veto
By Patrick Kelley
Originally published 12:56 p.m., March 24, 2008
Updated 12:56 p.m., March 24, 2008
The governer's quiet announcement Friday that she was vetoing the energy bill was no surprise. Even with the bill’s green provisions, it would still allow the construction of two new coal-fired plants in southwest Kansas. Those plants, with current technology, would still emit a total of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.
The plants would be built at a time when the coal-power equation is changing. In the next few years — surely before the Kansas plants can be put in operation — Congress is expected to pass its own restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. Where would that leave new Kansas plants?
Last week, the Kansas City Star reported that the cost of financing and constructing coal-fired power plants has risen significantly and — driven by international demand — the cost of coal to fuel the plants has risen even more steeply. If that trend continues, electricity produced from coal by present methods could become too expensive to allow economic growth.
It is not mere whim that has led Westar Energy to declare a moratorium on construction of coal-fired power plants. The company has taken a look at the rising costs and the uncertain regulatory future and decided that, right now, investing in coal plants is an unwarranted gamble.
Kansas lawmakers will have much to consider when — as is likely — an attempt is made to override the governor’s veto. Headcounts made before the veto indicated that an override by the Senate was likely, but an override by the House would be less likely.
Rep. Don Hill of Emporia, who voted for the bill, said he was likely to vote for it again, unless substantial changes were made in the bill. Hill said that if the “greener” provisions of the bill — sections requiring development of wind energy and requiring phased reductions in carbon dioxide emissions — were dropped in an attempt to lure more votes, he would probably vote to uphold the veto.
A successful veto would not be the end of the coal issue in the Legislature, he said.
“There’s obviously a lot of work continuing behind the scenes to draft a bill that can get some more support,” Hill said.
Even if the veto is overridden, work must continue on state energy, economic and environmental policies.
In her veto statement, Gov. Sebelius announced that she was establishing the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group to examine all aspects of the state’s policy in those two areas and their effects on the economy and quality of life in the state.
The 25-member group Sebelius established could prove to be unwieldy, but it does contain representatives of all interested parties, including at-large members from the general public.
Whether the veto is sustained or not, the bill will not be — cannot be — the final word in energy policy for Kansas.
With gasoline above $3 a gallon, diesel fuel nearing $4 a gallon, coal approaching $40 a ton and environmental regulation in a state of flux, the Legislature’s bill is no more than a holding action. It has one foot firmly planted in the past and makes only a tentative step into the future.
Better legislation must come, if the state is to survive and thrive.
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
With all of the talk about the governor being a vice presidential or cabinet prospect, I am suspect of her motivations and whether this decision was aimed at pleasing certain elements of her party rather than the best interest of Kansas. We need to face the fact that we are in an economic crisis in this State. These plants would provide jobs, generate taxes, improve schools and highways and provide cheaper utilities to Kansas. Does she really think that these plants won't be built somewhere? That the coal that would have been burned in Holcomb won't be burned at all? If the governor's veto is sustained, some other state will derive the economic benefit of better schools, roads, lower taxes and cheaper utilities that could have been ours. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the message to the nation is that Kansas is an unfriendly place to bring jobs. There is one report out now that a $10 Billion refinery that was being considered in Kansas has been pulled over this. If we want our children to stay here, we are going to have to provide opportunities. Otherwise, we will continue to send our young and promising to other states, all the while headed down the road to becoming an even smaller, more heavily taxed, and poorer, state.
March 25, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ascwrangler (anonymous) says...
>
I'm sure the plantlife would benefit.
Add to that a little so called global warming, and some additional rainfall, and who knows how many additional trees we'll grow here in Kansas.
Breath deep I'd like to grow a good garden this year, the price of food is going waaaay up.
March 25, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
The governor's veto was appropriate on numerous levels other than "politics". Global warming is a real issue, one we must face and one that threatens the welfare of future generations as well as our own, regardless how well the plants enjoy the infusion of CO2.
Among the drawbacks of these plants in SW Kansas, the chief problem IMHO is the pollution. There is also the rising cost of building and operating the plants not to mention legislation which will surely be passed next year affecting coal fired anything and, given that these plants will be in the early stages of building, the effects could be costly. The water issue should be of great concern. That section of Kansas is dry and the aquifer there is very low and sinking. These power plants require lots of water and it may not be available in the future given the current rate of usage.
Whether that coal will be burned or not is hardly the issue. We have a serious, serious problem with our environment and someone must take a stand and say, this must stop. There are things in this world which are worth some sacrifice and if we must do some of that, it would be worthwhile given the consequences of staying the course. I believe that the consequences of changing to other means of power generation would be surprisingly little, would create just as many or more jobs, and would improve our quality of life as well as that of generations to come.
March 27, 2008 at 12:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )