Don't Miss the Point on Kansas, Sebelius, Coal-fired Power

Published March 04, 2009 @ 07:51PM PT

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius made a deep mark on both national and environmental history in 2007, when her administration opted not to permit a utility to build two huge new coal-fired power plants in the state's southwestern corner -- because their climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions would threaten public health. So what does it mean for Kansas that she's been tapped by President Obama for the cabinet post of Secretary of Health and Human Services?

The good news is that this is probably not the right question to ask.

Three times in 2008, Sebelius vetoed legislation that would have cleared the way for the massive expansion of the Holcomb Station power plant. So there's been a lot of hand-wringing over whether Gov. Sebelius, in accepting the nomination (which, for the sake of health care reform, we can only hope will progress without incident compared to Tom Daschle's flameout), is abandoning Kansas to a coal-fired fate:

"Last week, her Republican foes threw what they thought would be an irresistible carrot into their fourth bill to get the plants approved—several “green” initiatives, which Sebelius promptly termed as actually “olive brown.” Once again the bill passed. And once again, any minute now—if she weren’t flying off to Washington, Sebelius would be vetoing it," writes Kansas columnist Elizabeth Black on The Cutting Edge.

"A departure by Sebelius would make her lieutenant governor, Mark Parkinson, the new guv," writes Kate Sheppard at Gristmill. "Parkinson is the the co-chair of the Kansas Energy Council, sometimes referred to as the state's "energy czar," and it appears that Parkinson has stood with her in the coal fight."

"While other states are backing away from coal power, the Kansas Legislature seems dead set to clear the way for Sunflower Electric to build two huge, coal-fired power plants on the state's western plains," wrote Stacy Morford on SolveClimate last month. "...Sunflower’s supporters nearly had enough votes to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ vetoes last year. If they tuck this year’s bill into a larger energy package, as it appears they will, they just might succeed."

What happens in Kansas is important -- but I tend to think that Red, Green and Blue's Timothy Hurst pegs it when he notes that finally, this isn't a state-by-state battleground anymore. "The critical question is not whether Sebelius’ replacement (or Sebelius’ replacement’s replacement) will block legislation that would usher in the Holcomb Station expansion," Hurst notes. "The question is whether the point will be made moot by an Obama administration that has promised to rule carbon dioxide as a pollutant."

Video: Gov. Sebelius speaking at George Washington University in Wash. DC, on global warming, regulating carbon dioxide emissions, and coal's future in Kansas. Via SolveClimate.

Share this Post

Comments (10)

Emily, understanding the reason for not wanting a coal burning plant is all too easy. But (You knew there was a but!) Has a practical substitute been proposed? It sounds like Sebelius has been pretty insensitive to the needs of Her constituents. These people are probably just trying to survive while watching their electricity rates climb ever higher. In Massachusetts I have watched mine go up >50%. While listening to Sir Ted Kennedy oppose windmills near His home. Its' getting harder to hang on, for petes' sake.

Posted by Charlie Reed on 03/05/2009 @ 11:17AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Charlie
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
There certainly are a lot of perspectives on how much energy Kansans are going to need in the future. But to the best of my knowledge, there is no acute energy crisis in Kansas right now. From what I've learned, energy efficiency programs would do a faster job increasing the amount of electricity available to Kansans. Also, the bulk of the power produced by these two plants would end up leaving Kansas for Colorado and (I think) the Texas panhandle.
Since Kansas is in the midwest's wind belt, one practical alternative is wind power, backed up by natural gas generation. Natural gas is much less polluting than coal, and unlike a coal-fired plant, it can be switched on and off easily.

Posted by Emily Gertz on 03/09/2009 @ 09:01PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Emily
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Emily, I am with you 100% on building wind and gas plants. We need these plants built, not just talked about. Believe Me, as a fisherman angry about not being to eat as much fish as I like to because of mercury, I want to replace coal. As an American paying 600.00 per month for electricity (electric heat) I want engineers to find a clean way to burn it. As a citizen, I want to impeach any president that promises to artificially raise the price of coal without regard to needs of his constituents

Posted by Charlie Reed on 03/11/2009 @ 09:23AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Charlie
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Charlie, impeach a president for regulating a harmful substance? Seems extreme.

Posted by Emily Gertz on 03/11/2009 @ 05:09PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Emily
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Perhaps I exaggerate, but it is not the regulation that bothers Me. I listened to Him say He would make coal too expensive to use. Unless that is done by building alternative energy plants, thereby rendering coal obsolete, He is going about wrong. His plan is to cut off supply and over tax it. This will leave middle class losing their homes because they can not pay electric bills. It is low level treason.

Posted by Charlie Reed on 03/12/2009 @ 04:17AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Charlie
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
There is billions in funds coming down the stimulus pike to build new clean energy generation, as well as funding to research and improve that technology. And that does not count the money individual states are putting into shifting their power base.

Still, I don't want to overstate how fast clean energy is going to expand, or say that it won't be difficult physically and economically to get off coal. We're barely investing what we need to spend as a nation, to do that as fast as it needs to be done to *possibly* curb global warming.

Posted by Emily Gertz on 03/14/2009 @ 01:07PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Emily
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Emily, I will, for now concede I may have panicked. A 600.00 for one month electric bill will do that to a guy. But I hope this president understands You need to built coals' replacement before You do away with it. I also hope scientists are looking into a clean way of using it, because we have an awful lot of it. In the mean time I will resume burning wood in an effort to survive.

Posted by Charlie Reed on 03/16/2009 @ 09:29AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Charlie
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
That's a pretty high bill -- do you live in a large home? Have you looked into weatherizing?

Posted by Emily Gertz on 03/17/2009 @ 07:45PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Emily
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
That's electric everything. 2 bed R. ranch. We are looking to converting to alternate energy, but the thing is Emily, last year was 396 with less KWH consumption. so obviously rates are already climbing. That is not Obamas' fault though, those rates happened on Bushes' watch as a result of deregulation.

Posted by Charlie Reed on 03/19/2009 @ 09:42AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Charlie
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Emily, actually the blame goes, I believe, to Gov. Romney, with Mass state deregulation, not sure though.

Posted by Charlie Reed on 03/19/2009 @ 09:52AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Charlie
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.