I seem to remember reading that Gov S. had a compromise bill that would have allowed ‘1′ coal plant to be built. That was not enough for the Republicans … they were the ones that were killing new coal plants. And of course they tied in some other bills [ intermodal facility in Gardner – help me understand the relationship between coal plants in western part of Kansas and a transportation hub 300 miles away … Oh I get it – its political blackmail. Luckily for us … it was transparent enough.

Now we don’t have ‘1′ coal plant ( even though carbon sequestering via algae is non-sense ) and we don’t have a transportation hub. Wow, what kind of compromise did the Republican “leadership” give us on that one ?
There is a farmer in Texas who leases his land for wind towers – he gets a couple of thousand dollars per acre/tower(I don’t remember exact amount so I wont quote it and risk it being wrong ). How much do our farmers get ?

I would like to put solar panels on my house – I have a great unobstructed southeast, south, southwest solar path. The problem is I would generate electricity during the day while I am gone and not able to use it. Wouln’t it be nice if Republican “leadership” allowed net-metering so I could sell it back during high demand days and buy it back at night ?

The only way utilities in Kansas can make money ( this one really seems wrongly designed ) is to sell more power. If somehow KCPL found a way for everyone to use 15% less power … they would earn 15% less. The ability for them to financially encourage conservation is absent by law. Wouldn’t it be nice if our Republican leadership encouraged conservation and allowed our utility companies to help us _AND_ make money while doing so. Otherwise there is zero incentive for them to do so.

There were more topics this past year than coal. Sure wouldn’t know it from our leadership. And for what it is worth a number of Republican legislators agreed, it wasn’t straight party line R/D voting. There is a reason we think Republican leadership is obstructionist . They are.

Bobwhitenks, you seem to be wordsmithing my article when there is little difference in the choice of words. You seem to want me to say “Sebelius opposed new coal power” instead of “Sebelius killed new coal power’ in Kansas. What’s the difference? Are new coal power plants being built today in Kansas? What was the effect of Sebelius’s THREE vetoes? Didn’t these vetoes “kill” new coal power in Kansas?

Your “evidence” is that Gov. Sebelius played politics with Kansas energy policy and had the political clout to impose her decision?

Sebelius’ appointee, Rod Bremby, just made up new regulations. Why was Sebelius afraid of legislative approval for new regulations?

Sebelius vetoes third bill allowing coal-fired plants, May 17, 2008

The three bills Sebelius vetoed would have limited the secretary of health and environment’s power to impose new air-quality standards without legislative approval.

The measures also would have prevented him from using his emergency power to protect public health and the environment to deny permits. Bremby cited that power in rejecting Sunflower’s permit.

“The issue for me has always been whether or not the rule of law will apply in the state of Kansas or whether a politically appointed bureaucrat will be allowed to whimsically change the law,” said Emler, who’s also an attorney.

Bobwhitenks, where are your facts and logic that changing reliable power (natural gas) to renewable (wind) will not exacerbate the possibility of power brown-outs or black-outs?

We need new reliable coal power AND new renewable wind power. Not one or the other like Sebelius is pushing.

For what it’s worth, I was one of the co-authors of this 1979 study, Wind energy applications in agriculture.