The KRA Blog

Who exactly is the Kansas Supreme Court working for nowdays?

Is it the governor? She appoints them, so that could be a very reasonable answer. But the basic foundation of our government of three separate branches would void that idea (at least in theory.) Is it the vicitms of crime? Past rulings by the court make this seem unlikely as well. Is it the people of Kansas? Please, don’t make me laugh.

The court today took it upon themselves to intervene in the seating of a Sedgwick County grand jury. The grand jury was to be convened because the appropriate number of signatures had been collected by pro-life groups wanting to further investigate Dr. George Tiller. In Kansas, citizens who collect enough signatures can convene a grand jury to investigate any wrong doing they choose.

In fact, KSA 22-3001 (2) reads:

A grand jury shall be summoned in any county within 60 days after a petition praying therefor is presented to the district court, bearing the signatures of a number of electors equal to 100 plus 2% of the total number of votes cast for governor in the county in the last preceding election.

So, naturally, one assumes that not enough signatures were collected. Or that the proper forms weren’t filed. Or the signatures weren’t collected within the designated time period.

No, no and no again.

You see, this grand jury seating is “unique.” I guess in Supreme Court talk that means, “We don’t like it, so instead of turning to statutes and case law, we’ll simply abuse our power and stop it.”

Ahhh, I see. You don’t like the law, so instead of changing it, you’ll simply ignore it. Or make it up as you go along.

Now, where have I seen that before…

As many had come to expect, KDHE Secretary Rod Brembry denied a permit to Sunflower Electric Corp. to build two coal-fired power plants in western Kansas, citing ‘global warming’ concerns. The secretary had come under increased pressure the past few months from Governor Kathleen Sebelius to deny the permit, although statements from the Governors office often conflicted as to what exactly the position of the governor was.

Sebelius supports coal plant

Sebelius opposes coal plant

The Secretary’s decision marks a dark day in policy making in the state of Kansas. Due to outside pressure from fringe environmental groups, the governor and secretary’s offices chose to ignore the professional judgment of KDHE staff and deny a legitimate power plant application based solely on outside information and preferences rather than on solid state law.

It is indeed a sad day when out-of-state environmental lobbying groups hold more sway with the leader of our state than state regulations enacted through the legislature.

As a press release by Sunflower Electric Corporation explicitly states, the permit was denied on Bremby’s “opinion that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere presents a “substantial endangerment” to the public health of Kansans. Current EPA and Kansas regulations do not consider carbon dioxide a pollutant.”

The press release went on to say: “All Kansans should be alarmed by this action since the impact of this denial will be felt across many industries in Kansas, not just power plants.”

How very true.

You know, it used to be that when you didn’t like the way a law was written, you simply changed the law. That was what a lot of elections were about…one party didn’t like what the other had done, so they campaigned, gained power, and then changed the law.

Today’s decision goes down the road more often traveled by Kansas politicians today…simply ignore the law.

To date, we’ve seen a very similar situation with the Kansas Board of Healing Arts and their choice to ignore what’s happening in the state’s abortion clinics.

Our state’s top law enforcement official has chosen not to further investigate what he himself admits are violations of the law.

And today, rather than change state regulations to include carbon dioxide as a pollutant, our Democratic state leaders simply chose to ignore them…yet again.

With the introduction of state gambling, one wonders if the regulations set down by the Kansas Gaming Commission mean much of anything now that the head of a state agency can simply pick and choose which will be enforced and when.

The decision also has vast implications for residents of central and western Kansas. Sunflower asserts the denial will undoubtedly mean higher rates for customers.

“Unfortunately, this decision opens the door to higher rates for central and western Kansas. We reject the Sierra Club’s recent assertion that doubling electric rates would be acceptable.”

Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach also issued a statement criticizing the pressure Sebelius applied to have the permit denied, after first stating her approval of the measure.

Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach expressed extreme disappointment upon hearing that the Governor put pressure on Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby to deny the Sunflower Electric Power Corporation a permit to build a coal-fired power plant near Holcomb, Kansas.

In December 2006, the Governor indicated her support for the Holcomb Power Plant when she stated, “I am eager to be a partner in that effort across the country, but what we know is that the Holcomb plant is likely to be built one way or the other. It’s a question of does it gets built in Kansas or Oklahoma?” (Here)

At the end of September she flip-flopped. “…Sebelius said she opposes the twin, 700-megawatt coal plants because they would produce massive emissions. ‘I also believe that we have a moral duty to be good stewards of this land, and I have a responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens, which includes health concerns. Those considerations have convinced me that massive new coal plants in Kansas are not in the best interests of our citizens,’ Sebelius said.”

Interestingly, neither the Sunflower press release nor the GOP release were included in a breaking news story on the Kansas City Star’s Website nor on their political blog, Primebuzz.

Read the full KDHE Press Relase

Read the full Sunflower Electric Corp. Press Release

The Kansas City Star’s Prime Buzz reported Friday on a poll done on 500 Registered “Likely” Voters regarding their attitudes toward building more coal fired power plants in southwest Kansas. The conclusion of the article…Kansans overwhelmingly oppose the expansion of coal power plants by more than 15%. Over 15%!!! Amazing!!! I had no idea that Kansans were so green! So I decided to follow the link at the bottom of the blog for a look at the actual poll results (pdf form or Powerpoint form.)

The first piece of data given by the poll (commissioned by Chesapeake Energy and conducted by The Tarrance Group), shows an overall preference for natural gas or wind energy to coal, 87% to 8%. Even with a margin of error of 4.5%, the fact can not be denied…coal is NOT what citizens want…unless your like me and immediately wondered why wind and natural gas were combined into one option rather than being two separate choices. Hummm, more on that later…

The next question…

“Have you recently seen, read or heard anything about Sunflower Electric’s proposal to construct two coal-fired power plants near Holcomb that will total 1,400 mega watts of power and will cost ratepayers 3.5 billion dollars?”

Oh my! $3.5 billion! What an astronomical cost!

But I didn’t see anything about this question’s results in the Star’s blog? Maybe it’s because a full 51% had heard NOTHING AT ALL about the proposal and another 6% were UNSURE. (Now, how you can be unsure if you’ve read or heard something is beyond me…but let it suffice to say that if you can’t remember, it’s as good as saying you know nothing.)

At this point, I hope you, like myself, are curious as to why the cost to ratepayers is included in the question. It seems the cost would have no effect as to whether or not you’re an informed voter.

In any case, on to the next question…

“How much would you say you have heard about Sunflower Electric’s proposal to construct two coal-fired power plants near Holcomb that will total 1,400 mega watts of power and will cost ratepayers 3.5 billion dollars?”

Ahhhh, now we’ll see just how informed the other 43% are that heard ’something’ about the proposal in the first place.

Unfortunately, the numbers don’t look good. Only 17% or the original 43% have heard a ‘great deal’ about the new plants and only an additional 42% of the 43% have heard ’some.’ That accounts for only 25% of the total 500 people surveyed that have heard ’something’ about the new plants. I think I’m beginning to see a trend here…

Onward we go…

“Based on what you know about plans to construct additional coal-fired power plants in Kansas, would you say you favor or oppose building two new coal-fired power plants near Holcomb?”

Let’s review…

…Only 25% of the original 500 respondents knew ’some’ or ‘a great deal’ about the proposal. Only an additional 16% of the original 500 knew ‘a little.’ The other 59% knew nothing or hadn’t even heard of the proposal to begin with.

…The phrase “will cost ratepayers 3.5 billion dollars” had been included in two previous questions. This is the first information that 59% of the voters answering questions heard.

Is it any wonder a majority of voters answering these questions prefer anything BUT coal???

Next question…

“Still thinking about the proposal to build two new coal-fired power plants near Holcomb – I’d like to read you two viewpoints.”

“Some people say that consumers deserve access to affordable electricity and coal is the most affordable energy source. It is less than half the price of natural gas. Therefore, to keep power prices low for consumers, we should build additional coal-fired power plants in Kansas.”

“Other people say that the best energy alternative is a combination of wind and natural gas, both of which are readily available in Kansas. The mixture of wind and natural gas ultimately saves money in the form of economic benefits to the state, cleaner air, healthier children, and fewer public health risks. We should not build additional coal-fired power plants in Kansas.”

“Which viewpoint comes closest to your own?”

65% said they opposed building additional coal plants based on the opinions above.

Well, duhhhhhhhhhh!

“Ultimately saves money”

How many choose this option over the other because, even though coal is half the price of natural gas, the wind/gas mixture ultimately saves money? Would the responses have been different if the word ‘ultimately’ been left out? Well George, it’s Kansas and I can gamble now, so I’m going to put $50 on a different response.

Don’t worry, it gets better.

“Now I am going to read you a few statements that have been made about new coal-fired power plants here in Kansas. Please tell me for each one, whether knowing this information would make you more likely or less likely to support building new coal-fired power plants near Holcomb.”

1. “Over 300,000 children live in Kansas within a 30 mile radius of a coal-fired power plant. Soot particles…could harm children’s lungs as much as actively smoking according to a recent survey.”

83% were less likely to support a coal power plant based on this information. Again, duh! 300,000 children! Weren’t you listening!

I have to admit, the first time I read this in the Star’s blog, I freaked. But then I stopped myself. 300,000 children? In southwestern Kansas? I didn’t think there were 300,000 people period in southwest Kansas, little lone children.

Ah…read the question carefully…300,000 children live within A coal-fired power plant…not THE power plants being proposed. In fact, the proposed site already has a coal-fired plant, so children within a 30-mile radius of this plant are already included in the statistic above. This, of course, is not mentioned to voters taking the survey.

In fact, there are currently 2 coal-fired power plants in Wyandotte County, another in Lawrence, and yet another east of Topeka! The cities of Olathe, Overland Park, Topeka, Lawrence and Kansas City, Kansas all are well within a 30 mile radius of these plants. Johnson County alone accounts for more than 20% of the state’s total population.

2. “Eighty-five percent of the power generated at the new coal-fired plants near Holcomb would be sold to out of state customers but Kansas would get one-hundred percent of the pollution”

82% were less likely to support the plants based on this statement. After all, if we’re going to get the pollution, we should get the energy benefits too, right?

But wait! I thought these plants would cost ratepayers $3.5 billion? So if the energy is sold out-of-state, doesn’t that mean that they would be footing the bill and NOT KANSANS? (Specifically, not those being surveyed!)

By George, I’ll put another $50 down that says not a one of those being surveyed went back and changed some of their answers after putting two and two together. And another $50 says everyone that hadn’t even heard of the proposal mistook ‘ratepayers’ for ‘taxpayers.’

Now, you remember how wind and natural gas were combined into one response and not separate responses. I thought that was fishy, and if you’ve already clicked the link above to Chesapeake Energy’s website, you’ll already know why this was done.

“Chesapeake Energy Corporation is the largest independent producer and third-largest overall producer of natural gas in the United States.”

Ah, the final piece of the puzzle.

This survey is clearly nothing more than a ploy to get natural gas use up in the state. What’s really unfortunate is that it will be used by anti-coal groups to claim Kansans don’t want additional coal plants, when really nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing more can be taken from this survey other than a majority of ‘likely voters’ are just as apt to give you their opinion about coal-fired power plants as they are about whether Hannah Montana tickets are too expensive.

So sad…so very true.