GPACE IN THE MEDIA
| James Roberts: State Needs to be Part of Renewable Energy Boom |
BY James Roberts In the late 1920s, my grandfather, Bill Roberts, walked off the farm and into a work force that helped build the America we know. Eighty years later, young Americans like myself walk into an economy teetering on collapse, a global energy crisis and a hemorrhaging job market. I've spent the past year working to promote renewable energy and its benefits in Kansas. What I've discovered from talking to students, business owners and families is not a radical sense of morality regarding the environment or irrational fear that managing carbon emissions will undo the American way of life. Instead, I've heard time and again from all corners of this state that young Kansans are ready to take our place in a new era of industry, growth, innovation and, yes, responsibility. We hope to make the promise of America a reality for ourselves and our children. In Kansas, we have tremendous opportunities. As confidence in our economy wanes, a cutting-edge domestic industry filled with skilled jobs sits waiting. Kansas will have 1,000 megawatts of wind on line by the end of 2008, but we still trail Texas, Washington, California, even New York. Last year, the wind industry grew at a rate of 46 percent in the United States. Wind manufacturer Vestas has more than 2,500 employees in Colorado. Clipper employs 1,100 in Arkansas. Iowa enjoys hundreds of new jobs from wind manufacturing plants. Nolan County, Texas, cut taxes and built new schools as a result of increased property values driven by the local wind industry. So why not Kansas? Legislative leadership, special interests, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and the governor's office have squabbled over the costly future of coal in Kansas while not doing enough to promote a renewable industry that could benefit Kansans statewide. Consequently, we lack a comprehensive policy that encourages renewable energy. We can no longer simply hope to cash in on the renewable energy economy as it enriches neighboring states. We are obligated to act if we want to ensure the benefits of an industry that blends traditional American ingenuity with 21st-century technology. Energy policy is bigger than any party or single corporation. If we demand action on renewable energy we can -- as my grandfather and his neighbors did -- take our place among the great generations of Americans working together to build a better future. James Roberts is the statewide coordinator of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Topeka. |
| Sunflower supporters keep the faith |
Some say time is running out for coal plants, but backers fight on TOPEKA - A year after the state's top environmental regulator nixed the construction of two coal plants over global warming concerns, the future of the project remains hazy. But Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and its partners don't fear time is running out on the project as they pursue a legal challenge that could leave the fate of their Holcomb expansion in the hands of the Kansas Supreme Court sometime next year. The Hays-based utility could also seek help again next year from the Legislature, despite failing to win enough support this past spring to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' vetoes of legislation allowing the plants. Earl Watkins, president and chief executive officer, said Sunflower still believes the project represents the best deal for its customers and has no absolute deadline by which it must win state regulatory approval. "We always have hope," Watkins said. "We're not going to give up. We're not going to quit on this project until our board of directors tells us that we have to." The largest investor in the plants, which would send 85 percent of their power out of state, also remains on board. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado plans to purchase power from one of the project's two 700-megawatt generators, should they be built. Tri-State spokesman Lee Boughey said that although the cooperative is also examining building a new electric generation plant in western Colorado, it remains committed to Holcomb. "We do not have a deadline of any kind. We'll continue to work through the appeals process and see where that takes us," Boughey said. But critics see a much shakier climate for coal-fired generators since Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby denied air-quality permits for Sunflower's plants Oct. 18, 2007. Scott Allegrucci, treasurer of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, which opposed Sunflower's project, said that while the plants could still be built, they are likely to face a growing legion of problems. He said the $3.6 billion cost estimate for Holcomb's two 700-megawatt generators is about two years old, at a time when construction projects have faced drastically higher costs for fuel and construction materials such as steel and oil. He noted that a Nevada utility recently concluded that the cost of building its 1,500-megawatt coal plant has grown from $3.8 billion to $5 billion over the past two years. In addition, he said, several major banks deemed new coal-fired plants a risky investment months before a financial crisis that has put a squeeze on the amount of credit being extended. There's also the prospect of the federal government implementing a tax or limits on carbon emissions, which could affect the cost of power coming from coal plants. As a result, Allegrucci said it's particularly surprising that Sunflower and its backers aren't reevaluating whether building the coal plants still makes sense. "I think in some ways, the thing that's most stunning about this is that those supporters of the project are ramping up to do this all over again as if nothing's changed," Allegrucci said. At a crossroads? Watkins expressed confidence in the project's financing, noting that the banks loaning money to Sunflower haven't been hurt by the same financial missteps casting a pall over Wall Street. In addition, Watkins said falling commodity prices fueled by the economic downturn has made it more difficult to project whether Sunflower's $3.6 billion cost estimate will prove high, low or on the money. The company won't know the costs until it's able to secure a permit and move forward with construction, he said. In addition, other forms of newly constructed power generation, such as wind power, would also become more expensive because of rising costs and coal power would remain far cheaper per kilowatt hour of electricity being produced. He said concerns about the rising cost of coal were unfounded because the company would be importing its fuel from Wyoming, rather than the far more expensive coal coming from mines in the eastern U.S. Watkins doesn't think carbon regulation at the federal level would affect Sunflower plants, which he said would be among the nation's cleanest and most efficient coal plants. He said the carbon tax would have to be set at an enormously high rate, one that would destroy the nation's economy, to make coal more expensive than a fuel such as natural gas. Watkins believes there's a growing recognition among Kansans, hit hard by rising gasoline prices this year, of the need to support policies that ensure a reliable, affordable energy supply. "The American public has awakened to the significance of that, and the Kansas public in particular," Watkins said. Yet Bruce Nilles, national coal campaign director for the Sierra Club, detects a growing sense among the American public that it's time to move beyond fossil fuels, which threaten to grow more expensive as worldwide demand rises. He said that instead of building new coal plants, state lawmakers could focus their attention of further developing wind energy production. The amount of wind power being produced in the state is slated to grow this year from 364 megawatts to slightly more than 1,000. While critics of wind power tend to see it as too intermittent to be a viable alternative to coal, nuclear or gas plants, renewable energy backers tout its potential to grow from providing about 1 percent of the nation's power to providing 20 percent over the next few decades. "Kansas is really sort of at the crossroads," Nilles said. "The question is, 'Are the Republican leaders in the Legislature going to continue to push coal ... or are they going to step back and see what is truly in the best interest of Kansas?'" |
| Lobbyist expenses soar over coal fight |
Topeka — Lobbyists’ spending has doubled over last year, and the reason is the controversy over two coal-fired power plants proposed for southwest Kansas. But state legislators are not getting wined and dined more than usual. The increased spending is for a public relations blitz by the pro-coal and anti-coal groups urging everyday Kansans to pressure legislators. “They are trying to get whomever out there to contact their legislator to urge action or nonaction on a specific bill,” said Carol Williams, executive director of the Kansas Ethics Commission. From January through August, lobbyist spending totaled $1,276,357, according to a report released last week by the Ethics Commission. For the same period in 2007, lobbyist expenditures were $570,038 — less than half. And the biggest difference is in the areas of communications and mass media, such as television, radio and newspaper ads. Advertising has increased more than 11-fold, from $49,577 to $553,356, and communications such as newsletters and mailings have increased nearly ninefold, from $31,062 to $260,061. And the bulk of those ads and mailings have been done by groups fighting over the coal project. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ administration denied permits for two 700-megawatt coal-burning plants near Holcomb, citing concerns over the emission of carbon dioxide and its effect on health and the environment. The Legislature, led by western Kansas lawmakers, approved legislation to reverse that decision, but Sebelius vetoed the bills. Supporters of the plants were unable to get the two-thirds majorities to overturn the vetoes. Project developer Sunflower Electric Power Corp., based in Hays, has spent $176,370 on mass media urging the public to support the project. In addition, the company has spent several thousand dollars more on meals for lawmakers. “It’s a matter of trying to get our story out,” said Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller. Sunflower was helped along by several groups backed by coal interests, such as the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy, which spent $106,403 on ads through August; Center for Energy and Economic Development, $44,298; the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, $44,297; and Kansans for Affordable Energy, $11,845. On the other side of the issue, the biggest spender was the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, which spent $128,812 on communications and advertising. “We came into existence because a lot of Kansans felt the need to tell the more broad story,” said Scott Allegrucci, executive director of GPACE. Allegrucci said GPACE felt outgunned in the battle to try to influence the Legislature. In addition to the pro-coal groups, several business organizations also joined the fray on Sunflower’s side. And both sides say the spending and wrangling will continue when the Legislature meets in January. Sunflower’s appeal for permits for the project are now before an administrative review and the Kansas Supreme Court. But Sunflower’s Miller said a legislative fix is still a possibility because, he said, the plants are important to Kansas. Allegrucci said that his side’s view is just as important and that they are ready to fight and spend, too. “If proponents make it an issue, we will feel compelled to tell our story as well,” he said. |
| Kansas must use its wealth of renewable resources |
By SCOTT ALLEGRUCCI The days of burning coal to produce most of our electricity are numbered. There are many reasons. Take climate change off the table. Direct cost. Based upon worldwide supply and demand, the cost of coal delivered to Kansas utilities increased 25 percent from 2007 to 2008. That trend continues, with impacts on our bills. Oil prices. Kansas uses 19 million tons of coal every year — that’s 1,000 coal trains, almost all from Wyoming. The costs of transporting all that coal are soaring, and showing up on our electric bills. Construction costs. Plants are getting more expensive to build as commodity costs soar, by more than 25 percent in 2007 alone. Cost overruns on new construction will continue, driving bills higher. Water. More than 13.2 billion gallons of fresh water are converted to steam every day to make electricity from coal in the United States. This use of a vital resource may increasingly be a bad bargain. But as we phase out 19th century coal technology, we phase in a host of 21st century technologies such as wind, solar, methane and cellulosic ethanol. The benefits include: •Fuel sources that are abundant, local and free in Kansas. •Energy from Kansas farms and ranches, paying revenue directly to those families. •Electricity requiring no water to generate, and producing no air or water pollution. We also phase in rural economic development. Consider Nolan County, Texas: population 15,000. The county has 1,100 residents employed directly in the wind industry. Their total property tax base will swell to $2.4 billion in 2009, driven by renewable energy. As a result, Nolan County is cutting taxes on businesses and residents. Arkansas (the 27th windiest state) recently announced a 1,000-job turbine manufacturing plant. Yet while other states prosper from clean energy, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce focuses its efforts on denying climate change and advocating for Wyoming coal. They may as well put a “Closed for Business” sign on Kansas. Kansas is the third windiest state in the nation. Yet wind energy developers report that Kansas is one of the hardest states for them to do business in. As a result of inaction by our legislature and inattention from our chamber, they are taking their business elsewhere. What would it be like if the Kansas Legislature lived up to its obligations and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce lived up to its name? What if, rather than arguing with accepted science, they worked to get Kansas a fair share of the booming renewable energy economy using our own abundant resources and ingenuity? |
| Winds of Change: Coal, Kansas Politics, and The New Activism |
By Tom King Tuesday, September 9, 2008 It’s another overflow Monday evening at the Free State Brewery, and they’re wobbling like bowling pins out on the patio. In a ritual instigated in large part by bargain-priced beer, townies of all stripes gather in number on this night to jostle, slosh on, and holler at each other. The din of the place is a physical presence and the tap handles move like metronomes. Hippies hang with lawyers and students debate professors, boundaries blurred by conviviality and a torrent of Copperhead Ale. Tucked around a table, somewhere in the hubbub, an activist group called Free State Mondays holds its weekly meeting. Tagged by the mainstream media as the “New Activists,” the members of the Mondays group are a clean-cut, educated bunch: informed, composed and well-spoken. Most are in their 20s, and all are actively trying to change in the world—primarily via climate and energy issues, and mostly here at the grass-roots level. The Revolution Will Be DownloadedThey are a breed evolved from the long-haired, placard-waving, establishment-frightening revolutionaries of the ’60s and ’70s. The New Activists are as effective with a Blackberry as Abbie Hoffman with a bullhorn. They are equally at ease in the boardroom as in the community center. And, thanks to the internet, likely much better informed. The New Activists employ social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter to mobilize people and propagate campaigns—it’s little wonder they reap far more mainstream media coverage than their predecessors. But the New Activists are sometimes criticized by pundits and even by some of their own kind—by those who believe that commitment to a cause means standing up in public to be counted. They say that the New Activists’ non-confrontational tactics smack of laziness and apathy, of a video-game approach to life-and-death issues. The members of the Mondays group are puzzled by such criticism. “You don’t see the same level of public demonstration, but there’s a lot more effective organizing. We need legislators in there who understand the issues,” said group member Brian Sifton, who’s also on the city’s Sustainability Advisory Board. “We’ll get to demonstrating when we need to,” continued Juliana Tran, a KU student and coordinator for KU Environs, “but we’ll try everything else first.” Paul Hohnen, a former political director for Greenpeace, proposed in May that the brave new world requires a new kind of activist: “Chaining yourself to a tree belongs in the awareness-building phase, but we’ve entered the solutions-building phase where this kind of treehugging might be counterproductive.” For many New Activists, provoking a better future relies less on organizing a good sit-in than in finding a sympathetic investment banker. For James Roberts, a Mondays regular, the low-key profile of the New Activism gives him the edge: “I’m not your cliché activist—that’s my advantage. I look like a Republican.” Tipping pointRoberts and Eileen Horn are poster children for the New Activism (indeed, they are on the cover of this week's issue). Both work long hours on short pay for locally based, non-profit groups. Horn, 28, is the Director of Community Outreach for the Climate and Energy Project (CEP), an offshoot of the venerable Land Institute in Salina. Roberts, 23, is the Director of Statewide Coordinating for the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE). They are the type of people once called All-American: intelligent and focused, healthy and attractive, their charisma and confidence stoked by passion. Horn concedes that the New Activism, while by no means apathetic, might be somewhat distracted. “Our attention has been captured by genius marketers. We’re told that our society is one of consumerism,” she says. “When all your energy is caught up in trying to compete in that world, it’s difficult to be engaged with social causes. It’s a designed distraction.” Horn thinks leadership is the missing link: “I believe there’s some truth that my generation is somewhat apathetic. I don’t think we’re doing enough. Honestly, many of us are just waiting for a leader to ask something of us.” Roberts wonders where the tipping point lies for the New Activism. “Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King didn’t add anyone to their Facebook page,” he interjected at a recent Mondays discussion. “What will it take to get us into the streets?” For these two, fighting to shift our state’s energy consumption to renewable sources could be just such a tipping point. Wind and solar power offer achievable solutions for the future, and yet coal is at the forefront of recent proposals for new sources of energy production in Kansas. Despite two vetos by Governor Kathleen Sebelius, lobbyists and lawyers continue to push for building new coal plants in the state. As the third windiest state in the nation, Kansas produces just one percent of its energy from wind; 89% (net) comes from burning coal. Clearly, coal isn’t going away anytime soon. Roberts says GPACE’s stance on the future of coal in energy production “is that it’s part of the mix. Let’s use it responsibly, let’s maximize its efficiency, and let’s not invest in any more of it—yet—because as of now, it’s the biggest risk to our health, our economy, and our environment.” Old King CoalEvery hour or so, a coal train trundles through North Lawrence. “At least 15 trains per day, every day of the year,” says Jay Sayre, who worked as an auditor for the Santa Fe railroad for 38 years. Most of the trains start out in the vast coalfields of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming, and most pass through town on their way to other locales. But “every two or three days, they roll between 120 and 140 cars into the Lawrence Energy Center just northwest of town,” says Sayre. Each car, fully loaded, holds nearly 143 tons of coal—enough to power some 300 laptops for a year. On the whole, Kansas uses 19 million tons of coal per year—one thousand coal trains’ worth. The U.S. consumes about a billion tons of coal each year, one-sixth of the annual global consumption. For the New Activists this is a potential lightning rod to affect real change right here in Lawrence. “There’s no real competitor in the energy market in this state,” Roberts says. “If (most) of our energy comes from coal, not only don’t the coal companies have any incentive to clean up carbon and mercury emissions, they have no incentive to maximize efficiency in coal plants. There’s information out there that coal plants can produce energy with 40% more efficiency. That’s a number I see as a real goal.” State Representative Tom Sloan, a Republican in the 45th District and a member of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Electricity Advisory Committee, wrote in an email interview: “Burning coal, natural gas, and oil results in carbon and other emissions that contribute to global warming and health problems. Yet coal and oil also provide the lowest cost energy for the U.S. and the world. Energy supplies, whether to generate electricity or fuel motor vehicles, must be both reliable and affordable.” He continued: “Clean coal technologies are expensive to install and operate. Before such technologies are installed, public utility commissions, elected officials, and the public must be willing to approve and pay the higher prices for electricity.” (Note: the full email is reprinted in the comments section below) Clearly pursuing renewable energy sources in Kansas will require more than a reliance on market forces and existing energy producers. The New Activists likely have found a calling. Johannes Feddema, Professor of Geography at the University of Kansas, is an authority on climate and energy. In a recent Weather Underground blog he wrote: “It is time to see and seize the opportunity before us rather than clinging to outdated energy technologies. I believe we can do better, especially if we listen to the ideas, and act on the hopes, enthusiasm and aspirations of our younger generation.” “Fight the Power” was the chorus of street activists in the ’60s and ’70s; “Use the Power” is the song the New Activists are singing now. With technological marvels and sophisticated skills at their disposal, with calls for change ringing throughout the land, and with King Coal attempting to expand his kingdom on the prairie, perhaps Kansas’ New Activists need only realize that they are the leaders they are looking for. |
| Diverse mix of Hutch residents attend rally | |
| Students are organizing to express concerns over coal-burning power plants |
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/feb/20/power_plant_proposals_under_sc... |
| Organizers recruit to show concern for coal plant bill |
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/mar/11/alliance_organizes/ |
| Hearings begin on coal plants |
http://uaelp.pennnet.com/news/print_screen.cfm?NewsID=157043 |
| Coal bill campaign unlikely to pause during break |
