House Candidate Questionnaire Responses
In pursuit of our mission and in order to help inform voters during this critical election, GPACE sent four questions relevant to a comprehensive energy policy - that emphasizes clean renewable energy - to all candidates in all districts for the Kansas State Legislature. Responses were limited to 250 words per question.
GPACE does not endorse specific candidates, nor are we endorsing at this time specific policy initiatives. We hope to facilitate an open, informed discussion of the energy policy options that will provide the greatest benefit to Kansans. We encourage active participation in the democratic process, with the goal of a clean, secure, and prosperous energy economy for all Kansans.
Along with responses to the four questions, GPACE has provided a link to each candidate's website for additional information on that candidate (or if no candidate website could be determined, to the political party website affiliated with that candidate).
To view a comprehensive listing of incumbent's voting records during the 2008 session regarding proposed energy legislation, visit the Kansas Natural Resource Council's Environmental Scorecard page: http://www.knrc.ws/news.htm#Scorecard
If GPACE did not receive a response from a particular candidate, that will be indicated. We will post responses as we receive them. If responses from a candidate in your district have not been posted, please contact the candidate(s) and let them know that comprehensive energy policy emphasizing clean, renewable energy is important to you, and that you would like to see their responses to the GPACE questions.
Those questions were as follows:
1.Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
2.The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
* A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
* Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
* Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
* Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
* Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
* Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
* Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
3.Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high? Why?
4.Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
Candidates Running for the Kansas House of Representatives
I = Incumbent
District 1 Doug Gatewood (I) D-Columbus (Has not responded yet)
District 2 Bob Grant (I) D-Cherokee (Has not responded yet)
District 2 Jeffrey Grant Locke R-Arma (Has not responded yet)
District 3 Julie Menghini (I) D-Pittsburg
http://www.juliemenghini.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
I think our emphasis should definitely be on renewable energy sources. That said, I also realize that some new coal may be necessary for the interim, on a small and limited basis.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
YES
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
YES
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
YES
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
YES
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
YES
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
YES
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
YES
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
YES
Why?
I believe we are out of balance with our energy portfolio, especially considering that Kansas is a state with great wind energy potential, being the 3rd windiest. I also think we must consider the related health issues (and their costs) facing all Kansans if we choose to ignore the data on the adverse health effects of pollution from coal fired plants..
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
YES
Why?
As stated above, Kansas is the 3rd windiest state, and thus has great potential in wind energy production. In addition, the jobs created related to this industry will be a great boost to our economy.
District 3 Thomas Price R-Pittsburg (Has not responded yet)
District 4 Shirley Palmer (I) D-Fort Scott (Has not responded yet)
District 4 Lynne OHarah R-Uniontown (Has not responded yet)
District 5 Bill Feuerborn (I) D-Garnett (Has not responded yet)
District 5 Cara Polsley R-Ottawa (Has not responded yet)
District 6 Jene Vickrey (I) R-Louisburg (Has not responded yet)
District 7 Richard Proehl (I) R-Parsons (Has not responded yet)
District 8 Jerry Williams (I) D-Chanute (Has not responded yet)
District 9 Bill Otto (I) R-LeRoy (Has not responded yet)
District 9 Jon Dunbar D-Colony (Has not responded yet)
District 10 Tony Brown D-Baldwin City (Has not responded yet)
District 10 John Coen R-Wellsville (Has not responded yet)
District 11 Virgil Peck (I) R-Tyro (Has not responded yet)
District 11 Virgil Horn, Jr. D-Coffeyville (Has not responded yet)
District 12 Jeff King (I) R-Independence (Has not responded yet)
District 12 Sandra Frisco D-Independence (Has not responded yet)
District 13 Forrest Knox (I) R-Altoona (Has not responded yet)
District 14 Lance Kinzer (I) R-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 14 Aunesty Janssen D-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 15 Arlen Siegfreid (I) R-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 15 Sean Tevis D-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 16 Gene Rardin (I) D-Overland Park
http://www.rardinforkansas.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Yes, generally speaking, as long as Kansans’ energy needs can be met in that way, I do believe our goal should be to maximize investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency before making investments in additional coal-fired power plants. In support of that view, I heard testimony in legislative committee that one utility could save enough through energy efficiency measures to more than compensate for Kansas’s projected increase in base-load energy needs. In addition, Kansas is well situated geographically to assume a profitable leadership role in the renewable field if we have the right leadership toward that end.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
Generally support with a time table and percentage goal to be evaluated and agreed upon.
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Support
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
Support
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
Support
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Support
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
Support
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Support
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Yes, I agree it's too high.
Why?
I would like to see the percentage reduced since the scientific consensus underlines the proven harmful effects of mercury pollution and greenhouse gases accompanying the burning of coal, not to mention the negative economic impact of higher rates for consumers as very likely future regulatory penalties and sanctions are imposed for coal generation.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Yes, it's too low.
Why?
Kansas has some of the greatest natural potential for effective use of wind-turbine generation and we should be developing and making use of that potential from both a health and economic growth standpoint.
District 16 Jim Yonally R-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 17 Jill Quigley (I) R-Lenexa
http://www.jillquigley.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Yes, Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Unless we support change and innovation in these areas, it will be energy business as usual. We can delay the need for more baseline energy by pursuing energy efficiency and conservation. To free ourselves from dependence on foreign energy, we must turn American ingenuity towards the development of renewable energy now.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
SUPPORT
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
SUPPORT
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
SUPPORT
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
SUPPORT
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
SUPPORT
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
SUPPORT
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
SUPPORT
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
AGREE
Why?
Most states have around 50% of their electricity produced by coal; we are well above that. If more traditional sources are needed for baseline energy needs, nuclear would be a cleaner alternative. If cleaner coal plants are built, older dirtier plants should be closed so that our carbon footprint does not continue to grow. Hopefully, energy efficiency and conservation will give us the time cushion we need to develop alternatives and cleaner technology.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
AGREE
Why?
Kansas ranks third in the nation in terms of usable wind. We need to maximize the use of this natural resource. Kansas needs to embrace and work toward the national goal of having 20% wind power in our energy mix.
District 17 Ed Coleman D-Lenexa (Has not responded yet)
District 18 Cindy Neighbor (I) D-Shawnee (Has not responded yet)
District 18 John Rubin R-Shawnee (Has not responded yet)
District 19 John Skubal R-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 19 Dolores Furtado D-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 20 Kevin Yoder (I) R-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 20 Gary Glauberman D- Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 21 Kay Wolf (I) R-Prairie Village
http://www.kansansforkay.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Yes, generally speaking I do. At this time, I believe it is prudent to assess the impact from a federal level (cap and trade), environmental level, and the potential for a taxpayer rate increase prior to building additional new coal plants.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
YES
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
YES
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
YES
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
YES
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
NO
Why?
I don’t believe so at this time as coal is still our most plentiful natural energy resource. However, because of the ever increasing needs for electricity and environmental concerns it is imperative to begin implementation of other alternative methods of production such as renewables. It will take many years to reduce the carbon footprint and as forward thinking concerned citizens it must begin now. Energy efficiency and clean production is needed now.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
YES
Why?
Kansas is a state fortunate to be one of the highest in available wind access. It has been proven in states such as Texas wind harnessing/production can provide a substantial amount of clean electrical consumer requirements. Electrical needs are only going to increase in future years.
District 21 Allan Abrams D-Prairie Village (Has not responded yet)
District 22 Lisa Benlon D-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 22 Joy Bourdess R-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 23 August Bogina, III R-Shawnee (Has not responded yet)
District 23 Milack Talia D-Merriam
http://www.milack.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
I do think Kansas should make investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency before making investments in additional coal-fired power plants. Kansas and America deserves a clean, safe, and affordable energy future. Harnessing the Earth’s renewable energy will ensure this future and create jobs for Kansans at home. By employing old-fashioned American know-how and state-of-the-art technologies we can embrace and lead another new industry—wind power. This new industry could increase production, distribution, and application of renewable energy so that families and businesses could save billions in energy costs each year. Currently, only 2% of our energy comes from clean, abundant, renewable sources. However, the potential power of utilizing wind, solar, water, and geothermal resources in the America greatly surpasses our current total electricity consumption. We can use available technologies today to make our homes, cars, and businesses become more energy efficient and the Earth cleaner for our children.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
I would support Renewable Energy Standard (RES) to ensure businesses prosperity, jobs creation, and clean, cheap energy. In addition, our government already offers a Production Tax Credit (PTC) to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy industries and we should extend it to the renewable energy industry. The PTC will enable the renewable energy industry to develop and improve its technology, drive down costs, and provide Kansans with significantly more clean, emissions-free electricity generation.
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
I would support fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs. Net Metering Standards (NMS) will allow consumers, who generate their own electricity from backyard wind turbines and rooftop solar panels, to reduce their electric bill by getting credits for any power generated. In addition, I would like to have tax credits available to Kansans who want to build their own backyard windmills for energy. Harnessing the sun’s and wind’s potential will provide lower energy prices and offer cleaner energy production.
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
I would support investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency. Kansas should reward investments in high efficiency appliances and equipment and work to expand local recycling programs into a statewide initiative. In addition, a combination of reducing, reusing, and recycling goods we purchase will have a positive effect on our environment and economy. Our environment should not be under the constant strain of waste and overuse. Businesses can find ways to become greener and more efficient to help the environment and increase their bottom lines. We have to reduce the amount of materials we use in the goods we buy. Dematerialization – the less stuff society uses and throws away can be attained through several means. While some progress has been made, for example aluminum cans and plastic soda bottles are thinner, we can do more.
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
I would support investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas. The promise of wind energy for Kansas could yield substantial revenue for education, health care, and many other services. Kansas’ power companies could export energy to other states and convert Kansas into a “big-wind state” – similar to “big-oil” in Texas. However, our government has not provided enough meaningful incentives for local utilities to develop wind farms. Now at least 11 other states lead Kansas in producing and selling wind energy – despite Kansas being the best place for generating wind power. In addition, while Kansas tries to develop its wind energy industry, more and more out-of-state developers swoop in to divert revenues out of Kansas. As we deplete our oil and gas resources, wind can emerge as a renewable energy export and generate millions of dollars to help our economy and produce jobs.
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
I would support investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies. We can reduce our burden on the air, water, and other natural resources and systems and make money doing so. A policy of restoring the environment could be the biggest economic enterprise of our time – yielding a huge source of jobs, profits, and other big rewards. Finding ways to protect the environment does not always have to be in conflict with economic interests. We can find ways to pass on a cleaner Earth to our children using American free-markets and innovation to launch new and profitable environmental technologies. Businesses and government can invest in renewable energy sources for clean energy and job creation. We can balance the environmental and natural resource equation with the economic and social equation to ensure a greener future where businesses, households, and environmentalists work together and help to protect our natural wonders.
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
I would support investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure. This is essential for wind power generation, distribution to Kansas’ homes and businesses, and exportation to other states.
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Honestly, I do not know whether I would support incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets. I will need to conduct research on this issue and would hope GPACE has some information and materials to brief me on, if I win in November.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
I agree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal is too high.
Why?
In the past, air permits, which are required before construction of combustion facilities begin, have been denied over emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. In addition, a Supreme Court decision in April asserts that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide produced by coal plants, should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Taken together the new coal plants would have produced 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, nearly as much as a group of eight Northeastern states hope to save by 2020.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
I agree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines is too low.
Why?
Wind is the world’s fastest growing energy source and is becoming a high-tech challenge to the coal mine, oil rigs, and nuclear reactors of the 20th century. Modern windmills spike up to 420 feet topped with three fiberglass blades twirling with the wind o generate energy in a balletic grace. The potential of wind energy is tantalizing because the renewable energy source – wind – is constantly being replenished by nature. Unlike oil, gas, and coal deposits that can run out, wind cannot be exhausted – at least not until the sun burns out billions of years from now and earth goes cold. In addition, the cost of electricity generated from wind farms have dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years. The blowing wind that makes Kansas famous for storms and tornadoes could be harnessed to generate 1 trillion kWh of energy per year – the most of any state. Kansas, with neighboring states, could supply more than one and a half times the electricity consumption of the entire country.
District 24 Ronnie Metsker (I) R-Overland Park
1. I whole-heartedly believe that our state must increase our investments in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies before making investments in coal-fired plants. I would vote against any legislation permitting the creation of new coal-fired plants in our state. Kansas’s energy future must involve a Renewable Energy Plan that will strengthen our goals for renewable energy consumption and production. Kansas has the opportunity to be a leader in the region, if we have the correct legislation to make clean, renewable energy a priority.
Furthermore, I support the state’s authority to protect Kansans’ health through recommendations from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
2. I would support the following components of a comprehensive energy policy for our state:
- Mandatory Renewable Energy Standard,
- Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimal consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management costs
- Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
- Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs.
- Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
- Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
- Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
3. The current amount of electricity produced by the burning of coal is far too high. By nature, coal is a dirty fuel. When burned, coal spews pollutants such as sulfur and carbon monoxide into the air we breathe. This can greatly deplete the quality of air Kansans enjoy. Investing in renewable energy sources allows Kansas to provide the power needed today, while protecting the environmental resources for future generations.
4. I agree that Kansas needs to further develop wind generated energy throughout our state. Kansas has the third best wind resource in America, and we are one of the lowest producers of alternative energy. We need to continue to develop our ability to generate electricity from wind to better diversify our energy sources.
District 24 Mike Slattery D-Mission
1 – I whole-heartedly believe that our state must increase our investments in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies before making investments in coal-fired plants. I would vote against any legislation permitting the creation of new coal-fired plants in our state. Kansas's energy future must involve a Renewable Energy Plan that will strengthen our goals for renewable energy consumption and production. Kansas has the opportunity to be a leader in the region, if we have the correct legislation to make clean, renewable energy a priority.
Furthermore, I support the state's authority to protect Kansans' health through recommendations from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
2 – I would support the following components of a comprehensive energy policy for our state:
- Mandatory Renewable Energy Standard,
- Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimal consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management costs
- Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
- Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs.
- Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
- Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
- Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
3 – The current amount of electricity produced by the burning of coal is far too high. By nature, coal is a dirty fuel. When burned, coal spews pollutants such as sulfur and carbon monoxide into the air we breathe. This can greatly deplete the quality of air Kansans enjoy. Investing in renewable energy sources allows Kansas to provide the power needed today, while protecting the environmental resources for future generations.
4 – I agree that Kansas needs to further develop wind generated energy throughout our state. Kansas has the third best wind resource in America, and we are one of the lowest producers of alternative energy. We need to continue to develop our ability to generate electricity from wind to better diversify our energy sources.
District 25 Terrie Huntington (I) R-Mission Hills (Has not responded yet)
District 25 Scott Gregory D-Roeland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 26 Rob Olson (I) R-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 27 Ray Merrick (I) R-Stilwell (Has not responded yet)
District 27 Becky Ansley D-Overland Park
http://www.beckyansleyforkansas.com/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
YES.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
All of these sound reasonable on the surface. Would want more facts before making my vote.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
YES, as we have other opportunities for cleaner air.
Why?
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
YES. We are one of the lowest states in the country and could be one of the highest.
Why?
District 28 Pat Colloton (I) R-Leawood
http://www.patcolloton.com/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
I think the investments can be undertaken by the state simultaneously and the phasing in process will differ for each. I support a comprehensive energy policy that includes provision for our coal plants and for further nuclear power development.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
I support
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
I support
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
I support
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
I support
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
I support
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
I support
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
I support
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Yes
Why?
Both pollution control and uncertainty in rate charges make this too high. We need additional alternative energy sources in Kansas that would lower the percentage reliance on coal.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Yes
Why?
Wind is one of the most available renewable energy sources in Kansas.
District 28 Tyler Holmes D-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 29 Sheryl Spalding (I) R-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 29 Mike Pener D-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 30 Ron Worley (I) R-Lenexa
http://www.ronworley.com/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Your question asks about "Kansas investments ". Kansas public utilities and co-ops are the ones currently making investments in energy production facilities. At this time I know of no plans for the State of Kansas to make any investments in energy production facilities. In the Holcomb coal plant bills there were sections of some of the bills considered that required the utility to make investments in renewable energy production. There were also tax credits proposed for energy efficiency upgrades. In general I found the efficiency and renewable requirements in the bills to be reasonable. I would want to have a great deal more information and details before I could say that I would favor the State of Kansas making investments in any energy production facilities. If Kansas were to invest in production facilities then building facilities that used renewable fuel should be a large or majority component of such production fac ilities and significant incentives for energy efficiency should also be part of any such investment plan.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
Yes
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Yes
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Yes
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Why?
The current % of energy produced in Kansas from coal fuel is too high because these plants give off too much CO2 and other biproducts. Much of that is due to the advanced age of the plants and lack of any current upgrades to the the plants. The federal government some years ago almost required the conversion from natural gas fueled plants to coal fueled plants which increased the extent of the problem. Better cleaning systems are expensive and not entirely effective.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
The current % of energy produced in Kansas by wind turbines is too low. The state has great potential to produce a much higher % of wind energy, maybe as high as 30%, and also provide employment in the state in addition to long term royalty income to land owners.
District 30 Chris Napolitano D-Lenexa (Has not responded yet)
District 31 Stan Frownfelter (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 32 Louis Ruiz (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 33 Tom Burroughs (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 34 Valdenia Winn (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 35 Broderick Henderson (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 36 Margaret Long (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 37 Michael Peterson (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 38 Anthony Brown (I) R-Eudora (Has not responded yet)
District 38 Stephanie Kelton D-Lawrence
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. Indeed, I believe that now, more than ever, we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that will create jobs, reduce dangerous emissions and contribute to our energy security. I believe that Kansas stands at a crossroads and that the decisions taken by elected officials in the coming legislative session could well determine whether we become even more dependent on out-of-state coal or whether we chart a course toward greater energy security.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
I would, in varying degrees, support each of these components as part of a comprehensive energy plan.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
I agree. Right now, Kansas relies on coal to meet 75% of its electricity needs – and 100% of that coal must be transported by rail from Wyoming to Kansas. As voters know, Kansas lawmakers recently voted three times to expand our dependence on out-of-state coal. As an economist, I viewed this as a dangerous policy move. I understand that diversification is the key to reducing the risk of investment. And I strongly believe that we can (and must) take steps to develop a stable, comprehensive energy policy that reduces the proportion of out-of-state coal in our energy portfolio.
Right now, China is building a new coal plant every week, and the resulting competition for Wyoming coal is driving up the price of this limited resource. In the coming years, China’s demand for coal will only intensify, and Kansas will become more and more vulnerable to the pressure of this foreign competition. It is also likely that the federal government will look to curb CO2 emissions through some form of cap-and-trade legislation. Thus, it makes no economic sense to increase our dependence on coal from 75% to 80% or more by investing in a resource that is: 1) costly to import; 2) costly to burn; and 3) costly to clean up. A properly-diversified energy portfolio would make us less vulnerable to price increases and improve our energy security.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
As the third windiest state in the nation, Kansas has tremendous potential to become a net exporter of energy. In fact, many of our neighboring states have discovered that wind is the crop of the 21st Century for rural America. But Kansas has barely scratched the surface when it comes to producing wind energy. This is unfortunate because our neighbors – Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma and Colorado – are aggressively pursuing wind technology. While these states have already begun to reap the economic benefits of their investments, Kansas is still trying to decide whether its future lies with alternative energy or fossil fuels.
I am optimistic about our energy future and believe that voters understand how important it is to make intelligent choices as we move forward. Wind is an inexhaustible and affordable domestic resource. It strengthens our energy security, improves the quality of the air we breathe, produces no carbon dioxide, and revitalizes rural communities.
We have a unique opportunity to keep energy dollars right here in Kansas, to become an energy producer rather than an energy importer, and to create tens of thousands of new American jobs in the renewable energy industry. We need to turn away from countries in the Mid-East and look to our own Midwestern communities to meet a growing share of our energy needs.
District 39 Owen Donohoe (I) R-Shawnee (Has not responded yet)
District 39 Joe Novak D-Shawnee
http://www.votenovak.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
We currently know that the building of coal-fired power plants in Kansas does little to alleviate the current cost of utilities in Kansas. We also know that any new coal-fired power plant will add millions of tons of carbon dioxide to an environment proliferated with pollutants. The Kansas legislature needs to create a comprehensive short and long range plan for intrastate production and use as well as an interstate plan for production and use of clean renewable energy. With our geographical location and ample availability to wind and solar, Kansas can become a leader in providing affordable energy to our residents as well as others along a transmission grid. Maximum and proactive investments in renewable energy is the intelligent approach to the future of energy production.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Each of the components listed above should be a serious consideration and foundation in the development of a comprehensive energy future in Kansas. Added to what has been mentioned above should be three other components.
1. I believe the state should consider taking a lead as a positive and active role model in the implementation of affordable and renewable energy sources in providing utilities to state agencies across the state.
2. The state should provide incentives to school districts across the state to utilize wind power to provide utilities for schools. This needs to be done over time where appropriate and feasible.
3. The education component mentioned above should include accurate, timely, and realistic information about cost savings, environmental impacts, and all other factors that would help to build support with our residents.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
AGREE
Why?
While there is an abundance of coal in our nation, the current burning of coal continues to produce an environmental hazard to our state as well as the rest of the nation. Our current 75% usage is partially due to the lack of transmission infrastructure to get alternative and renewable energy where it is needed. A well planned program of a gradual decrease in coal utility dependency together with an affordable and deliberate increase in wind and solar utility will help to provide the cost, the environmental impact as well as provide for a new economic opportunity for our state.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
AGREE
Why?
Wind power is clean and is abundant within the state of Kansas. We lack the infrastructure to get the current power produced through wind turbines throughout our state and beyond.
District 40 Charlie Gregor R-Leavenworth (Has not responded yet)
District 40 Melanie Sanders-Meier D-Leavenworth (Has not responded yet)
District 41 Marti Crow (I) D-Leavenworth
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Yes. I think that Kansas has great potential in the development of energy using wind, solar and other renewable sources. I like the concept of community wind energy, where locally owned, commercial-scale wind projects optimize local benefits. One or more members of the local community have a significant direct financial interest in the wind project. I am eager to see significant wind energy projects becoming a reality in Kansas, as they are in other states. I think Kansans have a strong interest in community wind energy, especially among farmers and smaller, more rural communities across the country. Locally owned and community based wind projects provide an opportunity to generate both energy and revenue while keeping energy dollars local and protecting the environment from air and water pollution. Kansas needs a comprehensive energy policy to guide our state. Solar power is also a cost-effective, environmentally friendly source of energy for our state. Enough solar energy falls on Kansas each year to provide about 1,000 times our annual, current fossil fuel and nuclear energy consumption. I know that I can be more energy efficient and conservation is another way to become more energy independent.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
I believe that all of these are necessary for a comprehensive energy policy.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Why?
Coal is dirty and the air in Lawrence when I drive to Topeka is often fouled by the coal plant there. Coal is archaic and this is a new century with all sorts of technology and ingenuity that should allow our country to leave the problems and dangers of mining and burning coal behind. Our national, state and local economies should be built on new sustainable ways of creating energy that do not scar our land, air and water and do not jeopardize the health and safety of our people and communities..
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
As I said in answer to the first question, Kansas is not doing enough to utilize one of the state's most plentiful resources, wind. Other states are leading the way. Wind now provides 20,152 MW of electricity generating capacity in the U.S., producing enough electricity to serve 5.3 million American homes or power a fleet of more than 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles. I recently read that wind energy installations are well ahead of the curve for contributing 20% of the U.S. electric power supply by 2030, a goal envisioned by the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. is a world leader in wind electricity generation and Kansas has the potential to be a leader in the wind industry. Although Germany has more generating capacity, the U.S, and Kansas especially,. has much stronger winds. "Windustry" is new but it is also a valuable resource in the exposed uplands of our Great Plains state.
District 41 Jana Goodman R-Leavenworth (Has not responded yet)
District 42 Timothy Moran D-Lansing (Has not responded yet)
District 42 Connie O'Brien R-Tonganoxie (Has not responded yet)
District 43 Mike Kiegerl (I) R-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 43 Scott Snavely D-Spring Hill (Has not responded yet)
District 44 Barbara Ballard (I) D-Lawrence (Has not responded yet)
District 45 Tom Sloan (I) R-Lawrence
www.tomsloan2008.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Investments in energy efficiency technologies and products by home owners and commercial/industrial customers should be a priority. As a member of the Energy & Utilities Committee, I have supported proposals to provide Kansas tax credits for home owners investing in Energy Star appliances, insulation, appropriate doors and windows, etc. that would compliment federal tax credits.
I have championed efforts to provide incentives for landlords to invest in energy efficiency appliances, technologies, and materials on behalf of their tenants. I have also championed the pilot project by Midwest Energy to perform energy audits for customers, provide the funding for investing in energy conservation products and appliances, and recover the investments over time through the monthly utility bill. Landlords generally do not pay utility bills and hence have little incentive to make energy conservation investments. My efforts have focused on finding incentives that will encourage landlords to make the necessary and appropriate investments on behalf of their tenants – people who frequently do not have the means, but have the need, to invest in energy conservation.
I have also championed efforts to encourage Regents’ Institutions’ faculty to engage in additional research on fuels, engine technologies, and similar issues – especially in cooperation with Ft. Riley’s needs. I have visited the Pentagon encouraging funding of a municipal waste-synthetic gas project that has been proposed for civilian-military use.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
A commitment to developing wind energy is part of the comprehensive energy policy for which I have consistently worked. Further, I have voted for all of the above and sponsored legislation to accomplish most of them. For example:
a) I have voted for a 20% RPS; passed legislation that provide requires utilities to pay 150% of avoided cost for renewable energy generated by homeowners and small commercial customers; and passed legislation requiring all electric utilities to have standardized renewable generation connection policies;
b) I authored the language creating Renewable Energy Cooperatives (community wind) and sponsored the language authorizing Cloud County Community College to create its wind technology program; and unsuccessfully tried to require utilities to pay 150% of avoided costs (instead of the federally mandated 100%) for electricity produced by Cloud County Community College’s large scale turbines;
c) I organized 5 annual Kansas Electric Transmission Summits involving FERC, DOE, SPP, Kansas utilities, KCC, elected officials, independent transmission operators to identify steps necessary to develop high voltage transmission lines to move wind energy to customers in and out of Kansas; and I was a major supporter of the formation of the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority and am the only non-member from the Legislature to attend most of their meetings;
d) I chaired two FERC Discussion Groups on transmission issues, am the only state legislator on the DOE’s Electricity Advisory Committee, am a member of the Kansas Energy Council, and have chaired Committees on renewable energy for national legislative organizations.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Why?
Kansas needs a balanced energy plan in which wind, solar, natural gas, coal, nuclear, energy conservation, and other forms of energy production are incorporated – so that the health of our families and environment are protected, and electricity remains affordable and reliable.
I participated in a National Conference of State Legislature’s Advanced Coal Technologies Workshop at which we studied current and research technologies to reduce emissions from coal-fired plants. All emissions can be captured and sequestered in a contained coal gasification plant (Tampa Electric has a coal gasification plant without sequestration) – but the cost is approximately 10 times more expensive. I made all of the workshop’s materials available to Governor Sebelius’ administration.
Scientific evidence indicates cleaner coal is possible. The proposed Sunflower coal-fired plants would have produced 25% less CO2 per Mwh than the Lawrence Energy Center and 17% less than the Jeffrey Energy Center. In addition, the Sunflower plants would have been the first coal-fired generation units in the U.S. to incorporate a CO2 capture system (45% of CO2 flue gas would have been captured by algae that in turn would have been used to produce bio-diesel and livestock feed). This carbon capture system would have resulted in even less CO2 being emitted.
Cleaner coal technologies and carbon mitigation policies must also be incorporated at existing coal-fired generation plants. I legislatively proposed such actions and proposed that KDHE establish carbon emission standards (none exist today) and will continue to fight for these policies until they are achieved.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
Most students of energy policies and production believe that 20% wind is
achievable (e.g., AWEA, DOE), and I agree.
Each Kansas electric utility operates its own generation system and the appropriate mix of wind energy will differ accordingly. Because of its intermittent nature, wind generation in Kansas provides nameplate generation (maximum production) 38-40% of the time and seldom at peak cooling periods. Wind energy has a major place in our energy mix (e.g., Midwest Energy – 16%, Sunflower – 13%), but it does not constitute baseload generation.
Westar Energy has announced that they will not construct additional wind farms nor acquire more wind energy until the Kansas Corporation Commission provides them an additional 1% return on investment. I do not believe that additional cost to consumers is warranted.
Kansas’ future as a wind energy producer cannot rely solely on the demand of Kansas customers; we must develop the high voltage transmission line necessary to carry wind energy to load centers in states without renewable energy generation potential (e.g., Missouri) and states that need more energy (e.g., California). Such transmission lines will permit wind developers to develostate’s generation capacity.
I invite readers to visit my website (www.tomsloan2008.com) for more information regarding my actions and votes on energy issues.
District 45 John Wilson D-Lawrence
http://www.johnwilsonforkansas.com/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Yes, absolutely. Renewable energy development, particularly wind, represent the largest economic development opportunity the state has seen in decades. Our state is blessed with abundant wind resources that should be harnessed to produce clean energy. Aggressive wind development, in concert with conservation and efficiency policies, is the way forward if we are going to protect our environment and reinvigorate the Kansas economy statewide.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
Yes
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Yes
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
Yes
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
Yes
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Yes
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
Yes
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Yes
I support all of these components as part of a comprehensive energy policy, and welcome the conversation with all of the relevant stakeholders needed to make them happen.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
I AGREE that we are too reliant upon coal in Kansas.
Why?
To be so heavily dependent on coal is not only financially risky, but perilous for the environment and the health of Kansas families and communities. The cost of coal, at all levels of the supply chain, will continue to rise and Kansans' energy bills will be the ones taking the hit for that. Moreover, despite the efforts of savvy marketers, "clean" coal is not yet commercially viable. We know that coal plants emit tons of CO2 and contribute to global warming. Given the intentions of the federal government to regulate Carbon, it is fiscally irresponsible to continue relying so heavily on coal, particularly when we have enormous wind and renewable energy potential.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
I AGREE that it is too low.
Why?
The Kansas Legislature needs to develop policies that promote aggressive development of wind energy, including policies for quicker construction of high-capacity transmission lines. Wind development will create jobs, spur economic development, provide clean energy to families and businesses, and help the United States move closer to energy independence.
District 46 Paul Davis (I) D-Lawrence
http://www.davisforlawrence.org/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
I wholeheartedly believe that the State of Kansas needs to do everything possible to maximize investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. We are lagging behind most states in this region despite the fact that we have more renewable energy potential than they do. Kansas needs to enact a more aggressive tax credit programs and other incentives to attract renewable energy projects. We can truly create a renewable energy economy in Kansas that will boast economic development in every corner of the state if we do this. I firmly believe we should pursue all these options before building additional coal-fired power plants.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
I am certainly interested in looking at all of these concepts. The state budget is going tyo be pretty tight this session so there may not be many resources available to directly allocate to renewable energy investment. However, we should look at tax credits and other existed economic development tools that can help in this area. I am a strong proponent of net metering and hope that the Legislature can take action the solar and wind areas. The voluntary RES that we have in place seems to be working well. I'd like more information before I could commit to making this mandatory.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Yes.
Why?
We clearly have not maximized wind and other renewable sourrces to the extent we can. Kansas is much too dependent on coal. We can reduce this percentage substantially if we promote investment and create a climate where renewable energy production is welcome in Kansas.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Absolutely.
Why?
I believe the reasons are the same as stated above in question 3.
District 47 Lee Tafanelli (I) R-Ozawkie (Has not responded yet)
District 48 Marvin Kleeb R- Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 48 Pam Ippel D-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 49 Scott Schwab (I) R-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 49 Kristi Boone D-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 50 Rocky Fund (I) R-Hoyt (Has not responded yet)
District 51 Mike Burgess (I) R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 52 Lana Gordon (I) R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 52 Claude Lee D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 53 Ann Mah (I) D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 53 Cecil Washington, Jr. R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 54 Joe Patton (I) R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 54 Bruce Cooper D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 55 Annie Kuether (I) D-Topeka
http://www.anniekuether.com
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Yes
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
I am a member of KEEP -which is the group that is working together to form a comprehensive energy policy.
At this time the Governor has an agreement with the Utilities and so there isn't a need for an RES and aI am not generally in favor of anything , mandatory.
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Fair net metering and solar have been issues I have promoted
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
As for state investments in any of the following, it is simply too hard to tell what can be expected to be available in these tight, economic times.
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Education and job training should be a part of the workforce training curriculum. Incentives for regional and local ownership are issues that need to be fully discussed and go through the legislative process - to make sure the economics are beneficial to owners.
The PTC (as long as it is renewed at the Federal level) encourages the production of wind energy.
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
As a member of KETA (Kansas Electric Transmission Authority), we are in the process of getting the largest transmission line this side of the Mississippi, built. It is a long and arduous process with many players involved such as the RTO of the SPP. However, at this time there are two companies vying to build the "V" plan. There are considerations for federal incentives for states to build transmission and I think that is where they should come from.
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Why?
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
All mixes of energy are going to have to be considered and coal, wind, natural gas and biofuels are all a part of that discussion. We need to lessen our dependency on coal, add wind and try to have the least amount of impact on our rate payers/customers/owners of utilities.
District 55 Jake Fisher R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 56 Annie Tietze (I) D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 57 Sean Gatewood D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 57 Cheryl Reynolds R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 58 Harold Lane (I) D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 59 Jim Irey D-Melvern (Has not responded yet)
District 59 William “Willie” Prescott R-Osage City (Has not responded yet)
District 60 Don Hill (I) R-Emporia (Has not responded yet)
District 61 Richard Carlson (I) R-St. Marys (Has not responded yet)
District 62 Steve Lukert (I) D-Sabetha (Has not responded yet)
District 62 Roy Claycamp R-Seneca (Has not responded yet)
District 63 Jerry Henry (I) D-Cummings (Has not responded yet)
District 64 Vern Swanson (I) R-Clay Center (Has not responded yet)
District 65 Barbara Craft (I) R-Junction City (Has not responded yet)
District 65 Mick Wunder D-Junction City (Has not responded yet)
District 66 Sydney Carlin (I) D-Manhattan (Has not responded yet)
District 66 Dee McKee R-Manhattan (Has not responded yet)
District 67 Tom Hawk (I) D-Manhattan (Has not responded yet)
District 67 Dick Miller R-Manhattan
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Let me preface my response by saying I was doing research in wind and solar power in the early 80's at K-State but there was not enough interest to carry the research forward. That said, I am also a practical engineer and great supporter of economic growth by the private sector. Therefore, I support the Kansas Energy Plan that was vetoed by the governor and believe he delay in building the Holcomb Plant is a travesty because of the economic impact, the loss of transmission lines that could have accommodated wind farm development in Western Kansas, and the funding of research. I support the goal of maximizing renewable resources and eventually we will get there. In the meantime we must use the best technology available to keep our economic engines running and the Holcomb Power plant would be an excellent bridge and it is totally compliant.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
I would have to see what this standard was all about before stating my position.
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Absolutely support Net Metering. I proposed this 20 years ago and again it fell on deaf ears.
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
Realistic goals are okay, lets leave the expenditure of resources to the private sector.
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
The role of gevernment is to create an atmosphere in which business can thrive not to generate business. There is an old Chinese proverb: When the student is ready the teacher will appear. That also works in business. Private enterprise will thrive if government will stay out of the way.
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Its great that existing trade schools and technical schools can gear up to do this training and it can happen without additional programs.
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
No. Let private enterprise do this just as it will be done if the Holcomb Plant gets approval. Keep the state out of the private sector.
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Am not sure what this means. Cooperatives have worked in the past and they might work here so long as the government stays out of the private sectors business.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Why?
I look for the day when we can reduce the use of fossil fuels. At present this is what is working and according to the latest environmental news our cattle industry is contributing more to greenhouse gases than coal-fired power plants, so lets be realistic.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
It would be great for wind turbines to provide 50 or 75 percent of the electricity and I hope we get there, but it will be awhile. In the meantime we have to live and high technology coal-fired plants are not endangering our atmosphere. I favor a balanced energy plan that integrates wind, solar, coal, nuclear, bio and a good dose of conservation. Passive solar energy is a great technology and the test house I built in 1984 is still performing beautifully. It is esthetically pleasing, quiet and clean with very low energy bills. I also have a point on my property that tested positive for a wind turbine, but without net metering it is not economical.
District 68 Tom Moxley (I) R-Council Grove (Has not responded yet)
District 69 Deena Horst (I) R-Salina
http://www.deenagordonhorst.com/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Even those who work for utilities other than Sunflower have indicated that we, in Kansas, need to build additional coal-fired power plants and natural gas plants to meet the future requirement for base load. [I’m not certain what GPACE believes that maximized investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency are, so it is difficult to answer this question with much detail.] Since it takes a number of years to bring new plants online, it seems appropriate to insist that renewable energy sources and energy efficiency be developed at the same time a new coal plant is being built. [In my opinion, any new coal plant must utilize the newest technology available to ensure that it is the cleanest possible.] Building new transmission lines also must be an integral component, thus enabling renewable sources, such as wind, to be developed in more remote areas of Kansas. Since the expense of building new plants is continually escalating, one could assume that consumers would pay less in the end, if a plant were built in conjunction with the development of renewable energy and the implementation of energy conservation. Waiting would mean that consumers would pay more for their electricity than they would have, had the plants been built earlier. We must have a comprehensive sound energy policy that will meet our need for increased energy and will provide Kansans with a sustainable, an affordable and a prosperous future while protecting the environment we currently enjoy.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
Yes
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Yes, although some terms need to be defined so it is clearer what is intended by ‘minimum consumer obstacles’ and ‘reasonable allowance’.
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
Setting goals to increase conservation of energy is something I support. Investing state resources would be more problematic and would depend on availability of revenues. Incentives could be given to encourage conservation and participation in renewable energy.
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
In general, yes, however; before committing specifically to such an investment, more specific details would have to be in place. For example, I would want to know the level of investment, who was receiving the investment, what the projected results would be, etc.
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Yes. The post-secondary institutions have always responded with specific proposals when such training opportunities and additional resources were needed.
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
Private companies are already investing in such infrastructure as needed. In some states, the utilities and the infrastructure may be state-owned. In Kansas, such assets have been either municipal or privately owned. I would want to know more about the cost of such state involvement and why private development is not sufficient.
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Again, I would want to know more about what you are referencing. What kind of incentives are you proposing, who will be involved, etc. There are already grant programs available for entrepreneurs, businesses beginning in rural areas, etc. Why are these not sufficient?
In general, the details of all of your questions could well add up to billions of dollars. How do you propose that the state raise those funds? What services do you propose to be cut so these funds are available? I am in favor of doing what we can to promote and incent the use of renewables but I am concerned with the expense.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Why?
I would like to believe that we could have a balance between the different types of energy sources. What is affordable and what is possible may be a driving force in why it is 75%. I would like to know more about why it is this high and how they are working toward meeting the % agreement they have with the Governor. I do believe that there is a difference in percentage with different companies. I would be interested in knowing what the balance is for each company, instead of throwing them all in one pot and ‘flogging’ all of them as if they all were just alike. It is my understanding that some of the small coops and municipalities in the western part of the state have a lot of gas, some have some coal, and some have more wind in their portfolio than do the large companies serving the eastern portion of the state.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
Again, I would like to believe that the state would have a balanced portfolio which incorporates the different energy sources which are available and certainly that they would all have a presence of more than 1%. In this case, what is affordable and what is possible may be a driving force in why it is at 1%. I know the majority of the wind energy was at one time going to companies located outside the state. As I mentioned in #3, I hope we will look at each company and see what their portfolio has, instead of lumping everyone into the same box. We also need to know where each company is in regard to its commitment to the Governor. As I mentioned previously, it is my understanding that some coops in the western part of the state have much more than 1% wind in their portfolio. Others may have other renewable sources other than wind when they have another source available.
District 69 Rebekah Gaston D-Salina (Has not responded yet)
District 70 J. Robert Brookens R-Marion (Has not responded yet)
District 71 Charles Roth (I) R-Salina (Has not responded yet)
District 71 David Norlin D-Salina
http://www.davidnorlin.com/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
Yes. The perception that we can rely on coal for any new portion of baseload is not only erroneous, it is a sign of near wholesale ignorance of our mutual global threat. Public perception worldwide has grown to the point that a Texas billionaire, no less, has at least one major part of his new program INVESTED in renewable wind power. It has grown to the point where a group in England charged with "damaging" (really only painting the Prime Minister's name) on the Klingsnorth power station in Kent, was acquitted by a jury on the grounds that this coal-fired plant could be damaged to prevent the much greater damage it would cause-sort of like breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire. We aren't, however, talking here about tearing down our KS coal plants. We just don't need any MORE of them.
It will take such a Manhattan Project mindset to keep the lights on without wrecking our Kansas ag economy. The stakes are un-mistakable. It will be a blunder of colossal measure if we invest that kind of money in an energy source which keeps the lights on, but also keeps the fire lit under the pot in which we will all boil, if we don't get out. I am rather fond of our species. I'd like to keep it-and all the others-around for as long as possible.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
Yes
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Yes
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
Yes
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
Yes
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Yes
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
Yes
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Yes
I am supportive of all these initiatives. I would like to see as much achievable local community benefit as possible, however, when investing state resources to encourage wind, solar, and other renewable energy development.
I believe that energy assets should be owned as locally as possible, with the knowledge that some of the larger companies with deeper pockets, and some of those may be from out of state. Their devotion to a sound energy policy with as much input as possible from local citizens will be my criteria for support, as expressed in enabling legislation.
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
I have heard 75% mentioned as a round figure. However, any portion over 50% is too much in a state with the U.S' 3rd-largest wind-generating capacity.
Why?
We need time to get renewables and conservation working at a maximum. To accomplish that, we need a mobilized citizenry and a state and national government who will reduce our collective carbon footprint by 80% by 2050. Some even say that goal is too low. If, to our great benefit, the people awake to this reality, the only question remaining is whether the KS legislature will lead, or merely follow. Let us hope that it will at least do the latter.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
That seems an easy answer. Yes, 1% is too low.
Why?
I have heard what I think to be reliable estimates that wind could be responsible for at least 20%. There's plenty of room for improvement.
District 72 Marc Rhoades (I) R-Newton (Has not responded yet)
District 73 Tom Adrian D-Newton (Has not responded yet)
District 73 Clark Shultz (I) R-Lindsborg (Has not responded yet)
District 73 Randy Conyers D-McPherson (Has not responded yet)
District 74 Don Schroeder (I) R-Inman (Has not responded yet)
District 74 Max Smith D-Moundridge (Has not responded yet)
District 75 John Grange (I) R-El Dorado
http://www.johngrange.net
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
I think we need a balanced energy policy that includes increased use of "Clean Coal" and Nuclear Technology while we develop alternate renewable sources. Alternate renewable sources need to be developed for individual energy users as well as for power grid supply generation.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
No
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
Yes
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
Yes
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
Yes
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Yes
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
No
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
Yes
3. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by the burning of coal (approx. 75%) is too high?
Disagree
Why?
I think we have to use the product that is reliable and readily available, I would hope we would embrace all technologies. We are spoiled that we have very dependable power plants fueled by coal and nuclear power, these capabilities should be expanded as well as the use of renewable sources.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
I am in favor of using the wind as a source when the application does not infringe on citizens rights. The wind for generation on a wide scale is very expensive and I think if the consumer wants to purchase that source of energy that is their right. I do not think we should force unreasonable standards on the industry. Too much government interference would stifle and slow renewable development by the Industry.
District 75 Sarah Johnston D-El Dorado (Has not responded yet)
District 76 Peggy Mast (I) R-Emporia (Has not responded yet)
District 76 Carol Strickland D-Emporia
http://www.carol-strickland4ks.com/
1. Generally speaking, do you think Kansas should maximize investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency BEFORE making investments in additional coal-fired power plants?
When America is sending $700 billion dollars a year to foreign countries for oil, when we are concerned about environmental impacts, and when Kansas is rich in natural resources, it seems to make a lot of sense for Kansas to invest in research and development of both renewable energy and energy efficiency before investing in coal-fired power plants. When we add to the equation that much of the power generated by the coal plants would go to other states, thus not reducing Kansas’s reliance on other sources, it seems ill-advised to dump the emissions on Kansas citizens without much benefit! I was pleased that the Holcomb facility was vetoed by the Governor. I personally feel that Sunflower Electric should have waited for the judicial decision on the appeal OR cleaned up the design to reflect adherence to Clean Air Act standards. I thought that the legislative approach was shady, at best, especially when the emphasis was on new jobs and money generated rather than discussing the 11 million tons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted each year in the Holcomb area. Research has proven the dangers of such emissions, especially on children. When I listened to T. Boone Pickens in Topeka recently, I was convinced that alternative sources such as wind, solar, and natural gas must be explored to fill our future needs without destroying the planet. I would be committed to working on bi-partisan legislation that gets us moving forward quickly on a meaningful energy policy for Kansas.
2. The State of Kansas is in the midst of a process to develop a comprehensive energy policy. Which of the following components will you support as part of a comprehensive energy policy for Kansas?
A. A mandatory Renewable Energy Standard (RES)
B. Fair net metering for wind and solar, with minimum consumer obstacles and reasonable allowance for utility management and costs
C. Investment of state resources and setting specific goals to increase energy efficiency
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets
There is not an easy answer because we have lost valuable time in establishing a long-term energy policy much earlier. I remember when President Jimmy Carter urged citizens and state legislatures to conserve and plan while things were plentiful so that we would be ready for the tough times. Unfortunately, many didn’t heed his warning, and now we are face-to-face with that “tough time.” The solution, like the problem, is complex and will call for a multi-faceted approach. Initially, standards and long-term planning are needed. Additionally, research and development (and adequate funding) will be needed in all areas: wind, solar, natural gas, nuclear, coal, oil reserves, and biodeisel technology.