Senate 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 State Senate
C=Challenger I = Incumbent
District 1 Dennis Pyle (I) R-Hiawatha (Has not responded yet)
District 1 Galen Weiland D-Bendena (Has not responded yet)
District 2 Marci Francisco (I) D-Lawrence
http://www.marciforsenate.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 hope that state government, privately and municipally-owned utilities and electric cooperatives will all work towards maximizing investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in Kansas before making investments in additional coal-fired plants. I hope that the citizens and businesses in Kansas will change practices and make investments to minimize their energy use to help make this possible. Efficiency measures and investments in renewable energy technologies can improve our environment and our health, help stabilize the price of energy and avoiding future costs of carbon regulation, and encourage investments in the green economy.
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?
I would support:
- 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, particularly for state owned and supported facilities
- Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind industry jobs in Kansas
- Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
- 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?
I recognize that approximately 75% of the electricity produced in Kansas comes from the burning of coal, almost 25% above the national average. I hope that this percentage can be reduced as renewable energy production comes online. Coal plants produce particulate matter emissions and other emissions that contribute to ozone pollution; these are linked to serious health concerns including asthma and pulmonary inflammation. If, and more likely when, legislation is enacted for carbon regulation, it could significantly increase the cost of a high proportion of the electricity used in Kansas.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
I would like to see the percentage of electricity produced in Kansas by wind turbines increase because it would make use of the Kansas wind, an abundant and significant resource. Investment in wind energy could help stabilize the price of electricity. If community wind is developed, it could make a significant contribution to our Kansas economy.
District 2 Scott Morgan R-Lawrence
http://scottmorganforsenate.com/index.htm
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 must develop and adopt a long-overdue comprehensive energy policy that sets out a definitive timeline to reduce and eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. Such a policy should consider a revenue-neutral carbon tax that makes various alternative energy sources more competitive. Within that framework, I recognize the possible need for new, clean coal power plants, particularly to replace existing older plants, before such time that we might maximize our investments in renewable energy and efficiencies. I would think that the opportunity for greater investment will present itself as initial investments help those options to grow.
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 education and job training for renewable energy technologies.
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? Why?
I agree that it is far too high. We must develop a comprehensive energy policy that sets forward the path we will take to reduce and eliminate the use of this type of fuel. The health risks and the threat to our climate are such that it is unacceptable to stay on our current path and have no timeline for changing our behavior.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
Frankly, that percentage is an embarrassment for a state such as Kansas. I believe there are exciting possibilities for a huge economic turn around based on changing the way we produce power. Kansas sits on the equivalent of the Alaska North Shore with regard to wind power and yet we are just now beginning to realize the potential. Yes, it's the right thing to do for the environment, but it is also the right thing to do for our economy.
District 3 Roger Pine (I) R-Lawrence (Has not responded yet)
District 3 Tom Holland D-Baldwin City
http://www.tomhollandforkansas.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?
Yes, as long as the cost to consumers of coal-fired electricity does not take into consideration the cost of CO2 emissions on the environment. Once the cost of coal-fired electricity takes into consideration the cost of CO2 emissions, then the market will promote the cheapest / greenest generation solutions.
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? Why?
Yes. Because the cost to consumers of coal-fired electricity presently generated in Kansas underestimates the cost of CO2 emissions on the environment.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
Yes. Because Kansas is ranked as having the third most wind potential in the country, and the state should better leveraging this renewable energy resource.
District 4 David Haley (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 5 Kelly Kultala D-Kansas City
http://www.kellykultala.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)
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?
We should have diversified resources of energy...not relying on any one source as a majority. The 75%age is about 25% higher than the national average and the days of cheap fossil fuels are over.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Yes
Why?
Diversified energy sources should be close to even in quantities. Kansas has the third greatest potential wind power in the nation and it is clean, domestic & free.
District 5 Steve Fitzgerald R-Leavenworth (Has not responded yet)
District 6 Chris Steineger (I) D-Kansas City (Has not responded yet)
District 7 David Wysong (I) R-Mission Hills
http://www.davidwysong.com/
*Below are Sen. Wysong's responses to our 4 questions:
I voted eight times against the Sunflower Coal Plant and Sustained the
Governor's veto twice.
I believe the State of Kansas should have an energy plan that includes
nuclear, wind and solar generation, natural gas, and the gasification process technology.
District 7 Susan Myers D-Westwood (Has not responded yet)
District 8 Tim Owens R-Overland Park
http://www.timowens.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?
Not necessarily. It is important that while Kansas invests in renewable energy resources and energy efficiency, it not deprive many Kansas citizens of needed energy during the pendency of that investment. Clean Coal is an alternative. The new coal plants offer a much more efficient option and greatly reduced emissions over the older dirty coal plants that need to be replaced. Nuclear, Wind, Solar and natural gas need to be developed but until we can assure that while they are being developed there will not be a diminished provision of reliable energy, we will need to continue to depend to some degree on coal. Currently a solution as to how to deal with the water needs of a nuclear plant in western Kansas has not been determined. There is a major concern by citizens in western Kansas that the water supply not be detrimentally affected in the search for more efficient energy sources. Wind generation offers some significant alternatives but until we can address the storage issues with this source, we cannot depend on it as a sole source of energy. We must have a base and right now that base needs to be clean coal produced energy. I do strongly support the search for renewable and energy efficient resources as long as we maintain a reliable and consistent base in the meantime. I am also open-minded to the debate and willing to be a part of the discussion on this subject. There are very very bright folks on both sides of this issue from whom I continue to gain education.
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?
It is not so much the percentage that is the issue.
Why?
If the percentage necessary to provide for current energy needs is 75% while we develop alternatives and a responsible energy policy for the state, then it is not too high FOR NOW. However, if alternatives are developed to lower the percentage of reliance on coal then that would be a good direction for the state to move in. The issue has to do with the maintenance of a reliable energy source base for current needs. No one that I represent or that I know is in favor of dirty coal. But neither is anyone in favor of a reckless diminishment of energy resources pending the development of alternatives. We cannot afford to lose businesses and economic resources because of unreliable energy sources. Nor can we afford to have brown-out situations because of a failure to recognize the need for an adequate base while we develop the necessary alternative sources.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
Yes, that percentage is too low because Wind does offer an alternative source of clean renewable energy which the state can certainly stand to expand and encourage. It is one of the alternative sources that Kansas has in abundance MOST OF THE TIME. The problem here is that we have not developed adequate transmission lines nor a storage capacity and capability that would be necessary for this energy source to be a reliable alternative. Until we do develop storage capacity for the times the wind doesn’t blow (notably in the middle to late summer when there are some peak times for energy to offset the heat) and transmission lines to go where the energy is needed at some distance from the turbines, then this alternative source must be developed in conjunction with alternative sources, including clean coal. The other assumption that is drawn by the advocates for this source of energy is that everyone is comfortable with and supportive of the visual impact on the horizon of these large wind turbines. While they are impressive when one drives by them on I-70 and the other locations where they currently exist, many people feel they detract from the natural beauty of the Flint Hills and the rest of the prairielands that comprise so much of Kansas.
District 8 Judy Macy D-Overland Park
http://www.judymacy.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. We need to be looking at a variety of clean renewable energy sources.
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 be in favor of looking at all of the above possibilities. Everything should be on the table to move us as a State in a positive direction to encourage the use use of clean, renewable, sustainable energy which will in turn help us preserve our planet for future generations.
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 support renewable energy standards of 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020 to boost investment in clean, renewable energy that would both lower emissions and strengthen local economies through the creation of jobs.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
Kansas is ideally situated to utilize wind energy. We need to take advantage of that unique characteristic and encourage the use of this type of energy that could create jobs that cannot be outsourced!
District 9 Julia Lynn (I) R-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 9 Ron Wimmer D-Olathe
http://wimmerforsenate.com/home.html
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?
Generally speaking, I believe Kansas should invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency before or in conjunction with investments in additional coal-fired 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)
Likely support but need additional information to render final determination
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
Strongly Support
E. Investment of state resources to encourage education and job training for renewable energy technologies
Strongly 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? Why?
Agree. We should work toward reduction of current percentage of burning coal to less than current levels for environmental, health, global warming, and for economic development opportunities in Kansas.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
Agree. We can increase the percent of electricity as Kansas is one of the top states in the country with sufficient wind to generate electricity by wind turbines.
*I remain receptive to additional information to formulate opinions and decisions on energy issues in Kansas.
District 10 Mary Pilcher-Cook R-Shawnee (Has not responded yet)
District 10 Pete Roman D-Lenexa
http://www.peteforkansas.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 support focusing on our investments in the Energy of the Future, not the Energy of the Past.
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 consider mandatory standards, although I believe that the utilities should do what’s best for the people of Kansas and their own long-term sustainability by moving to a higher percentage of renewable energy on their own. When you have people as different as T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore both pushing for similar objectives this ought to be an obvious effort to be undertaken by energy providers.
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
In general yes, although the question is quite broad. But again I believe in focusing investments in the Energy of the Future
D. Investment of state resources to encourage the development of wind energy production and wind industry jobs in Kansas
Yes although I would not limit it to wind energy. I would suggest that we use the rebuilding of Greensburg, KS as an incubator for energy experimentation and Greenovation, e.g. green innovation.
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. We should look to Feed-in tariff initiatives being done in states like Minnesota to determine if we can implement a program like this.
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?
It is too high for the long-term; we need to ensure that we transition to other means of energy without creating hardships in the short-term. I support focusing on our investments in the Energy of the Future, not the Energy of the Past.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
Yes. We cannot sustain our economy, our state or our planet without more focus on renewable energies. Again, I would not limit it to just wind power, we should look at solar, geothermal and hydrogen as opportunities for renewable energy. I support focusing on our investments in the Energy of the Future and Greenovation.
District 11 John Vratil (I) R-Leawood (Has not responded yet)
District 11 Robert MacFarland D-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 12 Pat Apple (I) R-Louisburg (Has not responded yet)
District 12 Andrew Rickel D-Garnett (Has not responded yet)
District 13 Patty Horgan D-Pittsburg
No webstie available
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?
All of them
* 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?
Yes. There is no such thing as clean coal.
4.Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low? Why?
Yes. We could get 10% to 20%.
District 13 Bob Marshall R-Fort Scott (Has not responded yet)
District 14 Dwayne Umbarger (I) R-Thayer (Has not responded yet)
District 14 David Miller D-Parsons (Has not responded yet)
District 15 Derek Schmidt (I) R-Independence (Has not responded yet)
District 16 Peter DeVries D-Andover (Has not responded yet)
District 16 Ty Masterson R-Andover (Has not responded yet)
District 17 Jim Barnett (I) R-Emporia (Has not responded yet)
District 17 Kitty Frank D-Allen (Has not responded yet)
District 18 Laura Kelly (I) D-Topeka
http://www.laurakelly.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 think Kansas and the entire United States should have been focused on renewable energy and energy efficiency long ago. In addition, we should have more substantially invested in developing technology to clean up other energy sources. Kansas needs a comprehensive, long range energy policy and plan to meet the demands of its citizens and to spur creation of good jobs through emerging industries.
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 will support a progressive, comprehensive, common-sense , long range energy plan. I would need to see the details of each component before committing to vote 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?
Agree
Why?
Kansas needs a diversified energy portfolio. Let’s remember what we were told as children: “Never put all your eggs in one basket.” Coal-fired plants will continue to be an important source of energy for Kansas for years to come. We need to do what our leaders did not do in the 1970s: recognize that we must plan for the future and implement policies and strategies to make us more energy independent, to take advantage Kansas’ natural resources and capture the economic development potential of emerging industries.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Why?
This percentage is slowing increasing and I am glad to see that. Kansas has an opportunity to further diversify its economic base by facilitating the development of a wind energy industry, from manufacturing to production.
District 18 Jim Zeller R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 19 Anthony Hensley (I) D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 19 Shari Weber R-Vassar (Has not responded yet)
District 20 Vicki Schmidt (I) R-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 20 Carol Weinhold D-Topeka (Has not responded yet)
District 21 Mark Taddiken (I) R-Clifton (Has not responded yet)
District 21 Thomas Hochard D-Frankfort (Has not responded yet)
District 22 Roger Reitz (I) R-Manhattan (Has not responded yet)
District 22 Rusty Wilson D-Manhattan (Has not responded yet)
District 23 Karin Brownlee (I) R-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 23 Bill Jackson D-Olathe (Has not responded yet)
District 24 Pete Brungardt (I) R-Salina (Has not responded yet)
District 24 Abner Perney D-Salina
http://www.ksdp.org/node/5114
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 that we have more than sufficient coal –fired power at this time. We need to follow through with upgrades to the existing plants to reduce their pollutants and increase their efficiency, but only as an interim measure. Most importantly we need to develop a State Energy Policy that supports wind and solar power, innovative energy storage, and provides true net metering for independent renewable energy producers.
I also support an energy conserving Transportation Plan that de-emphasizes highway expansion, encourages pedestrianism and cycling, includes preservation of the existing rail rights of way and lays groundwork for expanded general freight and passenger rail service.
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?
Agree.
Why?
Dirty old coal has not been able to solve its pollution problems, including CO2 emissions in over 200 years of powering the industrial revolution. The allegation that it is the cheapest way to provide electrical power is a hollow argument for the long term. You can’t beat zero fuel cost, zero emissions, and zero water consumption of wind and solar power!
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 and Solar electrical generation systems have made huge advances in efficiency in the past 30 years. Kansas should also make efforts to bring the various emerging energy storage systems into our state to solve the problem of intermittency in Wind and Solar generation along with the problem of lack of flexibility in Coal and nuclear generation which results in tremendous inefficiencies during off peak times as the generators churn along, at a level much greater than current demand.
Energy storage systems that hold the most promise for Kansas include:
Compressed air storage and generation both in conjunction with natural gas and with pure air engines.
Flow batteries
Ultra capacitors
Flywheel generator sets
Pumped Hydro Power – Ok, that’s a real stretch, but Kanopolis Dam was originally built to contain a hydroelectric generation system. A second smaller reservoir has been mentioned as a water supply possibility for the Smoky Hill River. Theoretically at least, a second reservoir, a hydro plant , and the availability of off peak excess electricity from the nearby wind generation facilities could all come together there to help solve two sustainability problems at once!
District 25 Jean Schodorf (I) R-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 25 Hibbard Davis D-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 26 Dick Kelsey R-Goddard (Has not responded yet)
District 26 Pam Frieden D-Haysville
http://www.pamfrieden.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. This is good for Kansas. The benefits will ensure the future generations of Kansas healthier options, reduce energy cost and will be friendlier to the environment. It is important to strive towards a comprehensive, incremental energy 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
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 it is too high.
Why?
Wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are clean. Creating usage of renewable energy and the infrastructure needed will spur economic growth.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
I agree.
Why?
Again creating energy produced by wind is cleaner, healthier, and will encourage economic growth, especially in rural Kansas where economic stimulation is needed for survival.
District 27 Les Donovan (I) R-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 27 Melissa Flower D-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 28 Mike Petersen (I) R-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 28 Shala Perez D-Wichita
http://www.perezforkansas.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 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?
Kansas can do better
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Yes
Why?
District 29 Oletha Faust-Goudeau D-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 29 Kenya Cox R-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 30 Susan Wagle (I) R-Wichita (Has not responded yet)
District 30 Elizabeth Bishop D-Wichita
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 believe we should work for a comprehensive, diversified energy plan. We need a plan that combines all reasonable sources of energy. Our plan should also include workable and effective conservation measures.
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. There are programs that have been initiated in other states that have overcome the natural disincentives that exist for utilities to promote efficiency.
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. Kansas can build on its reputation for a strong work force and skilled workers. There are opportunities that we must not allow to pass us by.
F. Investment of state resources to develop necessary transmission infrastructure.
Yes. However—of course—I would need to carefully review specific proposals. Cost and location factors will predominate.
G. Incentives for regional and local ownership of energy assets.
Yes. Again, with a careful deliberation of specific proposals.
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
f national policy goes in the direction we expect—toward tighter regulation of fossil fuels—this could rapidly become uneconomic for Kansas businesses and consumers.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the current percentage of Kansas electricity provided by wind turbines (approx. 1%) is too low?
Yes.
Why?
Simply put, Kansas is wind-rich. It is beyond ridiculous for us to not take full advantage of a renewable resource that is being developed by most of the Midwestern states around us.
District 31 Carolyn McGinn (I) R-Sedgwick (Has not responded yet)
District 31 Gene Marsh D-Halstead (Has not responded yet)
District 32 Greta Goodwin (I) D-Winfield (Has not responded yet)
District 32 Steve Abrams R-Ark City (Has not responded yet)
District 33 Ruth Teichman (I) R-Stafford (Has not responded yet)
District 34 Terry Bruce (I) R-Hutchinson (Has not responded yet)
District 34 Dave Inskeep D-Hutchinson (Has not responded yet)
District 35 Jay Emler (I) R-Lindsborg (Has not responded yet)
District 35 Cynthia Nelson D-Lincoln (Has not responded yet)
District 36 Janis Lee (I) D-Kensington (Has not responded yet)
District 36 Larry Salmans R-Hanston (Has not responded yet)
District 37 Jeff Colyer R-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 37 Jim AuBuchon D-Overland Park (Has not responded yet)
District 38 Tim Huelskamp (I) R-Fowler (Has not responded yet)
District 38 Laura Mead D-Dodge City (Has not responded yet)
District 39 Steve Morris (I) R-Hugoton (Has not responded yet)
District 40 Ralph Ostmeyer (I) R-Grinnell (Has not responded yet)
