When Gov. Mark Parkinson capitulated to Sunflower Electric Power Corporation and gave his stamp of approval to a monstrous coal-fired power plant in Western Kansas, he sucker-punched his predecessor Kathleen Sebelius, who had mustered the political courage to oppose the pollution-spewing facilities for a solid two years.
The new governor also gave the finger to thousands of Kansans who put exceptional pressure on their elected officials to hold the line against the dirty idea.
Still, Parkinson insists his behind-closed-doors' agreement is a win for the environment. Sure, we get some more coal, the governor reasons, but we also get lots of nice perks, like more wind power development and a funky algae experiment, too.
Too bad it's mostly greenwash.
Let us count the ways.
Today: Imaginary carbon offsets.
By now, every kindergarten student knows that coal-fired power plants spew huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. Never fear, though, because Mark Parkinson thought of that before he signed his agreement allowing Sunflower to construct a giant climate-change accelerator.
In the press release, the governor said the treaty included an "unprecedented level of carbon mitigation" to reduce the environmental impact. In effect, Parkinson hopes to "offset" the coal pollution by balancing it out with renewable energy.
Too bad all the wind turbines in the world won't suck a single pound of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Even worse, Parkinson's carbon offsets are, at best, weak and, at worse, completely imaginary.
First, don't believe the lofty claims that the carbon
reduction measures entirely cleanse the project of any
impact on global warming. In a news conference announcing the deal last
week, Parkinson said, "It is entirely possible that the carbon impact
of this plant is zero or perhaps even less than zero."
There's a fancy trick to that assertion, though. Remember, Sunflower
wanted to build two plants in Holcomb. Parkinson only sold out for one.
To get to zero carbon impact, Parkinson is counting as a reduction the plant that doesn't even exist.
That's not the only imaginary carbon. The agreement calls for the decommission of two oil-fired power stations owned by Sunflower in Garden City. The governor's office suggested scrapping those old clunkers would save 60,000 tons of carbon per year. Actually, governor, that number is a big fat zero. Even Sunflower officials admit the facilities have been inoperable for years.
The agreement also asks Sunflower to burn fuel that includes 10 percent biomass -- displacing some of the coal. That, the governor's office assessment suggests, will spare 950,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
But wait, there's an escape hatch! The agreement says Sunflower doesn't have to burn a single shred of biomass if it is "technically or economically unviable." Meaning: If biomass costs more than coal Sunflower doesn't have to do it. Craig Volland, with the Kansas Sierra Club, ran the numbers and found that
the price of agricultural waste will almost certainly far exceed the costs of the black stuff. So Sunflower will probably get a pass on that provision.
There's one more curious twist. The Excel document calculating and outlining the carbon savings wasn't produced by the governor's office. It wasn't drafted by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, either. Click on the document's "properties" section and you'll see the author: Wayne Penrod, an engineer for Sunflower Electric Power Corporation.
Beth Martino, spokeswoman for Governor Parkinson, won't confirm the author. "The offsets were calculated as part of the confidential legal settlement negotiations," she wrote in an e-mail.
Showing 1-17 of 17
Now the whole state of Kansas has Parkinson's DISEASE. Where do these pimps come from?
Cudos to Carolyn Szczepanski and the Pitch - please continue digging into this.
It's extremely disappointing that the governor would make this deal and that so many legislators would vote for it after the stand that's been made so far.
Forward this to as many people and media outlets that you can - and express your frustration with your own legislators.
Once again, The Pitch steps in with some real investigative reporting and uncovers another dirty deal. Thank you Carolyn Szczepanski. This is why we should all support local newspapers.
Years ago William Allen White asked "What's the matter with Kansas?" ...We're still asking.
Kansas ratepayers and western Kansas ratepayers, in particular, are going to be in for a nasty surprise as coal prices continue to rise and the aquifer table starts dropping a little faster.
This is right on the money, but no less than I expected from this backward state with morality/truth-challenged politicians. I am shuddering and trying to make plans to leave this state when Sam Brownback is elected governor in a few years. The politicians always sell out the people of this state, until Sebelius came along, and she sold out in the end, also. This was a great and well researched article that will not be repeated in any major newspaper. Thanks for researching getting the story out.
Good reporting like this is why I go over to Lawrence from Topeka to pick up the Pitch. This whole "compromise" stinks to high heaven, and was all back room dealing. I hope everyone clicks on the link at the paragraph in the article talking about the cost of agricultural waste -- it leads to an analysis of a long litany of reasons calling this agreement "good for Kansans: is a sham.
I'm looking forward to reading Carolyn Szczepanski's second article on this topic.
Holy cow, it's even worse than I thought. So much for responsible governance.
Good work, Carolyn Szczepanski and The Pitch. Keep it up.
Every sensible, responsible Kansan who is tired of our state's fossilized approach to energy should start hammering representatives and senators to support conservation, renewables, and non-depletables. We need to be loud about it. Some of our reps say they aren't hearing from us.
I have to say that as an opponent to any new coal plants, this feels like quite a sucker punch, and right out of the gate, too.
This has been such a disappointment. I was actually bummed when he announced he wouldn't run for Gov. Now, not so much.
Mark Parkinson's "compromise" is remarkably disappointing. I expected so much more of him. I am having a hard time reconciling this action with the person I know as Mark. Kathleen Sebelius and many others worked long and hard and took a lot of flak to put Kansas in the forefront on this issue. Frankly I don't get it. My only hope is that Mark and his team know this plant will never fly economically anyway, so he just gave the big babies their toy and is going to let them break it on their own.
It is surprising how tepid of an agreement Parkinson crafted with Sunflower. As badly as Sunflower wanted this coal plant, Parkinson could have gotten far more concessions. Now everyone wanting something from the governor will view him as a weak negotiatior. The backroom atmosphere of this deal stinks to high heaven as well.
Excellent summary of one of the snakey-est (new word)deals in Kansas History (and that is saying a lot in Kansas). This is one of the saddest days for Kansas. Future generations will look back and wonder what the hell we were smoking starting in 1970. Jimmie Carter tried. Thanks, Ronnie. Nice knowin ya, Florida. My children and grand children are going to have an "interesting" future. Our little experiment on our little blue ball is in for one hell of a ride.
Mark- Technically, you're right. But as others have said here and according to what I've been told by experts, these plants are so old that they would need significant environmental retrofitting to be permitted by the EPA to operate again. Thus, the cost would far outweigh the benefit.
SC2009- Stay tuned for further posts about the regulation issue!
Agreed, jjskck.
The Pitch is right - it doesn't say the plants are already decommissioned. What we're looking at is Sunflower agreeing to take two plants offline they haven't used in 20 yrs...BFD!
Ratepayers in Western KS should hold onto their pocketbooks! As a result of the agreement, co-ops can opt-out of KCC oversight, and basically do whatever they want, like build a huge power plant for Colo while sticking KS with the dirty pollution.
Tri-State of Colo, who will get most of the power, will be laughing the whole way to the bank on this one....
Mark,
OPERABLE and OPERATED are two different things.
Yes, they are technically OPERABLE, just like the Kaw Power Station in KCK.
No, they have not been OPERATED in over 20 years. That's a fact, confirmed by Sunflower themselves.
The plants are horrendously inefficient, which precludes them from being put into use even for peaking. They saved not a penny for anyone.
Again, they are NOT in use. Ever.
The units to be decommisioned are peaking units. They ARE OPERABLE... And most likely provided cheaper energy rates to the people of western Kansas in the last year. Please do your homework on reporting, or even in commentary. Fools spew crap, and you are foolish on this one. Speaking of crap, last I remember western Kansas has a few large cattle feed yards which equals large amounts of cheap biomass in the area. Again, you are foolish with your commentary. Please stop spewing crap. You do not serve the best interest of the general public in doing so.
like
dislike
