Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Rhonda Holman’s Kansas Energy Policy: Not Good for Kansas

    Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman writes “[Kansas Governor Kathleen] Sebelius gets it. Too bad the Kansas Chamber does not.”

    This is the end of her lead editorial from today titled Kansas Chamber protecting past. In it, she claims that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce is out of touch with the reality of global warming, and by extension, that our governor isn’t.

    Ms. Holman cites a study showing that green investment in Kansas could add many jobs to our economy. That’s no doubt true. But these jobs have all the characteristics of public works jobs, meaning that for each job created, one is lost somewhere else. That’s because these jobs don’t add to the wealth of Kansas, as we already are producing electricity. These new jobs simply shift Kansas to using a different form of power generation, one that Ms. Holman prefers.

    Now if this shift was necessary to save our planet, that might be one thing. But the consensus behind man-made global warming is not as strong as Ms. Holman claims. And even if true, it might be best to learn to deal with the changing climate rather than try to stop the change.

    Even if global warming is due to man’s activity, there’s very little we in Kansas can do to stop it. As illustrated in the article KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, Kansas is just a tiny speck on the Earth. Other countries overwhelm anything we can do in Kansas:

    So even if Kansas stopped producing all carbon emissions, the effect would be overcome in about 16 months of just the growth in China’s emissions. This doesn’t take into account the huge emissions China already produces, or the rapid growth in other countries.

    That’s right. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions in Kansas, the growth of emissions in China would very quickly negate our extreme sacrifice.

    That’s the reality of the arithmetic of carbon emissions. But Ms. Holman thinks this is okay.

    One of the comments left in response to Ms. Holman’s editorial argued in favor of solar and wind power and stated “Zero energy cost forever and zero drawdown of the Ogallala [sic] aquifer — what’s not to like?” This comment writer might want to take notice of impending expiration of the wind production tax credit, which gives money to subsidize the production of these two types of power. Without this subsidy, supporters of wind and solar power concede that investment in these forms of energy will likely cease. Furthermore, our local electric utility is asking for a rate increase, in part due to the expensive cost of wind power. See Tax incentive for wind energy producers set to expire and Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.

  • A Free Market for Electricity in Kansas?

    A letter in today’s Wichita Eagle makes the case for a free market in electricity. An excerpt:

    I am among a growing number of Americans who are skeptical about the human impact on climate change. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence that our behavior is causing the changes many environmentalists tend to blame on humanity. So it seems wrong to force me to pay higher electric rates because of unproven theories about our impact on the environment.

    I think those people who support such theories should pay the higher rates for electricity, since their beliefs are driving costs higher. Instead of charging all customers higher rates, only charge those customers who want to use alternative energy sources. This policy could easily be implemented by sending all ratepayers a ballot so they can decide which energy source they prefer to use.

    A market-based solution to part of this rate increase makes perfect sense. People who believe humans are responsible for climate change can pay for it, and those of us who are skeptical can continue to enjoy lower energy bills.

    Deregulation of electricity markets has been tried — sort of — recently, and it didn’t work out as well as it could have. The problem was that it was only partial deregulation, as explained in Short-Circuited, an article at the Cato Institute. California’s Troubles Not Caused by Deregulation explains the situation in California.

  • Does Kansas Economic Development Work?

    A commentary by AFP’s Alan Cobb (Yes, but it’s only $1.3 billion) reports that Kansas economic development efforts are not working.

    Can the same be said about Wichita’s?

  • Kansas State Fair: Who Isn’t There

    Having spent about 20 hours the past three days collecting signatures on petitions at the Kansas State Fair, I have this observation: After looking at several hundred names and addresses, not one was from a town or city in Johnson county. I collected signatures from other northeast Kansas counties, but not one from Johnson county.

  • Kansas electric rates increase because of wind power generation

    Electric rates may be increasing for many Kansas consumers. Why? To pay for a new coal-fired plant?

    According to Notice of Public Hearings & Comment Period available at the Kansas Corporation Commission, the reasons Westar Energy cites as creating the need for a rate increase are repair costs from a recent ice storm, investments in new natural gas plants, and investments in wind energy.

    It turns out that electricity generated by wind is expensive, even though the federal government pays producers $.015 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by wind. (This payment, made through a tax credit, is set to expire at the end of this year unless the United States Congress extends it.)

    In the Wichita Eagle article Residents bash Westar rate plan, we learn that people are angry over the proposed rate increase. Some are suffering a hardship with present rates. According to Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, presently running for the Kansas Senate, “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.” A rate increase won’t help these people.

    As our state, under the leadership of Governor Kathleen Sebelius, moves towards using even more wind power plus other expensive forms of energy, rates will have to increase further. At that time I would not be surprised to see programs put in place where taxpayers subsidize expensive energy costs for low-income households.

  • Analysis of Kansas Wind Power Prospects

    In the post Is Sebelius’ call for more wind-power all hot air? Kansas Liberty reporter Holly Smith provides excellent analysis of the current situation regarding additional wind power generation in Kansas.

    Some important findings:

    With more wind power, electricity bills will be higher. Wind power generation is costly, and costs are rising rapidly.

    There aren’t enough transmission lines from where the wind farms are located.

    There is no scientific basis for associating emissions with public health risks.

    T. Boone Pickens says “I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly.”

    The Wall Street Journal editorial Wind Jammers sums up part of the problem: “In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.”

  • Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group: Its Heritage

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work looking into the background and affiliations of the Center for Climate Strategies. This is important because CCS is the radical environmentalist group that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is using to run the activities of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.

    The blog post announcing this work is Center for Climate Strategies in Black & White. The work is ongoing.

  • Kansas Climate Change Mitigation Will Be Costly

    A recent presentation in Kansas revealed that fighting global warming in Kansas will be quite costly, and will harm lower-income families most.

    The Wichita Eagle article Business leaders hear climate talk reports that The National Association of Manufacturers calculated that cap-and-trade proposals before Congress would cost the average Kansas family $304 per month in the form of higher prices for energy. That’s a very large penalty for Kansas families, especially low-income families, to pay to mitigate something that not all scientists agree is a problem.

    Then, even if you agree that global warming is a problem, there’s very little that Kansans can do in light of global factors outside our control. As reported in KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, the rate of growth of carbon emissions in China and other countries is so large that it overwhelms any attempt by Kansans to reduce their emissions. Even a complete cessation of carbon emissions by Kansans would quickly be negated by China’s growth. And, China is not willing to take steps to mitigate their output.

    $304 per month, or $3,648 per year, would be a crushing blow to the budgets of many Kansas families. This burden would be on top of many thousands of jobs lost. As reported in Kansas companies put out of business by high fuel costs, the high cost of diesel fuel has caused some trucking companies in Kansas to close, and others have reduced the number of trucks they operate. Those who think that these extra fuel and energy costs can be absorbed by families and the economy with no adverse effects are not being realistic.

    For more information, view the slide presentation here. The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and Analysis is an easy-to-read analysis of the cap-and-trade proposal.

  • Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group: Hiding Budget Numbers

    Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch writes about the budget transparency of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.

    Kansas government often has troubles with transparency. One of the main problems with KEEP is that policy is being formulated under the guidance of an outside radical environmentalist group, instead of in the legislature by Kansans, where it belongs.

    Climate Strategies Watch is a great place to learn more about the Center for Climate Strategies. For example: “CCS portrays itself as a technical advisory service organization that does not advocate for specific policies that will affect climate change. However, certain facts about CCS belie this claim and prove the group is controlled by global warming alarmists who seek solutions that will dramatically increase energy costs and raise taxes, in addition to infringing upon freedom and property rights.”