As expected, California and 15 other states filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for blocking their authority to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the EPA had approved about 50 other waiver requests during the past three decades and its staff supported this one, the EPA administrator denied it, claiming that new federal fuel efficiency standards made the waiver unnecessary — which isn’t the case.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week called the denial “unconscionable†and said that the EPA is “ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming.â€
Expect the states to win this one.
In other global warming news, a new study published in the journal Nature reports that, while man is contributing to global warming, a natural energy shift in the atmosphere may be the main cause of the record-setting loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
55 Comments
Throughout the history of emission controls the EPA has allowed states to adopt stricter controls. This action by Bush goes against the intent as stated by President Nixon ‘way back when’ which was for the EPA to set a ‘floor’ rather than a ‘ceiling’ on quality.
I hope they do. The darn democrats controlling congress passed a bill that prolonged the American Auto manufacturers refusal to build hybrid and green cars until 2022!!
And then pat each other on the back for their green bill.
My Honda Civic Hybrid gets 44 MPG today!
So is it okay for a environmental administrator to ignore his staff or not?
Think Bremby.
Well, it looks like a majority of Kansans support Bremby’s decision to nix coal fired plants in Holcomb. Of special interest are the poll results of the First Congressional District, which show a majority in the district support Bremby.
And the end of the article is ineresting as well.
http://www.hdnews.net/
Maybe those poll results are why Sunflower is filing to purchase coal generated power from a proposed plant in Missouri?
http://www.hdnews.net/Story/mocoal010208
I am worried about “iguana rain” — that is what happens, in Miami, when it gets too cold — the Iguanas fall out of the trees!
Antone getting the impression kansas is still around with a(nother) new name?
Russian scientists says we need to get ready for “Global Cooling”:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Antone (anyone)!
I hope the latest version on global warming, or climate change, is correct. The problem is: what if it is not?
What is the problem with reducing co2 emmisions? For one, more energy effeciency. Two, cleaner air. Three, alternate sources of energy are researched, and, if found beneficial, instituted. Four, reduced dependemce on foreign oil.
Not a bad tradeoff, I would think.
Four, reduced dependemce on foreign oil.
Posted by: stumper | January 03, 2008 at 01:52 PM
AMEN TO THAT BROTHER. If for no other reasons. I see no reason for the EPA to block this. None whatsoever.
I see no reason for the EPA to block this. None whatsoever.
I do. the oil industry wants it blocked.
I suspect, Ben, in rounding up the factions opposed, the current auto industry might also like to see it blocked.
“…a natural energy shift in the atmosphere may be the main cause of the record-setting loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”
Why isn’t this the headline?
I wonder. Hmmmm
The iguanas want global warming.
Falling out of trees really hurts:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/365463.html
In my opinion there is no global warming. Man can do nothing for cooling or warming. We do not need more regulations on our energy needs.
But it would do us a world of good to get off the Opec/Mexican/Venezuelan oil tit. I’m not a GW follower, but I’m SCREAMIN for alternative energy just to get us independent.
For transportation, we don’t have an “alternative” in the forseeable future.
So, we should produce as much of our own gasoline, as possible.
For transportation, we don’t have an “alternative” in the forseeable future.
So, we should produce as much of our own gasoline, as possible.
Posted by: Econ101 | January 03, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Are you freakin HIGH???
No sol, paulthecon has a vested interest in holding America back and keeping it dependent.
For transportation, we don’t have an “alternative” in the forseeable future.
Yes, we do.
Sol
What alternative do YOU see?
Ethanol is not an alternative, it costs almost as much energy to make as it is worth.
Electric cars are not going to take over much of the market, anytime soon. Battery costs alone keep them from being practical, for most people.
Hydrogen sounds like a possible solution, but the technology to produce it, in large measures, is still expensive.
People WANT a cure to cancer and the common cold.
People want “the fountain of youth” — some things just can’t be wished into existence.
Name the alternative that YOU feel is most likely to make gasoline “obsolete” would you please?
I do think Methane Hydrate and Coal Gasification and Oil Shale Gasification are in our future, but those are all carbon based fuels.
Ok by me. They make more sense than anything else, right now.
None of the 5 sources of renewable energy that show up on the Nation’s energy supply are viable for transportation.
It is going to take a long time to see renewables take over fossil fuels even in the area of electricity generation.
“Renewable energy’s market share stood at almost 7 percent in 2006″
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html
The EV-1 was a good option several years ago; unfortunately GM destroyed them. They were a pure electric option. Hybrids are good – while they still use gasoline they use a lot less. A number of other options for reduction are available.
Then you can add such things as mass transit for another segment. No one answer; just a number of things that could be done to cut our liquid hydrocarbon use in half.
Like you I am skepticle about hydrogen and ethanol. And, having worked in coal liquifaction (both direct and indirect) a quarter-century ago I know that there are ‘issues’ there.
“In other global warming news, a new study published in the journal Nature reports that, while man is contributing to global warming, a natural energy shift in the atmosphere may be the main cause of the record-setting loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
With all this controversy Sebelius and her puppet Bremby attempt to kill the power plants in Holcomb (?). Their motivation is political, not good government based on good science, and especially not on good law. But that’s really never been important to a neoliberal Democrat.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl
“Well, it looks like a majority of Kansans support Bremby’s decision to nix coal fired plants in Holcomb.”
Hum, wonder how they will support it after their electric rates start climbing through the roof with alternative energy and the global warming hooey cools away.
AgHawk – note the synergism between circulation and total energy available. That is what is accellerating the melting even afster than predicted. Some of us had suggested that the circulation would become stronger as energy increased; this is what has happened.
The migration of both the Ferrell-Hadley boundary and the Polar front to higher latitudes is perfectly consistent with both climate warming and additionally accellerated Arctic melting.
The Antarctic; because of the circum-antarctic current through the southern ocean and the vary high plateau in Antarctica, is much less effected by this. The main effect there appears to be more precipitation as more moisture is carried toward the poles.
AgHawk,
You’re in luck! Last week, Westar was denied their request to raise their profit margin on renewable energy by 10%!
Ben PhD LG,
Thanks for your attempt to be informative, I appreciate that kind of dialog. Quite honestly, I don’t know whether that is factually what is happening or not but at least YOU try. Much more interesting than most of the pseudo scientists and intellectuals (only in their own minds) characters usually spouting off on these blogs.
Example; “You’re in luck! Last week, Westar was denied their request to raise their profit margin on renewable energy by 10%!”
Posted by: Tom
Tom, it was 1%, pay attention.
Why would the investors want to expose themselves to higher risk without the potential for higher reward. That’s the way it works.
Aghawk,
If they were getting a rate of return of a little over 10%, and asked for an increase to 11%, how much is the marginal increase?
Please show your work.
By the way, anyone with any brains at all is ready to mortgage the farm, to invest in alternatives, if one can be shown to be economically viable.
I would love to have a “vested intererest” in the next idea.
I don’t see one, just yet.
Ag – itneterstingly, I was at least somewhat sympathetic to Westars request. However, I question whether the additional ‘risk’ really exists to justify a premium.
As for 1% vs 10% it depends, as Tom notes, on whether you are looking at absolute return (an increase of 1%) or the relative difference (10%)
In the case of wind we have enough of a track record to get good numbers. This is in contrast, for example, to the situation that existed with nuclear when they did Wolf Creek.
Right, Ben PhD LG, I understood from the beginning.
Thu, Dec 6, 2007 Wichita Eagle;
1978 law at center of wind-power profit debate
“The law lets the Kansas Corporation Commission, which sets electric rates, increase a utility’s rate of return on alternative energy by 0.5 to 2 percentage points.”
Fri, Dec 28, 2007, Wichita Eagle
Ruling: No extra profit for Westar with wind
“Westar is asking for a 1 percentage point hike in potential profits from wind power,”
Tom,
I understood you using the 10% but it still boils down to them asking for a 1% increase in their profit.
Aghawk,
If you would have made $100,000,000 on a project, and then increased that profit to $110,000,000, that’s not a 1% increase in profit. It’s a 10% increase in profit. If it’s a $1-billion project, it’s a 1% increase in the rate of return.
And I don’t believe you understood what I was writing in the first place.
And in any case, Aghawk, if you want to see the whole Westar argument played out on this blog, see http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/regulators-were.html
Austin Energy customers can pay a higher, but “fixed” fuel charge for GreenChoice power.
The 5.5 cents per kwh is for NEW GreenChoice subscribers — some earlier subscribers are below 3 cents, and pay less than non-GreenChoice customers.
http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Green%20Choice/index.htm
“The GreenChoice charge of 5.5 cents per kWh is fixed until December 31, 2022. It replaces Austin Energy’s fuel charge of 3.65 cents per kWh. The average residential customer consuming about 1,000 kWh per month will pay about $18.50 more per month for GreenChoice power.”
Tom, believe what you like, I did understand, and debated saying anything, but for many it sounds like they are asking for another 10% and they are asking for another 1% total rate of return.
The way the paper chose to print it as listed above, they were getting approx. 10% rate of return and are asking for an additional 1%. To ask for another 10% would seem quite unrealistic, although as a shareholder it would be fine with me….I’m a devout capitalist. So when you stated it as you did I want to make sure all folks understand it’s a 1% increase in the rate of return.
To ask for another 10% would seem quite unrealistic, although as a shareholder it would be fine with me….I’m a devout capitalist.
Posted by: AgHawk | January 03, 2008 at 07:14 PM
No offense, but to be more accurate you’re a devoutly ignorant capitalist.
Westar is a monopoly. Do you know what that means? Can you explain in your own mind the difference between a monopolist and a utility that faces competition?
How can you argue that they deserve an increase in ROR, given that (1) the natural resource used as input, wind, is free, abundant, and renewable, (2) due to #1, Westar’s overall ROI will increase even if they invest in wind energy without a KCC approved 1% increase, and (3) by law Westar has zero competition in the marketplace?
You’re a “devout” capitalist in that you are a kind of redneck capitalist cheerleader for corporate greed, I’ll give you that.
Great. No rate increase for Westar. They are a monopoly.
Great. No new windpower in Kansas.
From anyone.
Did you win?
Great. No new windpower in Kansas.
From anyone.
Posted by: Kansas II | January 03, 2008 at 07:42 PM
If I’m right, that Westar’s ROI will increase despite the KCC’s denial of a price increase sufficient to provide them a 1% increase in ROI, then the odds are good Westar will invest in wind power anyway.
Unless they’re devout monopolists, that is.
Everybody should win in that case, yes.
Sorry Pedant, I guess you are wrong:
As a result of the KCC ruling, Westar has already announced they are stopping new windmill development.
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/422156.html
“The company wanted the commission to permit it to earn an additional 1 percent return.
Westar spokeswoman Gina Penzig said the company sought the higher return because of an increased financial risk associated with investing in renewable resources.
State law allows utilities to seek an additional return of up to 2 percent for such investments.”
KCStar.com
As a result of the KCC ruling, Westar has already announced they are stopping new windmill development.
Posted by: Kansas II | January 03, 2008 at 07:56 PM
Well, that’s the first round of negotiations, yes. As the regulator of Westar, KCC has some pretty significant arrows in its quiver, though. For example, I suppose the KCC could allow a wind-only competitor into the marketplace.
That might make Westar behave a bit less like a monopolist here, lol.
Kansas II, thank you.
Pedant on the other hand is a humorless idiot, “no offense” of course. He can’t seem to understand that if it weren’t for capitalists he wouldn’t have any power or heat, light or anything else. And unless there is motivation for taking financial risk, nothing gets done. I am quite satisfied that I have been able to not easily force myself to take risks with my career and it has worked out. With that I have invested very heavily in the stocks of many companies that produce, service, employee, invent, develop, etc. It is because of people like Pedant that I am shifting some of my investments to commodities because people like Pedant will make a decent rate of return increasingly hard and in turn less will be produced. As less is produced, what is will become increasingly expensive. I now want to hold those things.
And though Westar is considered a REGULATED monopoly, not just a monopoly, they do have to compete. They have to compete for investor dollars so they can produce and investors won’t invest without adequate opportunity for a return. And worse, they have to compete against numb-skulls like Pedant, no offense, but I have little fear, for as you said Kansas II, Westar won’t do anything that they can’t come out on and that includes wind power generation.
Personally, I’m convinced people like Pedant are simply jealous that they are either too unsuccessful to have the resources to invest or they are cowards and can’t find the courage to take risk. No offense.
None taken, Barbie.
LOL
Posted by: Pedant
“I suppose the KCC could allow a wind-only competitor into the marketplace.
That might make Westar behave a bit less like a monopolist here, lol.”
They might, doubtful though, and if they did the other company would have to utilize the transmission grid of Westar, and that will cost them. And I doubt the KCC could or would force Westar to buy power from them. That would increase ratepayer costs even more. Remember before you simply hate a successful company, Westar is not a pure monopoly, it is under the thumb of a state regulator. They can’t be forced to operate without adequate return on investment and the investors decide that ultimately. Westar is also one of the most reliable and least costly power companies in the nation.
Posted by: Pedant
“I suppose the KCC could allow a wind-only competitor into the marketplace.
That might make Westar behave a bit less like a monopolist here, lol.”
They might, doubtful though, and if they did the other company would have to utilize the transmission grid of Westar, and that will cost them. And I doubt the KCC could or would force Westar to buy power from them. That would increase ratepayer costs even more. Remember before you simply hate a successful company, Westar is not a pure monopoly, it is under the thumb of a state regulator. They can’t be forced to operate without adequate return on investment and the investors decide that ultimately. Westar is also one of the most reliable and least costly power companies in the nation.
Hum, the system did the double post for some reason…not I.
I guess they liked it, uh Pedant?
You’re painting a picture of Westar as if it were a fifteen year old girl.
Remember that monopolists that complain they can’t make enough money, even when their largest variable input is free, probably need some competition to kick ‘em in the *ss.
You and Herron are investors in Westar: I get it, I am too. Doesn’t mean the rest of Kansas has to pay a higher price for power the source of which is free, nearly umlimited, and completely renewable.
I guess they liked it, uh Pedant?
Posted by: AgHawk | January 03, 2008 at 08:31 PM
The internets gods are smiling on you tonight, AH, no doubt about it.
(It happens with this stupid Typekey crap, no rhyme or reason sometimes.)
You are right Pedant. Kansans I hope will be able to get the cheapest rates on their power as possible. I mean, after all, I’m one of them and pay those rates too. Just a bit of a prod there, ha. My Westar stock dividend is not so great as to overcome high utility cost. And what’s really important as well is that the power is economical to industry and businesses that consider locating here. I’m really not a complete capitalist mercenary-I don’t think, just strongly believe in the profit motive as the only reliable way of promoting industry and employment.
I disagree that their “largest variable input is free”. Just like the water company, the water the city pumps is free to them, but the infrastructure to get it and deliver it is anything but free.
I’m all for wind energy as long as it works, is reliable, and doesn’t cost us a bunch more and cause companies to decide to go elsewhere to operated and employ.
I even think the things are rather magnificent looking out there on the high prairie, but they won’t completely replace gas and coal or nuclear generation because the wind doesn’t blow constantly, just seems too, and they can’t store either the wind or the power.
While I’m not against Westar getting their 1% profit increase, they’re not the only company that can build wind farms in Kansas. Meridian Way Wind Farm plans a 200MW with 125 windmills up by Concordia. Seems like they’re doing fine without Westar. There are wind farms all over Kansas right now, both existing, and being built, and they’re getting along just fine without Westar. It must be profitable, or they wouldn’t get built.
http://www.kansasenergy.org/documents/WindProjects.pdf
Check the link. You might be very surprised how many wind farms we have. If Westar chooses not to get into the game, sounds like a poor business decision to me. Let them go pout if they want to. Sombody else will take up the slack.
Correction: Instead of how many we have, how many are proposed. Lots of companies out there who aren’t Westar
They still have to utilize Westar’s grig for distribution if in Westar’s service area. Purchasing power is usually more expensive than creating it if they already have the means. Those other companies are only producing, not distributing, the power and are selling it to existing companies. Much of the expense in suppling power is the distribution not just the creation of the power itself. Westar is too much of a ‘business’ to “pout” they will make their decision based on profitability longterm, and right now that is not wind. And if it becomes wind, which I hope it does, it will come at more of a cost to us, that means you, if they have to buy the power from someone else than the 1% they are asking for which is very reasonable.