“Regulatory uncertainty†has become the mantra of those trying to overturn the Holcomb coal-plant decision — see, for instance, this Eagle commentary by Earl Watkins of Sunflower Electric Power Corp.
But Nancy Jackson of the Land Institute counters that Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby didn’t invent regulatory uncertainty — his decision merely reflects the larger regulatory changes under way in the nation as Congress considers a host of new greenhouse gas restrictions.
“Ironically enough, that is precisely why some of the nation’s leading corporations — and largest greenhouse gas emitters — are calling for carbon dioxide regulation,†she writes.
These businesses see carbon regulation as inevitable and want to help shape the rules. Kansas corporations should do the same, Jackson argues.
38 Comments
Who created regulatory uncertainty?
Answer: The citizens of each state of the U.S. who want to breath clean air and drink clean water.
“Regulatory Uncertianty” came from the “Reinvention of Government” started in 1992 with the Clinton Administration. Both Brownfields and the XL Program were started by Carol Browner and VP Albert Gore. The VPP Program was started by Robert Reich at the DOL. The process has continued under the Bush Administration under the “Regulatroy Flexibility Act”.
These actions undermined the “enforcement postures” within the regulatory community and adherance to strict regulatory process accorting to compliance with laws. The current process in Environmental Health and Safety is to “partner” with the violators.
We have slid backwards down the slope of worker safety and environmental protection. The Power Plant isssue will be overturned. The “Regulatory FLexibility Act” and the “Reinvention of Government” Policies “door” swings both ways.
Regulatory uncertainty? You mean like the bozos at the Kansas Water Office, the Corp of Engineers, the Division of Water Resources? hehehehe. I know most people dont care about the water the Holcomb plant uses but…
Here’s a little example of their stellar regulatory performance. When Hays and Russell proposed to drain Cedar Bluff for their ethanol and irrigation industries, the Cedar Bluff supporters noted that Wilson and or Kanopolis were better sources of water.
OH NO said the water office and all their sebelius cronies.
So… look at this article. Especially the oh so accurate predictions about what would happen to Kanopolis if the water office had sold all the water it WANTED to sell out of Kanopolis.
Heheheh. And NOW they agree about Wilson? I cant resist saying “told ya so”….
http://www.saljournal.com/rdnews/story/corps_wilson_lake_1_18_08
Yeah they are shilling the coal plant all day wall to wall on right talk radio.
Fact is? The plant is not needed or wanted by the people of Kansas and uses Kansas water and pollutes Kansas air to produce power for the people of Colorado.
Who already say THEY don’t want it.
The correct decision has already been made. Now, they are trying to buy a different one.
Jackson is full of it. Same old liberal pap. If it wasn’t the Sunflower Plant it would be another cause. I’m for the Sunflower plant and clean energy. Carbon credits are a false alarm and so is global warming. Pollute today and get credits? We are over regulated anyway. I see coming down more control by environmentals we don’t need or want. It’s only going to get worst. Regulators want control of your mind, stomach, energy, health and welfare.
Carbon DiOxide is NOT pollution, not under current law.
CO2 should NOT be turned into a pollutant by nanny-state regulators.
If CO2 is treated as a pollutant, by legislators, it will be a mistake, but it might actually be legal.
No matter what, carbon based fuels will be with us, forever. Liberals are trying to kill economic growth and control our lives. They are worried about their predicted, future “harm” — but to prevent that “harm” they do REAL harm, today.
These arguments that we “don’t need” another coal fired plant are ridiculous.
The same was said about Wolf Creek, when it was built. We would have a hard time doing with out Wolf Creek, today.
If the Earth is warming there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop that warming.
While the goals of developing alternative energy sources are valid, Clean Coal, Shale Oil, and Methane Hydrate must be in that mix of alternatives.
Econ101 posted January 19, 2008 at 9:52 am
“Carbon DiOxide is NOT pollution, not under current law.”
Wrong econ101. Under “natures” law, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
Human-added CO2 is causing undesired global warming, and climate changes.
Human-added CO2 is polluting Earth’s atmosphere.
Cosmos
Current law does NOT reflect your theory.
I hope that the courts agree with me.
Regardless, we NEED carbon based fuels. There is, as of yet, no alternative.
Restrictions on economic growth will cause death.
Restrictions on carbon will be restrictions on growth.
comatose, I mean, cosmos posted:
““Carbon Dioxide is NOT pollution, not under current law.”
Wrong econ101. Under “natures” law, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.”
If you believe that…comatose, please just quit breathing. You are a significant source of CO2 yourself…do your part and stop.
cosmos,
That was a cheap shot taken more out of frustration as there is not much an individual can do about global warming, and most the suggestions can harm the economy. I still feel global warming has far more questions than answers an I’m not ready jump in a direction without knowing what the consequences will be.
Don’t stop emitting CO2 from your metabolic process, okay.
george and econ the relexive shill:
“Government regulation of business is bad. Baaad! Sqawk! Sqawk!”
Regulation is often necessary, and actually is often the least intrusive method governments have in dealing with corporate behavior that can have potentially damaging effects. Even some corporations actually prefer clear regulations to the alternative, because it provides some up-front protection from lawsuits, and regulatory costs are easier to factor in than costs related to later litigation and clean up.
And Paul, your statement “If the Earth is warming there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop that warming.” once again meets the absolute criterion of Harry Frankfurt’s definition of bullsh*t. There is no concern for reality in that statement, it is a statement of truthiness and what you want to believe according to your preconcieved political viewpoint. Most scientists indicate that while global warming is probably envitable, the extent of it is not, and changes in human behavior can reduce its impact.
AgHawk posted January 19, 2008 at 10:54 am
“If you believe that…comatose, please just quit breathing. You are a significant source of CO2 yourself…do your part and stop.”
Unlike the fossil-fuels we burn (which were safely sequestered underground) the CO2 we exhale is carbon neutral. It comes from the plants we ate, which recently captured it from the air.
It’s part of Earth’s natural carbon cycle.
We say what industry deregulation and voluntary emission controls did for Texas under then Governor George W Bush – Houston displaced Los Angeles as the city with the worst air pollution in the country.
Nice going, George.
Now here is a PARADOX concerning Wichita’s water supply and ethanol production.
The city of Wichita obtains a portion of its water supply from the Equus Beds aquifer near Halstead. The other portion comes from Cheney Lake. I presume the percentages vary from time to time.
The city of Wichita has been recharging the Equus Beds aquifer by assisted percolation for a number of years. But more recently Wichita has begun pumping water into the Equus Beds aquifer from the Little Arkansas River when level of flow permits.
In fact, Governor Sebelius proposes in her budget to provide additional funding to increase this Equus Beds aquifer recharge to be used in drought periods for water supply for Wichita.
So far, all well and good. Storing water and even natural gas in aquifers and domes underground has been used for many years.
HOWEVER, just eastward down Highway 50 near Newton, ICM Corporation is planning to build a large ethanol plant to reportedly produce some 40,000,000 gallons of ethanol per year. According to ICM’s conservative figures, this ethanol plant will require some 110,000,000 gallons of new water from the underground aquifers. This estimates 2.75 gallons of water needed per each gallon of ethanol produced.
Most reports estimate an average of 10 gallons of water is needed per gallon of ethanol produced plus another 10 gallons of water minimum to irrigate the corn needed for the ethanol.
SO THE PARADOX IS: WHILE THE THE CITY OF WICHITA SPENDS MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS TO PUMP OVERFLOW WATER FROM THE LITTLE ARKANSAS RIVER INTO THE EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER NEAR HALSTEAD … ICM’S ETHANOL PLANT A FEW MILES WEST NEAR NEWTON WILL BE DRAWING OUT MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER FOR PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL.
We say [sic] what industry deregulation and voluntary emission controls did for Texas under then Governor George W Bush – Houston displaced Los Angeles as the city with the worst air pollution in the country.
-WSclark
When did this happen? On what basis is the pollution measured? What evidence supports your claim?
As of May 2007, LA is on top smog city with Houston number 5 according to American Lung Association. For particle content, no Texas city is even in the top 25!
http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html
If deregulation caused Houston to take first place during GWB’s governship as you claim, then what is the reason for LA’s top spot for smog in 2007? Also please explain how there are no cities in TX that are even in the top 25 for particle pollution.
The last I checked, GWB was Governor of Texas between 1992 and 2000 – things change. You are quoting 2007 figures.
Texas has had to do many things to undo the damage of the Bush Governorship, just as America will have to do many things to undo the damage of the Bush Presidency.
Congratulations to Nancy Jackson, daughter of Wes Jackson, president of the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, for picking up the sword and speaking out on environmental matters. In the opening comment on this thread, Wichita Eagle’s columnist, Randy Scholfield credits Ms. Jackson for countering self-serving remarks by Earl Watkins of Sunflower Electric Power Corporation. Brings to mind the old saying, “Girding the lion in his den.”
But you might want to check this out……..
“Houston has a serious air quality problem. Since 1999, the Texas city has exchanged titles with Los Angeles as having the most polluted air in the United States defined by the number of days each city violates federal smog standards.”
ttp://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydaylife/archives/HP_ILP_Feature_03.html
cosmos
Posted January 19, 2008 at 11:20 am
“Unlike the fossil-fuels we burn (which were safely sequestered underground) the CO2 we exhale is carbon neutral. It comes from the plants we ate, which recently captured it from the air.”
GOOD…I can stop feeling guilty about the CO2 I exhale from my personal carbon burning metabolic process. Thanks!
But just the same, I’m NOT turning the stove off as it’s way too COLD, global warming or not.
The last I checked, GWB was Governor of Texas between 1992 and 2000 – things change. You are quoting 2007 figures.
-WSClark
And you have yet to quote any 2000 figures or given account for how Texas’s 2007 figures have changed so dramatically from what you claim they were in 2000.
Did Texas re-regulate their utility industry after Bush left for the WH. NO. So why the improvement if your premise is true?
You can not just make up stuff here.
“You can not just make up stuff here.”
One, 2007 figures have not changed dramatically. The NASA report was from November 30, 2007.
Two, the first time Houston supplanted LA in the number of days above Federal smog guidelines was in 1999.
Enough said.
Read the article then get back to me.
rfl posted January 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“Did Texas re-regulate their utility industry after Bush left for the WH. NO. So why the improvement if your premise is true?
You can not just make up stuff here.”
Wrong! (Loud, annoying buzzer sound)
http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_6maj_grndfthr.html
“Based upon the low participation in the voluntary program for non-utility grandfathered facilities, the Legislature passed groundbreaking legislation in 2001 which finally ended the era of the grandfathered facilities in Texas. Under HB 2912 — which created major reforms in environmental legislation and changed the name of the TNRCC to the TCEQ, all grandfathered facilities were required to apply for special permits and commit to emissions reductions.”
The 2001 Bill applied to the grandfathered plants that had up until that time been immune to the 1972 Texas Clean Air Act. These plants were high polluters BEFORE deregulation came en vogue in 1995.
“Before 1995, electric utilities in Texas operated as monopolies with guaranteed regulated incomes….”
http://www.texasep.org/html/nrg/nrg_2ele_dereg.html
Deregulation in 1995 CANNOT be blaimed for the high levels of pollution emmitted by plants that were built over 23 years before deregulation ever came into existence.
Cosmos, you are getting regulation of utilites into forced monopolies and environmental restrictions on the emissions of power plants confused. They are not the same issue but interrelated.
WSClark, your link doesn’t work for me for some reason. But thanks for at least providing one this time!
“Full retail competition began in Texas on January 1, 2002″
http://www.texasep.org/html/nrg/nrg_2ele_dereg.html
Hint: In case you were wondering, that means that after Bush left Texas in 2000, The utilities were STILL deregulated.
That does not means that they are immune from following emissions guidlines passed by the legislature. Which brings us back to the original topic of this thread. The elected legislature (as was the case in 2001 in TX) should decide the policy for approving or disproving utility infrastructure improvements or construction.
rfl, you’re the one who is “confused”.
Bush wanted, and got, “voluntary” pollution regulations. The plan was written by the polluting industries.
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0216-01.htm
“Federal laws such as the Clean Air Act are forcing industries to cut pollution, but air quality in Texas continues to decline.(2) Rather than adopting tough laws to reduce pollution from aging facilities, Gov. George W. Bush asked industry to draft their own regulations to pre-empt legislative action. After a briefing by the industry insiders who wrote the plan, DuPont official Jim Kennedy noted that the voluntary industry proposal, had “no `meat’ with respect to actual emissions reductions. One of the [business] leaders actually stated that emissions reductions was not a primary driver for the program.”(3)
The result of Bush’s voluntary policy has been that only 15 percent of the 760 so-called “grandfathered” plants have signed up for the voluntary program.(4) According to the Dallas Morning News, “[Bush's] voluntary anti-pollution initiatives have produced only marginal improvements.”(5)”
More at,
http://www.txpeer.org/Bush/Polluters_Bet_On_Bush.html
As I posted at 2:16 pm, in 2001 the TX legislature required facilities to commit to emissions reductions.
McPherson, Kansas has the lowest electrical rates in Kansas thanks to coal energy. Another one of the reasons I’m for the Sunflower low emission coal plant. Take a read:
http://www.mcphersonsentinel.com/articles/2008/01/19/news/news3.txt
WOW paulthecon!
You served up two count ‘em tow softballs.
“No matter what, carbon based fuels will be with us, forever.”
FOREVER? And here I thought you were only shilling for them as long as you live and make money shilling same. But forever? You not only have no faith in the American people you have no faith in the human race!
What if folks like you had the say when we were using say whale oil? Well we’d have been in the dark before you were hatched.
Such a level of strict definition and frantic ranting implies desperation. And that is right where you are. Desperate people often don’t think. And you weren’t when you said:
“These arguments that we “don’t need” another coal fired plant are ridiculous.
The same was said about Wolf Creek, when it was built. We would have a hard time doing with out Wolf Creek, today.”
Uh huh? Um the electricity from the “needed” new plant was not for Kansas. It was for Colorado.
But you weren’t done making a fool of yourself.
CLEARLY you didn’t know. I didn’t.
Wolf creek has been offline for a week. I didn’t hear until day 5. you didn’t know at all!
Where’s the “hard time”? I’ve heard of no power shortage in Kansas or anywhere else.
So we have so MUCH surplus power already, that Wolf Creek is down and no one even knows.
There’ll be no coal fire plant expansion there paulthecon. To do otherwise subverts the will of the people of Kansas and uses Kansas water and pollutes our air for what? For you? Because you say we need it and just proved we don’t?
Hey to all of you environmental wackos out there, here is the solution to climate change:
Do your part by not talking so much and exhaling C02!
If the GW Alarmists want to help out, they can stop flying in corporate jets or any jet for that fact, sell their cars and move out their energy hungry houses into more green living quarters.
But you know they won’t do that. It’s all about political power, not to save the planet.
Juvenile:
“Uh huh? Um the electricity from the “needed” new plant was not for Kansas. It was for Colorado.”
—-
Where do most of the airplanes go, that are built in Kansas?
Where does most of the wheat go, that is grown in Kansas?
The Holcomb plant would provide Kansas jobs and Kansas tax revenue.
American, of the USA posted January 19, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“Do your part by not talking so much and exhaling C02!”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/01/who-created-regulatory-uncertainty/#comment-277498
American, of the USA
Sounds like a Steven Colbert title.
“I am America and so can You”
The state of Kansas prefers to conserve it’s aquifer water and not further pollute our air paulthecon.
You lose.
It was me. I did it. … I think … actually, I’m uncertain …
… but I am regular.
Sorry WAR, you are not me.
I’m a registered user of Kansas.com. All they have to do is check the IP and email.
Sorry bud, those stolen nic tricks don’t work anymore.
Who speaks for the “state of Kansas”???
If put to a vote, I am pretty sure Kansas would want a coal plant that would produce jobs and tax revenue for the state of Kansas.
5 Trackbacks
sunflower oil…
I have never seen anything like this, don’t know if i like it though, either way thanks for posting it it….
Fountain Lover…
I hope i can get true you\\\’re spam filer so i can say that you have a great blog and thank you for the link back, greets….
greatings…
nice…
Mia Tyler Pics…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
Fountain Lover…
And how is it working for you, it has been some time between now and this post, i was just wondering if you are happy with it….