Kansas Senate bill would limit local government’s ability to retire fossil fuels
Cities would not be able to ban natural gas as an energy source under a bill being considered in the Kansas Senate. Environmental organizations say the bill could slow a transition to renewable energy, while supporters say measure would help keep Kansas electric rates low.
“I understand that cities that might want to go all-electric, but I think they should have a choice and I’m going to fight for that here,” said Senator Robert Olson, a Republican from Olathe. “I think natural gas is clean energy and I think we’ve gotten so wacko in this state. We are one of the greenest states in the country.”
The bill is similar to proposed legislation in Missouri and Indiana, as more cities across the nation commit to green energy initiatives. The initiatives vary widely, from San Francisco which ruled that all new homes, offices and restaurants must be electric-powered to a coalition of Kansas City suburbs who committed to using clean energy for city services.
Closer to home, Lawrence adopted a measure last year to power the entire city with green energy by 2035, removing natural gas as an option. This bill being considered by the Kansas Senate Ultility Committee, would prevent Lawrence from following through and other Kansas cities from following suit.
The bill was opposed by 42 Kansas residents, environmental organizations, city and business representatives. Fifteen groups supported the bill, several of which were natural gas and electric utilities. The mix also represented local businesses, Kansas AARP and Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, who said they were concerned about high electric rates.
Several of the residents who opposed the legislation were young people who said they were concerned about the future of climate change and that this bill would encourage the expansion of fossil fuels.
Senator Mike Thompson, a Republican representing Johnson County, said he wants to “allay any fears about additional carbon dioxide,” and quoted a study that claimed carbon dioxide emissions have zero impact on global temperatures.
The debunked study, written by William Happer, a well-known climate change denier and a Princeton University professor emeritus of physics, was part of a misconduct investigation earlier this year. Happer’s paper was part of a series of scientific reports that denied climate change that was published without White House approval by two senior officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Both the officials and the reports have since been removed.
The Kansas Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, and the Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board, chose to remain neutral on the bill, saying that these types of policy decisions belong to the Kansas Legislature.
The committee will meet next Tuesday to discuss amendments and changes to the proposed legislation.
Opponents of the bill
The League of Kansas Municipalities, three Kansas cities and one county declared their opposition to the bill alongside representatives of nine organizations and 33 Kansas residents.
Opponents of the bill asked legislators to protect local governments’ rights, consider the environmental concerns of climate change and not shield the “dying industry” of oil and gas.
“Let’s not let our current challenges create a roadblock for local progress and opportunity, especially when it comes from freeing us from the burden of fossil fuels,” said Zack Pistora, a lobbyist for the Kansas Sierra Club. “This would erode the opportunity for communities, local democracies, to have that choice on the local level.”
Grant Mayfield, a junior lobbyist for Kansas Sierra Club, pleaded with the committee to think of young people’s future regarding climate change and not back this bill.
“The free market has not, and will not, adjust quickly enough to incentivize sustainable technology and choices for consumers,” Mayfield said. ”We must regulate in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change, and the window in which we can do this is rapidly closing.”
Mayfield also accused several committee members of bending to the oil and gas industry’s will because of campaign contributions.
The bill’s support
The fifteen groups which supported the bill argued it is necessary to lower electric rates for residents and businesses and a uniform policy is needed to avoid the uncertainty of “patchwork” legislation.
“We feel that these sorts of proposals are short-sighted and will only hinder our communities’ ability to reduce emissions, but at the same time placing a significant economic burden on their businesses and households,” said Patrick Vogelsberg, representing Kansas Gas Service, Kansas’ largest natural gas distributor. “We feel that Kansas should join that list of states and make it clear that Kansas is a state where all energy options are going to be available to their citizens.”
Scott Schneider, representing the Kansas Hospitality and Restaurant Association, a Wichita non-profit, said restaurants needed natural gas to cook and that restaurants would leave cities without the bill.
“The restaurants are here because we need to cook food . . . using whatever source the cook wants to use,” Schneider said. “You think, ‘How do you cook on a wok without a fire?’”
Dan Murray, a representative of the National Federation of Independent Business, the largest small business association in the country, said it represents 400 Kansas businesses, and 88% of its members support this bill, as the cost of electricity, propane and natural gas are significant concerns.
Citing concerns about low and middle-income residents and the affordability of electric rates, representatives from Kansas AARP and Americans for Prosperity also spoke in favor of the bill.
