Sebelius Cites Biased Report to Defend Holcomb Decision

The Wichita Eagle, in both an editorial and a blog posting, has been fawning over a recent report written by Innovest, a “financial analysis firm,” which questions economic feasibility of the Holcomb plants. Sebelius has pointed to the report as evidence that her position on Holcomb isn’t just about protecting the environment but also a concern for the “cost-effectiveness of coal-fired power.”

Now, I’m not a professional reporter but I you’d expect the Eagle to do a little background check before describing this thing as an “independent report” by an “influential international financial adviser group.” So here are a few basic points.

Before providing “nonbiased” analysis, Eric Kane, a Senior Analyst at Innovest and chief author of the report, was a Project Manager for Earth Pledge, that among other wacko things, advocates for sustainable/edible/ biodegradable fashion.

Innovest is by no means an independent Wall Street group ala “JP Morgan” or “Citibank.” It’s actually an environmental advocacy firm that masquerades as a research group and is usually commissioned by corporations and large financial firms to improve their public relations image and add a “green face” to an otherwise heartless, profit-driven company. Their “Carbon Principles” represent the same sort of PR makeover that corporations used in South Africa when they brought in U.S. civil rights advocates to craft the “Sullivan Principles”- the only difference is no one should have been running businesses in South Africa, but we should be providing much needed jobs for the people of Western Kansas.

It has total of 13 footnotes with 3 citable sources. Of the 3 citations, it looks to the Kansas Wind Resources Map and the American Wind Energy Association two of the fountains they used for data. I wonder if Sebelius would take a report I made seriously if I was drawing on data from the American Coal Advocacy Association? Something tells me that’s a red flag…

But there’s more. While there’s been significant movement in the regulatory landscape, as the report points out, 98% has been through go-nowhere bills that are currently dead in Congress. I’ve spent enough time in Topeka to know that it takes more than someone introducing a bill to get it signed by the Governor. They laud the Markey Waxman bill, which mandates sequestration technology. But that bill currently collecting dust in some committee office. The Safe Climate Act, the Clean Power Act, I could go on and on: all dying is some drawer at the EPA.

But more importantly, the Sunflower Plant will be one of the cleanest, most technologically-advanced coal plants in America. And even with the most draconian future federal regulations, Holcomb will be well ahead of the curve on CO2 emmisions and joint renewable. They’ll have the easiest time complying to any new standards that Washington might send their way.

But the underlying ridiculousness of this report is that I have a lot more trust in Sunflower assessing the cost-benefit analysis of their $3.6 billion project, and any foreseeable financial obstacles in the future, than some tofu munching environmentalist sitting in a beanbag chair in Manhattan. But of course Sebelius would rather take her financial advice from captain greenpeace.

Tell you what. I'll give credence to the Innovest report, if Sebelius is willing to let them manage her personal finances. Until then, I 'll be green and use the "study" as toilet paper. Do you think Sebelius would applaud that effort if I told her about it at Yale's green forum in a few days?

Why is this woman our governor?