TOPEKA — As the Kansas Legislature continues to spend time and tax dollars to meet the energy needs of Colorado and Texas and provide economic development for Wyoming, the Kansans they represent are ready to see greater development of the state’s own abundant resources to produce electricity for Kansas and spur economic growth within the state, according to new poll results released today. In a poll conducted in early February for the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE), nearly two-thirds of Kansans statewide prefer that the state expand clean, renewable types of energy production like wind power and energy efficiency over building new coal burning electric plants (64% wind – 18% coal). The poll also shows that 88% of Kansans feel it is important that Kansas become energy independent by developing natural gas and wind resources that already exist in the state.
“Clearly, Kansans are confident that our clean energy resources can help lead our state away from a dependence upon imported fossil fuels and create jobs and investment right here,” said Scott Allegrucci, Director of GPACE. “The economic stimulus bill passed by Congress includes approximately $50 billion to develop renewable energy,” Allegrucci said. “The Kansas Legislature has a choice: Take advantage of federal dollars and leadership to develop Kansas’ native resources, or force Kansans to further support the Wyoming coal industry.”
The poll was conducted for GPACE by a bi-partisan polling team. Public Opinion Strategies has extensive experience polling in Kansas, including work for Republicans Sen. Pat Roberts and Gov. Bill Graves. Hamilton Campaigns has extensive experience polling on energy issues in Delaware, Florida and Louisiana as well as a long history in Kansas dating back to Democratic Gov. John Carlin.
According to the poll, 78% of Kansans also favor net metering, which would allow citizens to generate their own renewable electricity and receive credit for their contributions.
“Kansans are very supportive of real net-metering and energy efficiency, if our legislature would adopt those policies,” Allegrucci said.
“We think our legislative leaders should focus on the needs and the can-do spirit of Kansans instead of trying to force Kansas to generate electricity for Colorado and Texas and send $100 million Kansas dollars to Wyoming each year for more imported coal when we have untapped energy resources right here, right now.”
The poll sampled 800 voters statewide, with a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points; and an additional oversample of 400 that led to 586 total voters in the 1st Congressional District, with a margin of error of +/- 4.0 percentage points. (See attached memo for additional details.)
GPACE is a Kansas non-partisan, non-profit organization that supports a clean, secure, prosperous energy economy benefiting more Kansas businesses, farms, communities, and all future Kansans.
# # #
UPDATE 3-26-09
The Chamber of Commerce has released a poll claiming that Kansans support coal. It is clearly flawed in a number of ways:
- The Chamber poll was conducted by a partisan Republican firm – the GPACE poll was conducted by a bipartisan team including a Democrat and a Republican polling firm.
- The Chamber poll sampled only half as many Kansans as the GPACE poll.
- The Chamber has been saying all along that they are not pushing for a single coal plant, but rather are interested in “regulatory certainty.” Why then was their poll focused only on the coal plant?
- If the coal plants enjoy such widespread public support, why is renewable energy policy for the entire state being held hostage in order to secure votes for the coal plants?
- Speaker O’Neil is holding renewable energy policy for the entire state hostage, even as he pushed a clean vote on economic incentives to help attract a wind turbine manufacturer to his district. That bill passed the House 125-0. Why is the Speaker punishing the rest of the state by playing politics with renewable energy policy, at the same time as he is using tax dollars to bring the benefits of the renewable energy economy to his district? And he does this, even as he is publicly quoted in the Lawrence Journal World today saying that wind energy is “not a doable, possible scenario in our lifetime and probably not in our children’s lifetime.”
