Matt Gunterman July 7th, 2007
WHAS’s political reporter Mark Hebert has an excellent post on his blog about the confusion among the coal companies, governor, legislature, and journalists surrounding just what’s trying to be located and built in Kentucky. I’ve posted excerpt’s from Hebert’s comments below.
OK, let’s take a moment here to consider just how incompetent the reelection effort of Governor Ernie Fletcher (R) really is, and let’s make our point of reference in that inquiry the political fiasco that is the special session that never was and never will be, or so it appears.
First, this coal-to-natural gas plant controversy doesn’t reverberate much outside of the Western and Eastern Coalfields, and — being from the Western Coalfield — I can tell you that, from the conversations I’ve been having with Democrats in the region, it doesn’t reverberate much there, either. Democrat Steve Beshear will win places like Union, Muhlenberg, and Hopkins Counties (the latter is his home county) quite handily. I did notice that the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer editorial page endorsed the notion of the special session, and Representative Jim Gooch (D) went on record as furious at House Democratic leadership for adjourning when they did, but the general mood in this region is that Ernie Fletcher is not a viable candidate. Worst case scenario for Steve Beshear because of this: he barely loses Daviess and Henderson Counties (and I have a hard time imagining that) and wins the rest of the region outright. There is a great deal of anger in Owensboro — a great deal, and rightly so — about Fletcher’s veto of the second phase of the technology center at Owensboro Communion College.
Second, what Fletcher really needed out of this special session was to get back the projects that he vetoed earlier. To have those projects back would have provided Fletcher the opportunity to pass out over-sized checks across the state over the next three months and thus bask in the glory of the good press that comes with them. Fletcher’s fatal political mistake with all those vetoes was that he assumed that demonstrating “fiscal conservatism” would help him in the Republican primary, but fiscal conservatism was a theme that barely reared its head in that campaign, and it certainly little influenced votes. Ernie Fletcher’s win in that primary election, in fact, was propelled by his public celebration of his ability to doll out pork. Furthermore, if Fletcher had kept the projects intact originally, there’s no reason he couldn’t be handing out checks now. I seem to recall in the administration of Governor Paul Patton a substantial lag between announcements in the newspaper that my native county had received state funds for a project and the actual public presentation of the funds via giant check.
Third, by keeping the agenda of the special session so confused, Fletcher left the door open for Democrats to do what they did: make a good argument that the session is frivolous and simply an example of Fletcher playing politics. In other words, Fletcher played a miserable match of chess. If his campaign had had its wits about it, it would have mapped out a strategy to go after what it wanted while backing the Dems into a corner. Instead, Fletcher’s team focused like a laser on their narrow goals and didn’t seem to worry about leaving an out — or many outs, as was the case — for the Democrats. It’s as if the Fletcherites were too busy patting themselves on the back for being such geniuses to notice that they were being complete and total dingbats.
From Hebert:
[...]
First, some clarifications. The estimated economic impact of $10.8 billion dollars would be spread over 25 years, according to governor’s budget office. Indiana does not have similar incentives. And the Peabody Energy official, Rick Bowen, never said Kentucky would be out of the running for the Coal-to-NATURAL GAS plant if it didn’t approve a state incentive package within the next 90 days. In fact, Bowen hustled out a back door of the committee room, up the stairs and into a senate office, refusing to come out and answer reporters questions after his testimony. One of those questions was “if lawmakers don’t approve an energy bill with incentives for your plant, would that kill Kentucky’s chances?” Bowen did say he would “recommend” the plant be built in Kentucky if the legislature passes the incentive package proposed by the senate.
More info from today’s hearing: It was the first time anyone, including Gov. Fletcher had spoken with clarity about what kind of plant Peabody plans to locate within 90 days. As recently as two weeks ago, at an A and R meeting in Northern Kentucky, state officials and others were talking about an immediate need for incentives for a coal-to-liquid fuel plant or a coal-to-gas plant (interpreted as diesel). Peabody’s Bowen says the only plant it will build for sure is the coal-to-NATURAL GAS plant. They’re still studying whether a coal liquification plant is feasible. Even Sen. Robert Stivers (R) Manchester, who has been deeply involved in crafting energy legislation, admits there’s been widespread confusion among lawmakers, the Fletcher administration and news reporters about Peabody’s plans and what they need from Kentucky right now. In fact some legislators who defend Fletcher’s calling of the special session have been telling their constituents “you’re complaining about high gasoline prices. Well we’re trying to do something about it.” Not true in the short run, perhaps in the long run, but only if Peabody, other companies, Wall St. and Congress determine that coal-to-liquid plants are a good bet for America’s future energy needs.
House Speaker Richards says his meeting with Bowen went well. He believes Peabody would be fine with a letter signed by him, Senate President and Governor Fletcher promising state incentives and tax breaks for Peabody if it decides to locate the coal-to-NATURAL GAS plant in Kentucky. Richards says other companies who expanded in Kentucky, including UPS, G-E and Toyota have all been fine with the promise on paper. But Bowen told the senate committee that he didn’t believe Wall St. investors would sink money into a project based on a written promise. He says they’d prefer something more concrete, like a new state law.
