The Lawrence Journal-World, June 17
Oppose Westar rate increases
Advocacy groups are right to oppose rate hikes sought by Westar Energy.
The Citizens Utility Ratepayer Board, or CURB, a state agency that represents consumers in utility rate cases, and staff members from the Kansas Corporation Commission filed testimony last week asking the KCC to reject Westar’s request for a $17.2 million rate increase. Instead, the groups believe Westar should cut rates for Kansas customers by anywhere from $69 million to $125 million.
“CURB’s evidence strongly supports the need to decrease rates for all Westar customers and we hope the KCC will adopt our recommendations in this rate case,” CURB consumer counsel David Nickel said in a statement.
Westar provides service to about 700,000 customers in Kansas, including Lawrence. It is the state’s largest electric utility.
In February, the company filed a rate request seeking a rate cut of $1.6 million in September before increasing rates by $54 million in February 2019. But KCC has since approved the merger between Westar and Great Plains Energy, parent of Kansas City Power & Light. Westar said the merger will produce savings and adjusted its rate hike request to $17.2 million overall.
Over time, the rate hike will help the company recover the cost of developing the new $400 million Western Plains wind farm in southwest Kansas, Westar said.
The proposed rate hike would cost Westar customers an average of $2.80 per month.
Both the KCC staff and CURB argued that Westar should not be allowed to recover costs associated with the Western Plains wind farm. “Westar acknowledges that this investment is not necessary to provide service to Westar’s customers,” Nickel said. “Therefore, CURB believes it unfair to saddle the ratepayer with the risk of the investment.”
In addition, both KCC staff and CURB are recommending smaller fees than Westar is proposing for customers who use solar panels and other self-generation systems.
For customers with self-installed solar panels, Westar wants to charge 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour of energy used as compared to 5.6 cents for regular customers. Westar also has proposed a demand charge on solar customers in which the customers would pay an extra charge on the highest hour of usage between 2 and 7 p.m. This charge could add $25 to $35 per month to solar customers’ bills.
Westar argues the fees are needed for residents with their own solar because those customers still use the company’s power distribution grid but buy a lot less electricity.
Westar’s rationale for the rate hikes is misguided. If the Western Plains wind farm couldn’t produce a return on investment without a customer rate hike, then Westar shouldn’t have made it. And it’s disheartening to see the company propose rate policies that punish those who have invested heavily in energy efficiency, such as homeowners who have installed solar panels.
The KCC’s mission is to regulate rates to ensure fairness and to promote energy conservation and efficiency. Westar’s rate hike proposals don’t pass muster on either.
____
The Kansas City Star, June 13
Kansas Supreme Court could shut down schools June 30. Should the deadline be extended?
The Kansas Supreme Court has yet to tell the state’s citizens if they are spending enough on their schools.
That’s a potential problem because the same court has said the schools can’t be funded past the end of the month and won’t have money to open. That’s a little more than two weeks from now.
Should Kansans be worried? A little. Courts are always unpredictable, and there’s a slim chance the justices could order the schools to close on schedule. That would be troublesome for districts now and a disaster about seven weeks later when schools are scheduled to open.
Most observers doubt that will happen. They expect the judges to extend the deadline, perhaps as soon as this Friday. Then the court will tell Kansas lawmakers they must provide additional money for schools.
We’ve endorsed that idea. State spending for schools, on a per-pupil basis, cratered under former Gov. Sam Brownback and has yet to fully recover. The Legislature’s injection of another $500 million over five years is a step in the right direction but may not be enough to meet constitutional standards.
At the same time, the judges should realize the tight budgetary calendar now facing school districts and give lawmakers some breathing room.
It would be virtually impossible for legislators to gather for a special session in the few remaining weeks of June to address any funding shortfall. Even if they could meet, rushing to cobble together a funding plan in just a few days would be unwise.
The Legislature could meet in July. That, too, creates problems: House members running for re-election face primary voters on Aug. 7. Most will want to spend July campaigning or meeting with constituents. Moreover, a special session just days before the primary might distort decision-making by incumbents in tough races.
That leaves August, after the primary election. By then, though, schools will be open. School boards and administrators will have reached funding decisions for the next year or will have postponed those choices, leaving districts and schoolchildren unsure of the quality of teaching this year.
The most likely outcome? The state Supreme Court will keep the schools open and perhaps endorse the funding scheme for the current fiscal year. It could then order the 2019 Legislature to fully address the funding shortfall in future years.
That possibility makes voters’ choices supremely important this fall. The new governor and the new Legislature will confront school funding as soon as they gather in Topeka in January. Voters should demand straight answers from candidates: Will you support public schools? How?
They should firmly reject candidates who want to pass the buck by changing the state’s constitution or who actually want to provoke a constitutional crisis.
Conservatives have long complained about the court’s role in school spending decisions. Yet the answer to that problem has long been clear: Fully fund education, and the courts will go away. Cheat children, and the courts will intervene.
Closing Kansas schools on June 30 accomplishes nothing. The Supreme Court should take that option off the table and then order a permanent fix early next year.
_____
The Topeka Capital-Journal, June 14
Shawnee County should audit coroner’s office
Forensic Medical Holdings LLC, which operates the Shawnee County District Coroner’s office, has some explaining to do.
Three employees of the office spoke at a county commission meeting last week. They said that services offered had been substandard and the county should return to running the office itself. Despite the employees’ pleas, Commissioners Kevin Cook, Bob Archer and Shelly Buhler voted 3-0 to continue the privatized contract.
Afterward, it appeared, all three coroner’s office employees were fired.
That raises serious questions about the company that operates the office, and it should prompt commissioners to ask themselves some serious questions too. Because the three were not county employees, they were not able to use an anonymous tip line. If they felt there were serious problems with the office, what other option did they have?
Coroner Charles Glenn acknowledged the office had a backlog of cases. And one of the employees said the company wanted him to take on a heavier workload than the industry standard. Another employee said that despite Shawnee County receiving assurances to the contrary, the parent company prioritized other counties’ cases ahead of our own.
In other words, there are serious problems.
Across the state, privatization has been touted as a simple solution for systemic deficiencies. The state’s Medicaid and child welfare systems have been contracted out. Recently, the state’s Department of Revenue outsourced information technology jobs.
Yet, in none of these cases have Kansans seen the promised rewards. KanCare continues to see delays in processing applications. The Department for Children and Families is still struggling to fulfill its duties (while adding a dash of discrimination to gay parents along the way). And the Department of Revenue has apparently decided the state doesn’t need employees with technical expertise.
So why would we expect the county coroner’s office saga to play out any differently?
An audit of the office should be conducted. Is it actually serving the county as promised? Are the employees’ complaints justified? Are Shawnee County residents receiving the services their tax dollars pay for?
It’s disappointing to see that commissioners so blithely disregarded the employees who showed up last week. A 3-0 vote in the face of such compelling testimony should raise an eyebrow. Frankly, it should raise eyebrows across the county and lead to our elected officials being asked some hard questions.
Now that the employees who testified seem to have been fired, county commissioners have an opportunity. They should pursue an audit.
Depending on the findings, they may well need to reconsider that unanimous vote.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.