Taxpayers took a bath with Kansas plant

While much has been made of the $535 million loan guarantee made to the failed Solyndra Corporation in 2009 to encourage alternative energy, you may have missed the court decision this week, halting expansion plans for a Kansas coal plant facing similar problems.

The ruling underscores how deadbeat coal plants can be even more costly for taxpayers.

Back in 1980, Sunflower Generation Corporation in Kansas received $543 million in federal loans and loan guarantees (taxpayer money). Like Solyndra, they were not able to pay that money back. So they arranged deals with the federal government to “restructure” the loans, multiple times. Sunflower was unable to repay taxpayers due to financial strain related to over-built Holcomb I, the existing coal plant Sunflower owns.

Sunflower now charges ahead with plans for an even bigger facility. The proposed multi-billion dollar, 895-megawatt coal-fired power plant expansion is designed to serve the western grid through a deal with Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. Kasas gets the pollution, Colorado gets most of the power.

Fans of unEarthed may remember the outrageous backroom deals attempted by Kansas coal-boosters to get this project built.

This week, we received good news that the days of wasting taxpayer money on polluting, taxpayer-subsidized, coal plants may come to an end.

A decision by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. will require a thorough environmental examination to determine the public health impacts if the expansion plant is built, and whether alternatives for power generation might be available in one of the sunniest and windiest places in the continental USA.

For Americans who pay taxes (and breathe), this decision is a breath of fresh air.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Last week (Tuesday, October 18th, to be exact) marked the fourth year since then-Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment Rod Bremby issued the historic denial of air quality permits for the proposed 1400 MW Holcomb Station coal-fired expansion sought by Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (of Kansas), Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (based in Colorado), and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative (of Texas).

That Was Then

Bremby cited the (then) recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and the United Nations IPCC reports on global climate change and its impacts upon human health and the environment among his reasons for the denial.  His decision also cited Kansas statutory authority clearly delegated to the KDHE Secretary for such decisions.  His decision was the first instance in the United States of a public official blocking coal plant construction based in part upon concern for health and environmental impacts from climate change caused by coal-fired power plant emissions.

Pro-coal forces in Kansas and elsewhere immediately launched an assault on then-Governor Sebelius, with paid advertisements in national media linking the decision to support for foreign dictators and hyperbolic claims that Bremby acted “illegally” and “against the will of Kansans.”  The ads were blasted by observers everywhere as false information and fear-mongering, and subsequent multiple, bi-partisan polls in Kansas showed clear and overwhelming public opposition to the proposed coal plant project with its emphasis upon unneeded electricity generation, imported resources, pollution of Kansas, and value and economic impact for other states.

The Sebelius administration spent significant political capital defeating multiple versions of pro-coal and anti-regulatory wish-list legislation in 2008 and 2009.   As late as April of 2009, then-Lt. Governor Parkinson repeatedly and publicly called out the lies and misinformation project supporters were using to justify their efforts.

In the wake of the 2008 national elections, the pro-pollution and climate change denial machine (generously funded and guided by Kansas’ own Koch brothers) increased efforts to undermine established scientific consensus regarding climate change and human-caused drivers of global warming.  Using climate change denial and the economic recession as a kind of Trojan horse, the pro-pollution, anti-health crowd has undertaken a concerted effort to not simply stop regulation or valuation of greenhouse gases, but to undo 40 years of federal public health and environmental protections – protections that have coincided with unprecedented overall economic growth and prosperity in the United States.

Sunflower Electric and its allies dodged continuous questions about the project (from financial mismanagement, to “clean coal” falsehoods, to demand realities, to water consumption) and threw everything and the kitchen sink at the decision and support for it, including personally naming Bremby, Sebelius, and Parkinson in a frivolous federal lawsuit.   Yet, the project remained stalled for legal, regulatory, financial, and other reasons.  Golden Spread moved on, and developed wind and natural gas assets to meet its relatively small need for future generation capacity.

Public and administrative support for Bremby’s decision stood firm until Sebelius departed for a Presidential cabinet appointment.  Immediately upon being sworn in as governor, Parkinson announced his own secret deal with Sunflower Electric that gave pro-pollution advocates everything they had ever wanted (and that he had previously called “dishonest” and “unnecessary”), including a 900 MW coal plant at the Holcomb Station and a complete stripping of state responsibility for air quality.  Of note, Bremby never signed the settlement agreement and KDHE was never involved in the development of the deal.  Parkinson then embarked upon a process of collusion and political pressure that saw the project permitted before the end of 2010 despite unprecedented public opposition – ultimately firing Bremby in order to clear that path.

This Is Now

In mid-2011, former KDHE Secretary Bremby accepted an offer by the governor of Connecticut to apply his considerable talents and commitment to public service on behalf of that state’s citizens.

Former Governor Parkinson is now a highly paid lobbyist in Washington, DC, and former Sunflower Electric Power Corporation CEO Earl Watkins has retired.

The Bloomberg Foundation (of New York City’s Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg) recently donated $50 million to Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.

And a Republican sweep of statewide elected offices and Congressional seats leaves Kansas with the most conservative (and pro-polluter) public leadership in the state’s modern history.

Meanwhile, the pesky reality that, due to massive unpaid taxpayer loans, Sunflower Electric is essentially a federal government entitlement project did not escape the attention of a federal District Judge, who ruled that Sunflower Electric and the Rural Utilities Service of USDA had violated federal law in pushing the Holcomb Station coal-fired expansion forward at taxpayer risk and without legally-required review. Remediation in that case is pending, as is a Kansas Supreme Court review of a legal challenge to the KDHE permit and process for the project.

According to the permit granted by KDHE, the proposed plant is not state of the art or clean, as claimed, but will in fact be one of the dirtiest plants in the nation.

Electricity demand is down and, even accounting for the recession, projections are for much lower demand than utilities had been claiming.

None of the primary project partners can demonstrate a need for coal-fired generation from the project – it appears to be essentially a merchant plant designed to benefit Tri-State since it will be phased for the Western Grid and will be owned entirely by Tri-State.

The much-touted jobs and economic benefit from the project are years away at best, since there is no need for the plant’s capacity and Tri-State has publicly stated construction will not begin prior to 2016, at the earliest.  Still, Kansas elected officials continue to help Tri-State delay the project while blaming “environmental extremists” for the delays.

The fundamental science that informs the worldwide observations of global warming caused by anthropogenic climate change continue to be confirmed, including by a recent study funded in part by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation.

Kansas’ relative ranking in achievable wind energy capacity has increased.  Recent tall tower data for Kansas from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows even more wind density than previously measured, with wind generation capacity factors in southwestern Kansas reaching over 50% in some instances.  Wind farm and transmission development in Kansas continue apace, regardless of the proposed Holcomb Expansion coal-fired project.

Lower prices and increased supply have made natural gas cost-competitive with long-term coal contracts, and its cleaner emissions portfolio beats coal’s performance (and cost) under increasing public health and environmental protections.  Natural gas is also a much better partner for renewable energy integration than coal.

In spite of deceptive and misleading partisan political tactics, modern and necessary public health and environmental protections (most developed under previous Republican administrations, many focused on power plant emissions) continue to be implemented and supported by a significant bi-partisan majority of Americans.

The regulatory uncertainty caused by partisan political opposition to carbon regulation or valuation, in the context of virtual certainty by key actors in capital finance markets and energy policy circles that greenhouse gases must and will be regulated in the future, has created significant overhanging risk, halting most investment in new coal plants and making the economics of coal plant retrofits questionable.

Efforts continue to obscure the facts, derail the rule of law, and deny the public interest in order to benefit the coal plant project and its special interest allies.  All in all, though, it seems that Mr. Bremby’s decision four years ago remains as visionary and important an act of public service now as it was in October of 2007.

Scott Allegrucci is the Executive Director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Across the nation, old coal-fired power plants are gasping for their last breath, having survived long past their prime because of political favors and weak government regulations. They would have died decades ago if not for a fateful policy compromise in the late 1970s that exempted existing power plants from new air quality standards in the Clean Air Act.

The compromise was based on a prediction that the plants would be retired soon, but instead it gave them a whole new lease on life, with a free pass to pollute for another 30 plus years. And until recently, there was no end in sight.

These plants continue to cough up toxic pollutants like mercury, lead and arsenic into the air. They are by far the biggest producers of the power sector’s pollution, forcing millions of Americans to seek their own life support – in the form of respirators and inhalers – just to get through each day without an asthma attack.

Earthjustice litigation is taking steps to close the loopholes and retire dozens of the old plants, while cleaning up those that continue to operate. We are employing a multi-prong strategy to compel the Environmental Protection Agency to strengthen pollution standards based on the best available science and technology.

National environmental laws like the Clean Air and Clean Water acts are meant to be updated regularly to reflect the current science. Thanks to our litigation, the EPA has recently begun to deliver on the promise of our nation’s environmental laws by taking long overdue action on limiting mercury from coal, cleaning up the air in our national parks that is obscured by power plant haze, and setting national standards on water pollution. In addition, the EPA is currently on the hook for enforcing greenhouse gas emission standards, updating national standards for smog and soot.
Our goal is to end what amounts to government subsidizing of the coal power industry, and to invigorate the clean energy economy. That’s good for the climate, for our health—and for jobs. Early this year, a report by Ceres showed that the EPA’s two new air quality rules would create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years because of pollution control equipment and jobs from clean energy development.

As EPA does its job and these new regulations are adopted, dirty coal plants are being forced to decide whether to pay the price of significant pollution upgrades – or shut down and replace that power with cleaner choices.

Of course, coal plant owners and their allies don’t want to have to make that choice. Even now, instead of focusing on ways to fix the economy, the coal industry is waging an all-out defensive attack on environmental protections that are good for the nation but threaten their industry’s bottom line.

Some coal plant operators have seen the writing on the wall. Since many plants are already past their prime, some are choosing to retire—a hard decision made all the easier by our litigation. For example, this spring the owner of the Trans Alta coal plant, Washington state’s largest source single source of air pollution, agreed to shut down the plant by 2025 after coming to the realization that installing the air pollution controls necessary to comply with air and water pollution standards was not a profitable venture. Currently we’re also stepping up efforts to shut down dirty, outdated coal plants in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Montana, Nevada, Texas, Tennessee, and the Midwest.

We’re also working to encourage clean energy alternatives. Our clean energy program includes preventing construction of transmission lines that favor coal over renewable energy sources and encouraging smart grid developments that rely on clean energy sources like wind and solar, strengthening efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, and pushing full implementation of state-level climate and renewable energy policies.

The nation is at an energy crossroads. One path cuts old ties and moves on to a clean energy future powered by a mix of next generation power sources. The other path prolongs our dependence on an energy source that is cooking the planet and making us sick. The choice is clear. Thank you for joining with us as we help build the clean energy path.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

October 7, 2011

Dear Madame Secretary:

As the Executive Director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE), I write to you regarding the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL project and the process of administrative assessment related to the National Interest Determination (NID) and Presidential Permit review process for the project.

Briefly, GPACE is a Kansas non-profit organization formed in 2007 to support a clean, secure, prosperous energy economy benefiting Kansas businesses, farms, communities, and all future Kansans.  We have coordinated grassroots education and outreach and legislative lobbying with a diverse alliance of partner organizations and communities, including private companies, other non-profit groups, student organizations, and religious congregations around Kansas and the Great Plains region.  GPACE has approximately 2,000 active members and a direct, opt-in communications network of over 10,000 citizens.

In addition to our commitment related to current energy policy action, our diverse membership is united by an expectation of ethical conduct in the public interest on the part of our representatives in government, and by a commitment to the well being of future generations of Kansans when enacting policies that will determine their energy and economic realities.  If results from multiple statewide, non-partisan polls conducted over the past four years are considered credible, the general views of GPACE reflect those of a majority of Kansas citizens.  Of course, I write to you today representing the shared values of our organization and its members.

While we are a regional organization, based in and focused primarily on Kansas, we share the concerns expressed by hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens around the country regarding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project.  Those concerns relating to the threat from the project to local communities, precious ecosystems, and critical shared resources (especially fossil and groundwater sources) are in our view legitimate and should in themselves be grounds for at least a revision of the current project EIS, which we consider inadequate.

Added to these concerns are the issues of questionable relationships, influence, and decision-making in the context of governmental ethics and statutory regulations put in place to protect the public interest in just such instances.  Without further investigation into and resolution of these legal and ethical issues, we do not see how the Department of State or the President can make a legitimate or binding NID decision regarding the project.

Weighing upon all these credible concerns are significant questions of domestic energy and economic policy, and especially of national and international efforts to address the threats from anthropogenic global climate change.  Jobs and economic development assertions in support of the project have been characteristically inflated, in some cases dramatically so, and as such they should not be the basis for credible expectations from or justifications for the project.  The ultimate foreign destination of much or most of the refined product of the transported tar sands is a blatant refutation of assertions that the project will meaningfully enhance the national or energy security of the United States.  And the direct and devastating contribution to greenhouse gases and subsequent global warming resulting from the extraction and use of dirty tar sands (not to mention the degradation of biomass resulting from mining and pipeline construction and maintenance) completely undermines any commitment or contribution on the part of the United States to prevent or mitigate the significant and unaffordable climate and hydrological disruptions caused by global climate change.

In particular, individual GPACE members (some of whom are landowners and residents living in counties in which the Kansas section of the project is already operational) have expressed the following concerns:

1. High pressure, tar sands crude pipelines threaten groundwater supplies in the Ogallala aquifer and shallower groundwater supplies.  Sensitive groundwater areas should be avoided and pipeline path changed.  Water contamination is an avoidable and many cases irreversible risk from this project – and therefore an inexcusable outcome.  TransCanada’s record to date related to pipeline safety and protection of water resources is cause for concern, in addition to the many recent high-profile spills and accidents that indicate widespread planning and compliance problems within the industry.
2. In rural areas of pipeline construction, Keystone has been allowed to use thinner wall pipe than in more densely populated areas.  Pipe thickness should be uniform and of maximum pressure rating for design pressures to insure safe operation for every environment and community along the pipeline.  There have already been leaks detected in rural Kansas sections of the pipeline.
3. Pipeline construction should bore under all perennial flow streams and rivers to preserve sensitive riparian areas and maintain bank integrity.  Already, residents are seeing erosion and degradation of areas where the pipeline and related construction cross streams.
4. Pipeline construction is disruptive to native fish, animal, and plant species, and potential leaks or spills could also devastate agricultural and ranching assets.  Pre-construction surveys of fish and animal populations and habitat, as well as agricultural production assets, should have been required with subsequent mitigation plans and post-construction monitoring surveys in place.  This has not occurred.
5. Pipeline impact on the local economy should be honestly evaluated and reported.  “Backroom deals” that result in local property tax giveaways and starve the communities along the pipeline corridor should be disallowed and reversed if in place.  In Kansas, Keystone successfully obtained state incentives from the Department of Commerce, and then successfully lobbied state legislative leadership (though not all legislators representing the citizens in communities directly impacted by the project) to obtain long-term incentives in the form of local tax abatements on top of the state incentives.  The local tax abatements were accomplished in secret and without any input from or notice to the local governmental entities, and the deals were secured under threat from Keystone that the project would be redirected without such incentives.  In particular, the local revenue giveaway to TransCanada/Keystone undercuts assertions of long-term economic benefit from the project.
6. Cardno ENTRIX has been working on behalf of the State Department to evaluate Keystone XL since the Bush Administration, and is the company that conducted the State Department’s inadequate environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline, which was finalized by the State Department a few weeks ago, despite the EPA raising numerous concerns and warning that the review was “insufficient.”  Cardno ENTRIX has previously worked on projects for TransCanada, and also worked for BP to conduct the environmental review of the Deepwater Horizon oilrig that exploded in the gulf last year.  According to numerous reports, the Cardno ENTRIX representatives running the public hearings have consistently created or contributed to unfair conditions and bias against project opponents and “manufactured” public support for the project.  On the heels of a corrupted permitting process for a proposed coal plant in Kansas, and intense pressure and financial expenditures by the out-of-state company that would own that plant and its power, our members are highly suspicious of the influence of special interests on this project, and therefore dubious about its true value to our national interest.
7. Documents released recently reveal a cozy relationship between State Department officials and lobbyists for the Canadian pipeline company TransCanada.  These documents include emails from a TransCanada lobbyist named Paul Elliot, who previously served as your Deputy Campaign Manager during the 2008 Presidential campaign. State Department officials appear to have coached Elliot and other TransCanada staff about how to build their case for approval, and even how to respond to questions and concerns about pipeline safety and environmental impact.  It even appears that Mr. Elliot may have been lobbying illegally — failing to register as a lobbyist for over a year while working on behalf of TransCanada — a potential violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.   We have had our fill of unethical misconduct by those sworn to fairness in the public interest, and our members are deeply concerned and disheartened by the ongoing apparent disregard for due process and the rule of law that seems to be occurring as part of the Keystone XL project.

As the State Department reviews a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, I ask you to consider the gravity of the risks associated with a pipeline that dramatically threatens our ability to combat climate change. Further expansion of a fuel that releases 17% more carbon pollution than conventional oil will push our climate system past the tipping point and beyond human control.

Keystone XL poses a direct threat to America’s land, air, and water as well as the health and livelihoods of our communities.  This pipeline would put at risk sensitive land and water, including the Ogallala aquifer, which provides 30% of our agricultural water and drinking water to 2 million Americans.  Allowing TransCanada, a foreign company, to profit from a dirty and dangerous tar sands oil pipeline at the expense of Americans’ drinking water, food supply and economy is not in our national interest.

Our nation has experienced the real impacts of our addiction to fossil fuels, in the multitude of oil spills still affecting communities today, in the rising gas prices across the country, and in the daily threats posed to our troops overseas.  Keystone XL would deepen our dependence on oil.  Proposed new vehicle fuel economy standards alone will save more than twice the amount of oil the pipeline is projected to deliver. Building the tar sands pipeline would undermine our progress in transitioning America to a clean energy future, send the wrong message to the world, and imperil our children’s future.

As you consider the NID related to the Keystone XL project, on behalf of current and future Kansans, and with respect for the many difficult priorities and objectives you undertake on our behalf, we ask you to consider the impacts of this decision upon our health and well-being, our economic and civic vitality, efforts to protect our natural resources and our economy, and the need for fiscal and environmental responsibility concerning long-term energy investments.

We understand that the current administration must take us in a new direction.  Most of us are doing all we can to contribute and succeed in the current moment, but you have a legacy opportunity in this instance to provide our children and grandchildren a better chance to contribute and succeed when their moment comes.  We ask you to show bold leadership by denying TransCanada the Presidential Permit.  Keystone XL is not in our national interest.

Respectfully,

Scott Allegrucci, Executive Director

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Many supporters of the proposed Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-State)/ Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower) coal-fired Holcomb Station expansion seem to presume that their opinions constitute undisputed facts.

So perhaps it is worth noting a few additional realities (both opinion and fact) that are ignored or contradicted in the oft-repeated assertions of coal plant supporters:

• All of the activity in Kansas related to the project (including political and regulatory corruption, public misinformation, etc.) is likely being funded by Tri-State, the huge Colorado-based Rural Electric Coop that has pumped a reported $70 million into the Kansas coal plant fight to date;
• Sunflower hasn’t even made a dent in its multi-hundred-million dollar debt to American taxpayers for the first coal plant it over-built (a project undertaken using the same justifications as the current project);
• Tri-State is on record (Fitch Ratings & Forbes Magazine) stating it won’t begin construction of the project until 2016 at the earliest (and the project will take approximately four years to build) – so it will provide no jobs prior to 2016 at the earliest, and no “needed” electricity to prevent “rolling brownouts” (as project supporters claim will occur) until 2020 at the earliest;
• Tri-State’s recent 20-year resource plan filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission clearly shows (a) no need for coal baseload capacity until 2027 at the earliest and (b) no plans for transmission from Holcomb (Sunflower also reports no need for near-term coal baseload capacity);
• The Holcomb Expansion coal unit will be phased for the western grid (CO), not the eastern grid (KS), making the electricity it produces unusable by Kansas utilities unless very expensive phase conversion technology is part of the build;
• Tri-State retains control over all 895MW of the proposed project’s capacity – the 200MW presumably reserved for Kansas is a verbal agreement only – there is no obligation under the statute created by the Parkinson settlement agreement to keep any electricity for Kansas. Tri-State is the sole equity and power owner of the project and its power;
• If Sunflower Electric actually owned any extra electricity produced by the project, perhaps it could export it.  But it won’t own the extra electricity (presuming there is any) or the plant.  Tri-State will.  It’s like this:  Two people buy a $1000 horse, and one of them pays $1000 while the other one agrees to keep the horse in his stable.  When the $1000-partner wants to ride the horse, she doesn’t pay the owner of the stable for the privilege of riding the horse she already owns.  Likewise, Sunflower Electric can’t export to Tri-State (or anyone else) electricity that Sunflower Electric doesn’t own;
• Tri-State and Sunflower are Class A members of the Western Fuels Association (WFA) , meaning both have a significant interest in the specific Powder River Basin (PRB) coal mines in Wyoming that will supply coal to this project, as well as some short-line rail interests related to coal transport;
• Kansas produces virtually no utility grade coal, and Sunflower and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) crafted a permit that allows the project to avoid the legal requirement to utilize Kansas coal that project supporters passed into law as part of the Parkinson deal (so all the jobs and state revenue for fuel will go to Wyoming);
• Coal producers and coal-dependent utilities claim that they are anticipating huge price increases and subsequent profits from selling domestic (Powder River Basin) coal to the export market (largely in Asia) even as they claim that coal prices will remain “low and stable” in the domestic market – both of these things cannot happen;
• Kansas has significant, unused, existing natural gas electrical generation capacity (cheaper, cleaner, jobs, in-state fuel source, etc.);
• Kansas has significant natural gas reserves – in fact we are a major exporter natural gas (same as above);
• Natural gas prices have fallen and in fact there are utilities that have entered into long-term purchase contracts for natural gas at prices comparable to coal fuel purchase agreements, and others that are retiring coal plants to be replaced by natural gas and renewable generation (cheaper, if you count the increased expenses to build and operate coal plants and protect public health from coal-fired emissions);
• Tri-State’s construction contractor (Bechtel) is a multi-national with vast experience building such projects and will almost certainly import most of the needed workforce;
• According to wind developers, the coal plant will almost certainly retard wind development (and jobs, revenue, investment, etc.) in Western Kansas, since its purpose (and that of any related transmission) will be to flood the lines with as much coal-generated electricity as possible;
• The coal plant will likely drain more water over time from the aquifer than current “agricultural” rights (presuming all current rights are active agricultural users), even with the 40% draw-down cap after ag-to-industrial transfer – think of the competition with municipal and other water users in the future;
• There are almost certain to be adverse rate impacts (look no further than KCPL’s 14% rate increase to cover mismanagement and cost overruns on the Iatan 2 build – almost exact same size as proposed for Holcomb);
• The proposed plant/permit will mean the Holcomb expansion is actually dirtier – measuring mercury, ozone, particulate matter, and NOx pollution – than hundreds of existing coal plants, including several in Kansas; and
• Let’s not forget the outright deception of the public and elected officials by project proponents and the resulting corruption of the rule of law, legal and regulatory processes meant to serve the Kansas public as whole, and state elected offices (to the highest level) – all so a Colorado utility can build an unneeded coal plant in Kansas, that Coloradans don’t want or need, using the water, air, tax dollars, and lungs in Kansas to support the project.

If you’re so inclined, throw in concerns about the global warming impacts exacerbated by this unneeded polluter.  If not, forget that, and keep all the above.

It seems pretty clear that the fundamental priority of this project is to burn Wyoming coal for the next 50 years, rather than produce needed electricity or jobs, since the electricity isn’t needed in the near or mid-term future, the jobs aren’t coming any time prior to 2016 (if even then), and the project owners have long-term financial self-interest in burning coal for its own sake.  That’s our opinion, to be clear, but it’s based upon the factual information about the project and the permitting process that is available to the public.

It also seems that an awful lot of people feel they must lie to the public about this project, in order for it to ever have even a chance of being completed.

The facts speak for themselves on that one.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

You read that right. According to the Star, “the department allowed Sunflower to respond to questions from the public and then passed some of the answers off as their own.”

GPACE’s own review of the emails revealed so many troubling, unethical patterns, it’s difficult to know where to start.  Clearly Sunflower and KDHE were each operating as extensions of the other, in terms of the permit review process.  There was no effective barrier between the goals of the private-sector applicant and the duties of the public-sector agency.  As a result , there was no credible, objective review of the permit or the public comments related to it.

In fact, after former Governor Parkinson fired former KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby, the emails indicate that a senior staffer at Sunflower was effectively calling the shots for KDHE on how to respond to specific public comments and the schedule for the permit review and ultimate approval.

In addition, Sunflower was given unfair and exceptional access to the public comments, and even converted some of them to editable file formats in order to develop responses for KDHE.  As such, there may be no way to be certain that KDHE published responses to the actual public comments submitted.

By now, polluters, special interests, and politicians at the highest levels have thoroughly corrupted the permit process in Kansas.  This revelation marks a sad day for the rule of law in Kansas – not to mention the health and well-being of generations of Kansans.

Is this really the best we can do (as one Kansas legislator proudly asserted)?

As disappointing and dangerous as the apparent misconduct at KDHE is, it might be exactly what we should expect given the example provided at the very top of state government.

Parkinson made it clear that he wanted the coal plant permit granted, that his office would use its power and influence (overtly and covertly) to achieve that outcome, and that anyone in the agency whose legitimate duties might run counter to the success of the project could lose their job.

Governor Brownback has been unequivocal regarding his support for the project, and he is embarked on an unprecedented consolidation of power using the governor’s office, so the same assertions must be true under the current administration.

The current governor calls this exchange “the Kansas way.”  If you can buy clean air, you deserve it.  Otherwise, tough luck – you deserve to breathe poison.  If you can buy water, you deserve it.  Otherwise, too bad – you deserve to be thirsty.  If you can buy elected officials, you deserve the benefits they heap on you.  Otherwise, kiss off – you’re on your own.

Apparently, it’s even better if the buyers are from out-of-state.  This circus of political and regulatory corruption and public misinformation is being funded in large part by Tri-State Generation and Transmission (Tri-State), the huge Colorado-based rural electric co-op that has pumped a reported $70 million into the Kansas coal plant fight thus far.  In the Holcomb coal plant game, Tri-State is the quarterback; Sunflower is really just the water-boy.

So in the wake of Parkinson’s “let’s-make-a-deal” flip-flop, and Brownback’s political power grab, here’s a suggestion:  The governor should issue an Executive Reorganization Order requiring that Kansas government agencies be named for the interests they actually serve.

Let’s not pretend there’s any presumption of public service when the reality is quite different.   Let’s not pretend that the best interests of the majority of Kansans – now and in the future – are being considered or are even identified.

It could ease some pressure on the state budget, as the private sector entities that seek to control these agencies could openly pay the state for a sponsorship opportunity, rather than attorneys and lobbyists.  Agency names can rotate as private sector special interests complete their raid upon Kansas public sector institutions and taxpayer dollars.   Agency logos and uniforms (provided by the companies) can switch to complete the branding effort and avoid confusion regarding staff duties and loyalties.

The possibilities are unfortunately endless.  But let’s not waste any more time.  Since the prototype for this new “Kansas way” of doing business was already put in place by Governor Parkinson, Governor Brownback need only make it official by changing the name of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to the Kansas Department of Tri-State Generation & Transmission.

After all, it’s apparently only a name.

If, however, you think the names and the actions of your state agencies matter, now might be a good time to make your voice heard.

Scott Allegrucci, Executive Director

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Recently a US District Court judge ruled against the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower) regarding legal action brought by Sierra Club.  This decision is potentially a significant setback for the proposed Holcomb Station coal-fired expansion project.  If it stands (and it probably will), RUS violated federal law to aid Sunflower and its out-of-state partners.

True ownership of the project belongs to Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association (Tri-State), the Colorado utility that is bankrolling it. The unit is designed to generate electricity for Colorado and the Western grid that won’t be available to Kansas without expensive conversion technology.  So even though Sunflower is the holder of the permit, it can’t own the Holcomb coal plant because it’s in such terrible financial shape, largely from over-building its existing coal-fired capacity with taxpayer money that it has never paid back.

As a result of that blunder, and in exchange for a bailout to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars courtesy of American taxpayers, Sunflower had to give RUS/USDA significant oversight and involvement in its capital expenditures and expansion plans. American taxpayers are essentially shareholders in anything Sunflower does from now on, due to that debt restructuring.

But RUS let Sunflower and Tri-State move forward on the proposed project without complying with required federal law and regulations.  RUS and Sunflower put shareholders (taxpayers) at risk by violating federal law and avoiding environmental review, compliance, and public input regarding the proposed coal-fired expansion.

Ever vigilant, Sierra Club and Earthjustice filed legal action against RUS for the infraction.  Sunflower intervened in the suit, and last month a federal district court agreed, finding that RUS and Sunflower violated the law.

Facts Don’t Concern Our Congressional Representatives

Now, the pro-coal cabal is trying to pressure RUS to appeal the federal court decision, rather than to settle and move on.  With Rep. Huelskamp in the lead, the Kansas Congressional delegation released an inaccurate public statement about the case, and sent a letter to USDA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) attempting to put political pressure on the administration.  Recognizing that the case may set a legal precedent in the public’s interest, jeopardizing the flow of taxpayer pork to coal-dependent polluters, utilities have undertaken a campaign of direct political pressure on RUS.

This current effort comes on top of previous pro-coal campaigns to misinform the public and apply political pressure on the regulatory process in Kansas.  In his zeal to bash EPA and the very notion of climate change Huelskamp nearly torpedoed the coal plant with ill-conceived and over-reaching legislation as a state senator.

The recent letter sent to USDA Secretary Vilsack and US Attorney General Holder from the Kansas Congressional delegation is referenced in official press releases and media reports, and was initially linked from Huelskamp’s website.  Curiously the letter is no longer available for public review through any of those sources.

But GPACE obtained a copy of the letter and found it completely counter to the actual facts on the ground about energy, pollution, and economic impacts of the project, as well as the legal and financial realities of RUS responsibilities regarding Sunflower and other utilities.

In a particularly dishonest bit of fear mongering, the Kansas delegation blames Sierra Club for “rolling brown outs” in western Kansas, and labels Sierra Club’s concern for the rule of law and long-standing public health and environmental protections as a “special interest” at odds with the American people.  And despite Sunflower’s dubious financial history and federal government-taxpayer bailout, the Kansas delegation wants RUS to treat the utility as a solvent and responsible financial interest.  This is the same utility that in 2007 described itself as a “wounded deer laying in the middle of the highway.”

A follow up letter from Sierra Club to Secretary Vilsack helps set the record straight(er).

Seems Like the Delegation Protests Too Much

Setting aside the inaccuracies and misinformation throughout the letter from the Kansas Congressional delegation to USDA and DOJ, it reveals another terrific irony and stunning inconsistency (in a saga filled with them).  Huelskamp and colleagues claim they want the Sunflower/Tri-State coal plant built as soon as possible.  However, their letter to Sec. Vilsack clearly states that the Kansas delegation wants RUS/USDA to appeal the federal court ruling, creating a long and expensive legal process that would…wait for it…delay the project even further.

That’s right, even as they publicly attack environmentalists for delaying the coal plant, claiming the jobs are desperately needed, the Kansas Congressional delegation is asking RUS to engage in actions that will delay the coal plant.

Since Tri-State doesn’t need the electricity and doesn’t plan to start construction for at least five years, project supporters may be trying to delay construction of this unneeded coal plant, hoping it might be needed sometime in the future.  All while blaming project opponents, environmentalists, and the federal government for the delay.  In fact, Tri-State has never disputed or denied repeated public reports that it had pushed back construction of the coal plant until 2016 at the earliest, reports that surfaced long before the recent court ruling regarding RUS and well before the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) granted a permit for the project, triggering legal challenges.

Delay, it seems, is now the desperate tactic of Sunflower, Tri-State, and their political allies.

In another interesting twist, the permit granted by KDHE to Sunflower requires (under federal law) that substantive construction begin within eighteen (18) months of the date of the permit issuance.  It will be interesting to watch the special interest money, misinformation, and political pressure deployed by pro-coal shills in an attempt to subvert that law before May of 2012.

What Next?

Parties meet with the federal judge this summer and he will later issue a decision regarding appropriate remediation.  RUS and Sunflower could be required to go back and do the whole Environmental Impact Assessment (avoided previously), including a federal public comment process and information about environmental and public health impacts that were ignored or suppressed by the highly politicized and corrupted Kansas permit process.

In the meantime, you might want to let RUS and USDA know that, if the Holcomb coal plant is such a good idea, it shouldn’t require a special interest campaign of political pressure and misinformation, taxpayer bailouts, and continued violation of federal laws designed to protect the general public just to stay viable.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

On January 21, 2011 the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) staff opened a general investigation docket that provides for an examination of the costs and benefits related to achieving required public health and environmental improvements as they will impact ratepayers for the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) regulated by the KCC.  The basic question posed by the docket is whether it is better to allow Kansas IOUs to pass on to ratepayers the costs to retrofit aging coal plants in order to achieve public health and environmental benefits, or to consider that IOUs will not be allowed (full) rate recovery for coal plant retrofits and might consider alternatives to coal-fired generation capacity (i.e. natural gas, renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, etc.) in order to meet demand for electricity.

Subsequent to the general investigation docket, Kansas City Power & Light (KCPL) filed a docket seeking rate-recovery for retrofits to the LaCygne Generating Station, to cover the estimated costs for required retrofits of its coal-fired units.   Westar Energy is also a co-owner of the LaCygne Station and is involved in the docket.   A decision by the KCC to allow rate recovery under this docket is required by late August, and would mean that the costs to retrofit and continue production from the coal-fired unit(s) at LaCygne would be passed onto consumers/ratepayers.

As required by the KCC, public hearings will be held to allow input/discussion regarding the rate-recovery proposal for the LaCygne Station retrofits.

• The first meeting involves presentations by KCP&L and will be held on Thursday, May 5^th in Overland Park.
• The second meeting involves presentations by Westar and will be held on Tuesday, May 10^th in Topeka (with video conferencing access from Salina and Wichita).

Per our request, GPACE has been granted status as an intervener in both dockets. We’ve put together a Resource page on the KCC dockets and will update it as the proceedings move forward with relevant details and appropriate information (public meetings, opportunities for input and education, etc.).

We strongly encourage you to attend one or both of the public meetings on May 5^th or May 10^th.   These are official KCC public hearings where Westar and KCP&L will make presentations and where the public can ask questions and comment about the retrofits and the request to pass those costs onto customers.

Public comments on the rate-recovery docket will be accepted at the KCC through June 8, 2011.

Westar or KCP&L customers unable to attend the public hearings may submit comments to the KCC Commissioners through June 8, 2011.  Comments should reference Docket No. 11-KCPE-581-PRE and be emailed to public.affairs@kcc.ks.gov or made over the phone at 1-800-662-0027 or mailed to:

Kansas Corporation Commission

Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection

1500 SW Arrowhead Road

Topeka, KS 66604-4027

Your comments are very important!

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

HR 6008 is a non-binding resolution that has little if any direct impact on Kansas law, regulations, public policy, or economic reality.  It had initially been titled “a resolution opposing the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory train wreck” (the phrase “train wreck” was subsequently replaced with “mandate”).  That over-the-top language in the resolution itself gives a pretty good indication that the purpose of the resolution’s supporters is entirely political, and not in the interest of good or well-conceived public policy for Kansas.

I was quoted, representing GPACE, in a previous article about HR 6008 by the Topeka Capital Journal.  Given the ridiculous partisan pitch and the misinformation being used to attack EPA, it seemed appropriate for GPACE to offer more robust responses to testimony by polluting industries and their legislative allies in favor of the resolution.

“Their carbon-limiting regs not tied to comprehensive study,” said Rep. Forrest Knox.

Rep. Knox’s presumed concerns about a “comprehensive study” are interesting on several counts:

1. EPA did conduct comprehensive analysis across industries and emitters impacted, included available science and technological data, and conducted multiple rounds of public hearings on rulemaking.
2. Rep. Knox and other legislative supporters of the Holcomb coal plant apparently felt no need for comprehensive study regarding the impacts of that coal plants’ emissions and related economic impacts.  Recent analysis conducted by GPACE using available real emissions monitoring data from EPA and EIA compared coal plant emissions nationally to emissions allowed by the KDHE Holcomb coal plant permit.  Based upon that data, we found claims that the Holcomb coal plant would be “the cleanest in the nation” (as made publicly by Rep. Knox and others) to be completely false.  When asked about this by the Kansas City Star, Rep. Knox simply replied that he got his information from the utility applying for the permit - Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower) – hardly the standard of a credible or comprehensive study to substantiate those claims.
3. We question whether supporters of this resolution really want “comprehensive study” on such issues, or whether they simply want a one-sided opportunity to repeat false or misleading talking points supplied by polluters and partisan political allies.  Tri-State G&T – the Colorado utility that will actually own the Holcomb coal plant – just completed a comprehensive 20-year resource plan which showed no need for coal baseload generation (such as would be provided by the proposed Holcomb coal plant).  Legislators supporting the coal plant, and this resolution, have studiously ignored implications of that information.
4. There are now dozens of credible comprehensive studies regarding the public health, economic, and environmental impacts of the air pollutants in question, and of emissions regulations to address them, available to the public, but ignored by proponents of this resolution.
5. Again, the Kansas legislature seemed unconcerned with comprehensive study of the proposed Keystone pipeline’s passage through Kansas when they gave away additional local tax incentives to the company without informing local affected communities of the revenue loss they would suffer for the privilege of hosting the pipeline.  So, demand for a comprehensive study in this instance (already provided by EPA) seems disingenuous.

KIOGA, the state’s independent oil and gas group, says “EPA interprets clean air act incorrectly, as it was never meant to have anything to do with greenhouse gases.”

Again, several points:

1. EPA is acting under direct court order by the U.S. Supreme Court (and a pro-business, Republican-dominated court) as put forward in the Mass. v. EPA decision from 2007.  In that decision, the Supreme Court directed EPA to establish rules and regulations to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.  For the past four years, EPA has been doing what it was ordered to do by the Supreme Court, and current and proposed EPA regulations are the result of that court order and/or the law governing the Clean Air Act as established by Congress.
2. Additionally, many, if not most, of the pending air quality regulations being advanced by EPA were actually developed by the EPA during the presidency of George W. Bush.  Senior Bush EPA officials are on public record supporting the regulations, including those covering carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  Point is, this has become a partisan political issue, when it never was before; and most of the regulations have been proposed and pending for up to a decade – so they aren’t a surprise nor are they all the brainchild of EPA under the current administration.
3. KIOGA’s role in this is interesting, given that Kansas natural gas suppliers stand to benefit from EPA regulations of various air pollutants, including carbon dioxide, mercury, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides, since natural gas burns anywhere from 40% to 80% cleaner than coal regarding those pollutants.  An example of this playing out on the ground can be found in neighboring Colorado with Xcel’s major effort to retire coal-burning electricity plants and replace them with natural gas plants.
4. Purely from a business perspective, the Kansas natural gas industry’s attacks on EPA (and claims of support for the “free market”) are even more curious given its general support for increased coal use.  In a Wichita Business Journal article, KIOGA blames larger natural gas producers for putting too much natural gas supply on the market, yet makes no mention of KIOGA’s support for the Holcomb coal plant which will diminish natural gas demand in Kansas (or at least miss an opportunity to increase natural gas demand).  And Anderson Energy says the trouble for natural gas is not enough demand due to economic recession and decreased manufacturing activity, and yet Sunflower Electric claims it needs the Holcomb coal plant (and that it explicitly does not want a natural gas plant) to meet baseload demand in Western Kansas and attract business that are evidently falling over themselves to come to Southwestern Kansas to manufacture things, but for the lack of baseload COAL-fueled electricity?  Kansas produces (and exports) significant amounts of natural gas, yet virtually no coal. In fact, the utilities that burn coal to make electricity in Kansas currently import over 99% of that coal, almost all of this from Wyoming. Additionally, Kansas utilities have significant existing natural gas-fired electricity production capacity that goes unused every year.  If we’re concerned about air quality and public health, natural gas is up to 50% lighter on carbon emissions than coal, and far better than that compared to coal for SOx, NOx, mercury, and particulate matter (all those healthcare costs from death and disease directly attributable to coal plant emissions that never get counted in coal’s ‘cheap’ fuel cost).  Even if we don’t care about the health and environmental comparisons between coal and natural gas, natural gas can facilitate far greater integration of renewable energy sources into the grid than can coal. While natural gas and renewables can also compete for grid access (depending upon price and other issues) in a grid currently dominated by coal and coal interests, it is precisely coal’s political and historical dominance of the electricity fuels market that hurts both natural gas and renewable developers.

Kansas Electric Cooperatives says “EPA implementing massive set of convoluted regulations to control emissions.”  ”Compliance will be costly,” said Dave Holthaus of KEC.

Several points:

1. First, to repeat the prior point – many, if not most, of the pending air quality regulations being advanced by EPA were actually developed under EPA during the presidency of George W. Bush.  Senior Bush EPA officials are on public record supporting the regulations, including those covering carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  Point is, this has become a partisan political issue, when it never was before; and most of the regulations have been proposed and pending for up to a decade – so they aren’t a surprise nor are they all the brainchild of EPA under the current administration.
2. Mr. Holthaus apparently gives no credence to the cost of non-compliance or inaction, especially with regard to the massive public health, environmental, and economic costs of business as usual by polluters.  There is a huge public cost to be accounted for here, and a commensurate huge public benefit to EPA regulations, but that information is characteristically missing from the Kansas legislative discussion.
3. Aside from the huge cost savings realized by Clean Air Act regulations in the form of prevented death and disease, several recent studies point to the direct economic stimulus and activity that will be a result of compliance with the new emissions regulations to protect public health (new construction, development of new technologies and refinement of existing ones, modifications made to current infrastructure, monitoring, etc.).
4. Also, electric cooperatives were established by public funds to serve the public good.  Electric cooperatives receive direct financial support from US taxpayers through a variety of mechanisms and federal agencies, and they are shielded from oversight and regulation in the public interest by a “massive set of convoluted” policies.  For instance, Sunflower Electric’s current coal plant (Holcomb 1) was subsidized by taxpayer loans through the Rural Utility Service, and then Sunflower essentially walked away from its obligation to repay taxpayers, leaving what is now about a billion dollars owed to taxpayers in a shell-company – never to be repaid.  In this context of electric cooperatives’ dependency upon federal protection and taxpayer money, it is curious that electric cooperatives would then characterize federal regulations as a revenue grab and that they would be unwilling to comply with federal regulations designed explicitly to protect the health and well being of all citizens, and the resources (like air and water) that we all share and depend upon.

Geologist Dennis Hedke says “EPA should be renamed the EDA, Economic Destruction Agency.”

1. With all due respect for Mr. Hedke’s qualifications to speak on issues related to mineral exploration, his disregard for publicly available information about the economic benefits delivered by the EPA and Clean Air Act regulations over the last 40 years, as well as the many studies that quantify the massive public health costs related to current levels of air pollution from emissions of concern for EPA, may indicate his lack of qualification to speak on public health, economic policy, and emission regulatory issues.
2. The assumption that affected companies cannot adapt and in fact profit under changing regulatory realities is a disservice to American ingenuity, capacity, and work ethic.  It is also not born out by a review of all available economic forecasts related to the regulations in question.  It is understandable that the industries that profit from the current pollution status quo would have some anxiety about changes to pollution regulation, but that doesn’t mean that the status quo is the only or the appropriate economic or public health policy moving forward.  Nor does it mean that the status quo is the only way for polluting companies to employ workers, provide needed services and products, and make a profit.

Scott Jones, representing KCPL and Westar, says “EPA rules could force shut down or premature retirement of plants.”

1. Once again, these regulations are not new nor have they appeared suddenly on the scene under the current administration.  If major utilities are only now deciding how to address them or comply with them (or not), perhaps we should have even more serious concerns about the ability of Kansas utilities to forecast and plan for the inevitable challenges facing all of us in the future.
2. We refer again to the Colorado/Xcel example, where the largest IOU in that state found a way to make significant adjustments in fuel sourcing as it relates to emissions and public health.  The sky didn’t fall, nor did the Colorado economy crumble.
3. In the Capital-Journal article, Mr. Jones said “compliance with EPA regulations on air, water and coal combustion byproducts could cost the industry more than $300 billion in the next five years.”  Where does he get the $300 billion dollar figure?  Is that substantiated at all by any kind of credible, accountable, objective report or evidence?  Can he produce such evidence?  This industry article suggests the amount is closer to $70 billion.  Was such evidence provided to House committee members or any legislators?
4. And again, what about the economic savings and benefits of compliance with new and existing EPA regulations?  Are we to understand that the utilities he speaks for don’t consider reductions in death, disease, suffering, and medical treatment related to the toxic substances found in coal-fired power plant emissions and waste products a cost savings, since their shareholders don’t get the money?  In any event, we do pay for those costs.  And we pay those utilities (by way of our electric bills) to cause that damage in the first place.  If existing coal plants in Kansas under current pollution controls are causing death and disease in Kansas citizens, why wouldn’t we want our utilities to use better pollution controls on coal-fired power plants, prematurely retire them, or shut them down?  How do the costs that Kansans pay for electricity from polluting coal plants compare to the costs that we pay for medical treatment, healthcare, environmental cleanup, and lost wages directly related to those same polluting coal plants?

Bottom line:

Concerns expressed by legislators and polluting industries that there is no comprehensive study to support EPA regulations runs completely contradictory to the fact that EPA has undertaken and included comprehensive analysis of the regulations and their impacts – as well as the opinions of affected industries –  as part of the process to date.  The Kansas legislative debate on the issue completely ignores reams of independent data and research published subsequent to EPA’s information.  Furthermore, many of those same Kansas legislators presented Sunflower’s claims about Holcomb 2 as fact even though they were utterly false (see recent GPACE analysis and public information from Tri-State regarding projected demand for coal baseload generation and anticipated construction timeline for Holcomb 2).

Attempts by supporters of this resolution to depict EPA as a “rogue” agency acting without authority and to intentionally cause economic damage completely ignore the fact that EPA is acting under court order by the US Supreme Court – a pro-business court – as ruled in Mass v. EPA, as well as the lengthy and comprehensive process EPA is still undertaking to comply in a responsible fashion with the court order.

Not content with this critical omission, supporters of the resolution completely ignore or suppress information about the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations.

And for good measure, supporters of this resolution completely ignore or suppress information about the huge public health costs from status quo pollution and emissions.

The legislative discussion surrounding this resolution centers on testimony and talking points from specific industry representatives, while completely ignoring or suppressing public support by other businesses and organizations for EPA regulatory authority and action on emissions.

Kansas HR 6008 is clearly the expression of a pre-determined outcome.  Instead of responsible debate and consideration of all credible information in order to determine the best possible outcome for Kansans, our elected legislators are using taxpayer time and money to conduct a press-relations circus in the service of polluters – that may be providing critical services and products, but whose actions irrefutably damage public health and pass the costs on to citizens.

Recent, bi-partisan, national polling shows overwhelming public support for EPA and for even stricter pollution controls, including for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants.  Other reports suggests that “job killing” claims against environmental regulations are unsubstantiated by the actual evidence.  And in an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post, former Republican EPA Administrators decry the partisan political assault on the current EPA.

The train wreck here is the collision from Kansas elected officials once again driving misinformation that benefits big polluters right over the health and well being of Kansans.  The Kansas legislature has run off the tracks in an effort to serve polluting special interests and partisan political goals in absolute disregard for the facts and available scientific information.

Scott Allegrucci is the Executive Director of Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

We’ve been told by supporters of the proposed Sunflower Electric Power Corporation / Tri-State Generation & Transmission Holcomb Station coal-fired power plant that it will be “the cleanest coal plant in the country.”  For example:

“The BACT analysis has been refreshed.  It’s the cleanest coal power plant in the country.  That’s clean.  If it’s not, it’s something that we should all be ashamed of.”  Wayne Penrod, Executive Manager of Environmental Policy for Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (10/25/2010 – Topeka, KS, KDHE public permit hearing)

“Best Available Control Technology is required, so that means that when a new power plant is built, whatever kind of power plant, it will be the cleanest power plant in the world at that time.”  Forrest Knox, Kansas House of Representatives, District 13 (8/2/2010 – Overland Park, KS, KDHE public permit hearing)

“Bottom line, this will provide badly needed jobs for Kansas and will be the cleanest coal plant in the nation.”  Richard Taylor, President, Kansas State Building & Construction Trades Council (8/2/2010 – Overland Park, KS, KDHE public permit hearing)

Umm…No.  Not Even Close.

In reality, this simply isn’t true. Using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, the KDHE permit for Holcomb 2, and working with MSB Energy Associates and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE) compared four of the most common and troubling emissions from Holcomb 2 and other coal-fired generating units in the country.  In fact, there are currently hundreds of coal-fired units in the country that are already emitting fewer harmful pollutants than the recent KDHE permit allows the proposed Holcomb 2 coal-fired unit to emit.

Here’s what we found:

There are already at least 669 coal-fired units in the country that emit lower rates of particulate matter than the current KDHE Holcomb 2 permit allows (including the Hawthorn and Sibley coal-fired units in Missouri, and Jeffrey Energy Center in Kansas).

There are already at least 321 coal-fired units in the country that emit lower rates of mercury than the current KDHE Holcomb 2 permit allows (including the Comanche and Cherokee coal-fired units in Colorado).

There are already at least 53 coal-fired units in the country that emit lower rates of sulfur dioxide than the current KDHE Holcomb 2 permit allows (including Iatan 1 in Missouri and Jeffrey Energy Center in Kansas).

There are already at least 18 coal-fired units in the country that emit lower rates of nitrogen oxides than the current KDHE Holcomb 2 permit allows (including the W.A. Parish and J.K. Spruce coal-fired units in Texas).

Additionally, there are a number of coal-fired units recently permitted or operational that are not included in the comparative data but that have lower emissions rates than allowed for Holcomb 2.  These projects certainly beat Holcomb 2 in terms of lower toxic pollutant and GHG emissions rates:

• KCP&L Iatan 2 unit in Missouri
• SWEPCO Turk unit in Arkansas
• Duke Energy Cliffside Steam Station in North Carolina
• Plant Washington in Georgia

Given the conflict over air quality permitting currently raging between EPA and the State of Texas, it’s notable that a number of the coal plants that are already “cleaner” than Holcomb 2 are in Texas.  EPA has already done some deal-making to grandfather specific coal plants under older air quality regulations.  However, recent communications from EPA suggest that the agency is drawing a bead on the deficient KDHE permit for Holcomb 2, as well as the political gaming of the process to benefit Sunflower and force the permit.

In a letter date-stamped February 3, EPA notes that KDHE did not respond adequately to concerns about the permit expressed previously by EPA.  The concerns about the permit outlined in the letter focus primarily on emission allowances for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).  Furthermore, the letter clearly states that EPA “disagrees with KDHE’s interpretation of federal law” on the issue of ensuring new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

As GPACE and others have noted before, it will be interesting to see if EPA considers Kansas air quality, public health, and regulatory processes in the public interest on par with Texas’, when reviewing the problematic KDHE permit process that allowed comparably inferior emission control technology for Holcomb 2.

Spin All You Want, But…

There is no such thing as “clean coal.”  All coal-fired power plants emit dozens of dangerous substances, including volatile organic compounds, radioactive elements, heavy metals, and substances known to cause heart disease, lung disease, mental retardation, cancer, and premature death.  Here’s a little more information about the four coal plant emissions we chose to compare:

Particulate matter (PM) has serious effects upon human cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological systems, including heart palpitations, congestive heart failure, lung cancer, and premature death.

Mercury (Hg) is an extremely potent and dangerous neurotoxin that lingers in the environment and human tissue and increases in concentration as it moves up the food chain.  Increased levels of mercury in humans cause reduced IQ, mental retardation, and impaired neurological development.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) contributes to respiratory ailments and ischemic stroke, and creates acid rain, which has destructive and costly impacts upon infrastructure, agriculture, and habitats.

Nitrogen oxides (NO2) contribute to acid rain and are ozone precursors that affect the respiratory system, exacerbating asthma and causing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and stunted lung development in children.

While a few coal plants under construction or recently permitted are attempting to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the KDHE permit for Holcomb 2 requires absolutely no emissions controls in place for carbon dioxide (CO2) or other GHG emissions, nor does the permit include any GHG or other pollution mitigation requirements as suggested by the former KDHE Acting Secretary and former Gov. Parkinson.  A worldwide body of scientific research shows that CO2 is a major contributor to global climate change, which will in turn have significant and irreversible impacts upon human health, agriculture, industry, the economy, water access, transportation, population densities, travel and migration, and the availability of natural resources.

Sunflower has asserted that the Holcomb Station will be a “clean coal” plant, but company representatives also told state legislative committees and KDHE that there is currently no technology to affordably and effectively reduce GHG emissions from coal combustion units.  The recently granted permit for the Holcomb 2 unit does not employ the best available technology to reduce harmful source-point emissions, nor does it obligate Sunflower to make any effort to control or reduce GHG emissions.

Sunflower has touted a “bio-energy” center as part of the Holcomb Station expansion.  The centerpiece of the project was to be a so-called “algae reactor” that Sunflower claims would capture CO2 emissions from the coal plant(s) to be used as feedstock for a massive algae process producing biofuel.  Because the technology is experimental and since the biofuel would then be burned, re-releasing the CO2, it is not certain that this process would result in an overall net reduction in carbon emissions.

In 2008, the Salina Journal investigated Sunflower’s algae reactor claims, revealing the proposed algae project to be essentially smoke and mirrors.  The proposed algae reactor would require a surface area of between 16,000 and 35,000 acres – more than five to ten times the area of Kanopolis Lake – and could cost more than $16 billion – over five times the cost of the coal plant itself.   Where the funding or the water would come from to make this unproven and highly experimental technology work in southwestern Kansas has never been specified.

Sunflower’s KDHE permit does not include the algae process nor does it obligate Sunflower to achieve any GHG emissions reductions.  Sunflower’s own plans called for the experimental algae system to be attached to the existing Holcomb 1 coal plant, never as part of the proposed Holcomb 2 unit, involving less than 50 MW of energy capacity (and emissions) from Holcomb 1.  Furthermore, GreenFuel Technologies, Sunflower’s partner in developing the algae process, has since gone out of business and filed for bankruptcy.  The experimental algae reactor technology is not and is not anticipated to be in use at utility scale anywhere in the country.

Settlement Agreement Bait and Switch

The settlement agreement between Governor Parkinson and Sunflower initially called for the proposed coal plant to be an ultra-supercritical pulverized coal unit, which would have made it among the most advanced and efficient plants in the nation.  However, Sunflower applied for, and KDHE granted a permit for, only a supercritical unit, which is not advanced or leading technology for coal-fired power plants – it’s the current standard technology.

The air quality permit granted to Sunflower by KDHE does not sufficiently protect public health and the environment or fulfill promises made as part of the settlement agreement.  Under the KDHE permit, the proposed Holcomb unit will not be using state of the art processes that are already in place at other existing coal plants and proposed for many more.  If preventing death and disease from poisoned air is the standard for utilities and citizens in other states, it should be the standard for Kansas.

Former Gov. Parkinson already left the state for a well-paid job as a Washington D.C. lobbyist – so neither he nor his family will have to live with the impacts of pollution from this coal plant.  Sunflower CEO Earl Watkins is retiring in 2012 – we’ll see if he decides to live downwind of this plant.  Sen. Lee, who strongly supported the Holcomb coal plant project and who confirmed to reporters meetings with Parkinson’s office to pressure KDHE on the permit, gave up her elected Senate seat for a permanent state job courtesy of Parkinson.

“…It’s Something That We Should All Be Ashamed Of.”

Inaccurate claims by supporters of this coal plant that it will be the “cleanest coal plant in the country” have either been made in ignorance of the actual comparative facts, or to intentionally mislead the public about the impact of the project.  Either way, we agree with Mr. Penrod of Sunflower that they should be ashamed of such claims.

The KDHE air quality permit granted on 12/16/2010 for the proposed Holcomb Station coal-fired project will not result in the “cleanest coal plant in the country”, nor even reasonable inclusion as “one of the cleanest coal plants in the country.”  Based upon direct comparison of emission rates for four critical pollutants, the approved KDHE permit allows construction of a new coal-fired power plant in southwestern Kansas that will be dirtier than hundreds of existing coal-fired units currently in operation around the country, including existing units within Kansas.

Emissions from this plant will directly contribute to deaths and disease in Kansas for generations to come.  The full costs of this project will be paid by individuals and taxpayers in the form of urgent health care and human suffering.  In exchange for hosting this plant and its pollution, no Kansas energy resources (aside from our precious aquifer water) will be used to provide electricity, employment, or revenue for Kansans, while money and energy flow to Colorado and Wyoming.  It seems this is exactly what big special interests in those states wanted.

Given the political tactics and misinformation used to advance this project, one wonders how many other claims in support of this coal plant are simply not true.

Read the GPACE White Paper here.

Find supporting documents here.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.