Background
In October of 2007, Secretary Rod Bremby of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, exercising statutory authority, denied air quality permits to two 700 MW coal-fired power plants proposed by Sunflower Electric Power Corporation for the Holcomb Station expansion. As a result, state legislators publicly announced that they would seek to reverse Bremby’s decision during the 2008 legislative session. At that point, Secretary Bremby’s denial of air quality permits for proposed coal-fired power plants was the ONLY instance of coal-fired generation in the nation delayed or denied on the basis of CO2 emissions tied to global warming, and adverse health and environmental impacts.
Immediately after the KDHE denial, some legislative leaders publicly decried the decision, claiming it was “overreaching”, “unpopular,” and “out of step” with most Kansans. In the late fall of 2007, two separate independently conducted polls showed otherwise. Poll results released by the Land Institute’s Climate and Energy Project showed that statewide 62% of Kansans approved of the Bremby decision and opposed the plants; with a clear majority of Kansans agreeing with the KDHE decision in every one of the state’s four congressional districts (up to 70% approval in the 3rd Congressional District). Furthermore, 75% of all Kansans statewide expressed their strong preference for greater development of the state’s vast wind resources. Despite overwhelming support by their constituents for the Bremby decision to block the proposed coal plants, legislative leadership vowed to dedicate their efforts during the 2008 legislative session to overturning KDHE and forcing the state to approve the coal plants. This despite ongoing administrative agency review of the decision and pending legal action initiated by Sunflower Electric and proceeding according to state law in District Court and at the State Supreme Court.
In the 2008 Kansas legislative session, GPACE led a coordinated legislative strategy contributing to the defeat of anti-regulatory and unconstitutional legislation, in collaboration with the Office of the Governor, some of the partner organizations listed below, and a bi-partisan group of Kansas legislators (primarily in the House).
Governor Sebelius vetoed three bills that would have forced the permitting of the proposed Holcomb expansion (1400MW) and stripped the KDHE Secretary’s authority relative to air quality permitting. The House sustained two vetoes without final action, and one was sustained when the House fell just short of the two-thirds majority needed to override. The final veto nixed a massive (likely unconstitutional) “economic development” bill with incentives and money targeting every region of the state, including the same poison-pill provisions that forced the permitting of the Holcomb plants and stripped the KDHE Secretary of authority to regulate emissions.
The 2008 Kansas legislative session was one of the most rancorous in recent memory. The “Holcomb” legislation was the single most contentious issue of the 2008 session, if not any session during Governor Sebelius’s term. The “Holcomb” bills became an albatross by the close of the session, and the nature, duration, and impacts of the legislative push for the bills raised energy policy as a public issue statewide for the first time.
All 165 Kansas legislative seats were up for election in the 2008 cycle. Americans for Prosperity launched its “Hot Air” national tour (from Kansas) to discredit action to halt global warming. The Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry held events headlined by partisan climate change deniers and launched aggressive fundraising for its PAC with the intent to defeat as many anti-Holcomb legislators as possible in the 08 elections (citing “regulatory uncertainty” created by the Bremby decision and subsequent vetoes of pro-coal, anti-regulatory legislation). The Chamber announced their intent to make the proposed coal-fired power plants an issue once again in the 2009 session.
Pre-election polling showed continued strong public opposition statewide to new coal-fired power plants and support for developing Kansas’ wind resources. However, election results were mixed, with several key losses and gains on both sides of the issue. In the end, the anticipated vote count to sustain a gubernatorial veto of pro-Holcomb legislation remained virtually identical as in the 2008 session.
2009
(narrative for 2009 events is being edited. please check back)
2010
In January, Sunflower Electric filed an air quality permit application with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for the 895mw “settlement” coal plant. EPA confirmed the endangerment finding for CO2 (as directed by the US Supreme Court) and a number of proposed GHG regulations have followed, including proposed GHG BACT standards for stationary sources of CO2 (such as coal plants) to take effect on January 3rd, 2011. In addition to regulatory progress on GHG/carbon controls, EPA has released or proposed a host of new regulatory provisions for emissions that will impact coal-fired power plants, including new standards for ozone, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and coal combustion wastes.
The 2010 session of the Kansas Legislature started from a very difficult and divided position (due to historic budget deficits, low revenue, and splits between recommended policies by the governor’s office, moderate Republican legislators, conservative Republican legislators, and Democrats).
Of note during the 2010 session were:
- Local push-back by a bi-partisan coalition from six counties impacted by the proposed Keystone oil sands pipeline project against an abatement of local taxes given to Keystone by Republican legislative leadership (above and beyond the state tax and business incentives provided to Keystone).
- Ultimate failure of PACE legislation crafted by a bipartisan coalition of legislators and with broad support among Kansas communities.
- An amendment attached to the final omnibus budget bill in both the House (by Rep. Neufeld) and the Senate (by Sen. Huelskamp) that would have prevented any state agency from providing any funds or resources to any process in Kansas related in any way to the EPA endangerment finding regarding CO2. The amendment was an 11th-hour provision crafted by conservative business and anti-regulatory entities, and was apparently intended to prevent KDHE from using the endangerment finding to block or delay the proposed coal plant permit process (among other issues). However, the amendment would have had the result of delaying the KDHE permitting process for almost a year and almost certainly would have drawn direct intervention from EPA, necessitating repeal of the measure in the 2011 session. At the encouragement of utilities and other special interests (some of whom finally realized their mistake), Governor Parkinson vetoed the measure (line item).
During the summer, the Kansas Corporation Commission received public comment on and then released final recommendations for the ‘net-metering’ policy required by the ‘settlement agreement’ related to the Sunflower Electric coal plant. The standards adopted by the KCC are widely held by Kansas citizens and national experts to be extremely deficient, and even a step backward compared to the previously-existing parallel generation standards in Kansas. As a result, Kansas has not gained anything approaching fair net-metering, even under the limited standards that were supposed to be part of the settlement agreement between the governor’s office, Sunflower Electric, and Republican leadership in the legislature.
On July 1, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) issued a draft permit for the proposed Sunflower Electric 895 MW coal-fired power plant and announced the start of a public comment period concluding on August 15th. Three public hearings were held as follows:
- Monday, August 2 in Overland Park at Blue Valley Northwest High School
- Wednesday, August 4 in Salina at the Highway Patrol Training Center Auditorium
- Thursday, August 5 in Garden City at the Garden City Community College Joyce Auditorium
GPACE representatives attended all hearings, which began at 2:00 PM, recessed at 5:00 PM, and reconvened at 6:30 PM, continuing until all written or verbal comments were submitted.
To date, the process conducted by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding the proposed Sunflower Electric coal plant draft permit has elicited an unprecedented number of comments from the public. By August 15th, GPACE alone submitted well over 800 individual written public comments to KDHE collected during this comment period (excluding comments from GPACE contacts that went directly to KDHE). A little context for those comments:
- During the 2007 permitting process for the Holcomb project, a total of approximately 780 comments (written and verbal) were received by KDHE.
- Around 40% of the comments GPACE fowarded to KDHE came from individual Kansans outside our network of contacts.
- All of the comments forwarded by GPACE were unique – they were not form-letters or pre-printed postcards from out-of-state organizations.
- Prior to the public hearings (and prior to the comments submitted by GPACE) KDHE had already received over 2,000 public comments on the draft permit.
In addition, KDHE suffered a significant computer system problem during August which, in addition to the many other challenges for the agency, impacted receipt and recognition of valid public comments submitted via email regarding the Sunflower Electric coal plant draft permit prior to the August 15th deadline. GPACE contacted KDHE, and arranged for the agency to accept those valid comments.
Due to the submission of incorrect emissions modeling data by Sunflower Electric for a portion of the original draft permit, KDHE announced a second round of public comments on the Holcomb coal plant draft permit, to be scheduled once the corrected modeling data is submitted to KDHE. As of this writing, GPACE anticipates that this second round of public comment will be officially announced by KDHE mid-September, will include a fourth public hearing (most likely in the Topeka area), and will likely last for 45 days. During the second round of public comment, the entire draft permit will be open for public comment (as opposed to only the re-submitted modeling data).
