By Darren Goode of The Hill

The Environmental Protection Agency is continuing to roll out more 
greenhouse gas emission rules amid stalled debate in Congress and 
numerous legal challenges to the agency’s broader effort to regulate 
the heat-trapping pollutants.

The agency Thursday proposed two rules aimed at helping businesses get 
permits for large new and expanded facilities that would fall under 
emission restrictions that take effect in January.

EPA wants to mandate that permitting programs in 13 states make
 changes to cover greenhouse gas emissions, while other states must
 review their existing permitting authority and tell the agency if such 
emissions are not covered.

The agency is also proposing a federal plan to implement a new
 permitting program for these heat-trapping emissions to cover large
 facilities that would be regulated beginning next year.

 This is intended as a temporary measure until states revise their own 
plans and assume permitting oversight.

“States are best-suited to issue permits to sources of GHG emissions
 and have long-standing experience working together with industrial 
facilities,” according to an EPA press release.

EPA is holding a public hearing on this proposed rule Aug. 25, and 
hopes to finalize both proposals before Jan. 2.

The Clean Air Act requires states to develop implementation plans that 
EPA must approve that include requirements for issuing air permits. 
Since these would be first-time federal requirements for greenhouse
 gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, states might need to modify 
their plans.

The proposed rules also essentially allow EPA to force permitting 
oversight in states that do not comply with the agency’s greenhouse 
gas regulations.

 “Today’s rules will help ensure that these sources will be able to get 
those permits regardless of where they are located,” according to
 EPA’s press release.

Texas recently joined 16 other court challenges to EPA’s “tailoring”
 rule — which was finalized in June and is intended to limit greenhouse
 gas limits to larger facilities.

 Alabama, North Dakota, South Dakota, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour
(R), South Carolina and Nebraska filed a joint petition July 30
 challenging the rule. The Louisiana Department of Environmental
 Quality filed a separate lawsuit.

Industry groups challenging the rule 
include the American Forest and Paper Association, National 
Association of Manufacturers, the American Iron and Steel Institute 
and the Portland Cement Association.

Sierra Club filed a legal challenge despite its support for the intent 
of the rule and the timeline for regulating greenhouse gas emissions 
from stationary sources. The group is concerned about the precedent it could 
set for other pollutants.

The Center for Biological Diversity has also challenged it, arguing it
 exempts too many polluters.

The following was written by Jeff Jacobsen for his blog, Here I Stand

I can’t tell you how many times I have watched coal trains lumber across the Kansas Plains stretched out for miles like a monstrous strand of black licorice.  I’ve sat in my car or rested on my bike watching and waiting for them to pass, but, sadly, not thinking.  The time has come to do that.  Without much thought I have watched those trains and never really pondered from where that coal comes and how much damage that coal is doing to the air and water of our wondrous state.  Let’s clear the air.

All Kansans should be thinking very hard about the future of our state and coal’s role in it.  A permit for the construction of an 895 mega-watt coal plant near Holcomb in western Kansas is being considered.  A public comment phase runs through August 15.  Public hearings began Monday, August 2 in Overland Park.  Others hearings will be held in Salina on August 4 and Garden City on August 5.   The plant would be owned and operated by Sunflower Electric, but Tri-State Generation and Transmission in Colorado will have already claimed 85% of the energy for Colorado.  They have craftily done this by directing roughly $52 million to Sunflower Electric to carry on the fight for a permit.  The power would not be a revenue-generating export for Kansas and would have little effect on our bottom line.

If the Holcomb plant receives its permit, begins construction in 2016, as hoped, and goes on-line some years later, 3.4 million tons of coal would be burned every year.  That would require over 30,000 train cars annually, or one full train every day.  That is simply too much.  Estimates are that our country’s coal reserves could be in serious decline in as little as 20 years.

Coal for the plant in Holcomb would come from Wyoming.  According to the National Conference of State Legislators, Wyoming generated 803.6 million in severance revenue from the sale of coal.  By pursuing use of Kansas’ abundant natural gas resources and advancing our use of wind energy, we can stop shipping our money west.  In the process of putting more Kansans to work, we also can strengthen our economy and create better schools, libraries and overall public funding in areas we Kansans all need.

According to information from the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2, 700 MW of installed wind capacity at 44% capacity factor would create $7.2 million a year in direct payment to landowners, $7.8 million a year in PILOT revenue, 4,300 new jobs during construction with $508 million a year directly to local economies and 700 new permanent operation jobs generating $57 million a year.  Combine those figures with the already extensive employment that comes with the use of our natural gas, Kansas would be in the enviable position of generating all the power Kansans need and reaping the financial benefits.  These plants and wind generators could be up and running far sooner than any coal plant.

All the money involved pales though compared to the impact a move to cleaner energy would have on our state’s well being.  Coal pollutes.  Coal plants deplete our water resources.  Both contribute to the need for growing concern over our environmental future.  We cannot afford to turn our backs any longer to the realities of global warming.  A report from the Physicians for Social Responsibility has stated that coal pollutants like carbon dioxide, mercury, particulate matter and nitrous oxide will cause damaging effects on respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems.  The Holcomb plant would use 6,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools of water each year.  A drive through western Kansas should make anyone aware of how precious water is to the farmers and ranchers of the area.

Remember the hearings currently underway deal with the need for an air quality permit.  All the evidence given on both sides dealing with economic factors is meaningless.  That is just the barter being used to overwhelm our thought process.  Clean air is at issue right now.  There are cheaper, safer and more state beneficial options that would have immediate impacts.  None would be greater than the fact we would be assuring cleaner air for Kansans for decades to come.

In fairness, my daughter Kelly is at the forefront of this fight for clean energy with her work for the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE.)  Thanks to her and others, we Kansans are becoming more and more aware of the impact a coal plant would have on our state.  Meanwhile, we continue to drag our feet over embracing cleaner and safer alternatives.  I know I’ll never again sit in my car or rest on my bike as a coal train lumbers past and not think of the impact that black matter has had on us all.

We are already deeply reliant on coal in eastern Kansas.  Sadly, those trains will keep coming.  Let’s just make sure they don’t make a stop in western Kansas.  Maybe someday they’ll just keep right on rolling through Kansas to other states not as farsighted as we can be here in Kansas.  Now that would really be a great way to clear the air.

For further information, please go to the GPACE website here.

The following comments were delivered by GPACE staffer Kelly Jacobsen at the Overland Park Public Hearing for Sunflower Electric’s Holcomb Station Expansion Project on Monday, August 2.

To the staff of the Kansas Department of the Health and Environment:

My name is Kelly Jacobsen. I’m a native Kansan and I’m here today to show my support for the workers of Kansas by opposing the construction of this 895mw coal plant and urging the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and Sunflower Electric to consider a project that would utilize native Kansas resources.

If this project is permitted, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, the out-of-state owners of this coal plant, have said they do not anticipate construction starting until at least 2016. That means that there is no potential for work for at least six years. Not a single new coal plant has broken ground in the last twenty months. In this tough economic climate, these men and women don’t need a wink-and-a-smile deal saying they will have jobs in six years — they need jobs now.

Construction on the Emporia Energy Center, a peak natural gas plant, started within one year of permitting and The Renewable Energy Policy Project reports that Kansas could create 11,491 new manufacturing jobs in the renewable energy industry. Why should these workers wait six years for 1,500 temporary construction jobs and 50 permanent jobs at a coal plant when natural gas and wind have the potential to put more people to work sooner.

I want these workers to be able to take pride in the fact that their work will utilize homegrown fuels like natural gas and wind, instead of imported coal from Wyoming.

Not only would using native resources put these people to work faster, but it would also generate a source of tax revenue for the state of Kansas. In 2007, Kansas generated $132.3 million in severance revenue. In the same year, the state of Wyoming generated $803.6 million in severance revenue. Why should we continue to send our dollars to Wyoming when we could be better utilizing our Kansas native fuels to generate tax revenue which could create better schools, better libraries and better public funding in our state?

Finally, not only do I want these workers to be able to provide for their families, but I want them to be able to do it in a way that doesn’t put their families at higher risks for asthma, heart disease, lung disease, cancer, and stroke. According to a report from Physicians for Social Responsibility, coal pollutants, like carbon dioxide, mercury, particulate matter, and nitrous oxides will cause damaging effects on our respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems.

Based on this information, I ask you to please deny this permit application. Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Kelly Jacobsen

By Michael Stand of The Salina Journal

In 2007, Kansas was temporarily in the world spotlight when Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, denied a permit to Sunflower Electric to build a new coal-fired generating plant in southwest Kansas.

The decision was so widely watched because it was the first time a permit had been denied because of the carbon dioxide a plant would emit; it declared carbon dioxide a health hazard.

Sunflower is once again looking to expand its generating capacity at Holcomb, this time seeking to build a far smaller, 895 megawatt plant, instead of the twin 700-MW plants it wanted to build a few years ago.

A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for Wednesday at the Kansas Highway Patrol training center. The hearing will begin at 2 p.m., with a break from 5 to 6:30, then resume until everyone has an opportunity to speak.

During the 2008 legislative session, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed three different bills seeking to overturn Bremby’s ruling, but after she resigned to become U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Gov. Mark Parkinson met with Sunflower officials and reached a compromise.

Included in that compromise, said Clare Gustin, Sunflower’s executive manager for external affairs, was a much smaller expansion, as well as a commitment from Sunflower to develop more renewable energy sources.

The plant is a joint project between Sunflower and Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Cooperative.

Among those opposing the plant expansion is Scott Allegrucci, executive director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy.

Allegrucci says that while the new proposal is significantly smaller — and will create less carbon dioxide — most of the objections to the earlier proposal still hold.

This isn’t exporting wheat

Allegrucci says the bulk of the power generated by the new plant will be used in Colorado, with Sunflower customers getting just 10 percent.

He acknowledges that Kansas exports lots of stuff, such as wheat, but says this case is different.

“We’re not exporting power,” he said. “Sunflower isn’t making power and then selling it on the market — essentially we’re hosting a coal plant for an out-of-state utility … Tri-State doesn’t want to fight this fight in Colorado.”

And in spite of Gustin’s assurances that Sunflower is committed to developing renewable energy sources, Allegrucci says the expansion would make it more difficult for wind and solar projects to gain a foothold.

“An overbuild of this size would flood our grid with coal-generated electrons, making (renewables) that much less economically feasible,” he said.

Why not natural gas?

He also questions why Sunflower wants to use coal to power the generators, saying he thinks natural gas would be better for a number of reasons.

“We have natural gas in Kansas, and they could be using that and keeping the money in Kansas instead of buying coal from Montana,” Allegrucci said. “Even if gas prices go higher, at least the money would be staying in Kansas.”

Gustin says choosing coal over natural gas is a sound business decision. Utilities typically use coal for so-called “base load,” because coal-fired plants must run constantly, and use gas-fired plants — which can be turned off and on almost at will — to handle peak loads only, because gas is more expensive.

“We’re not just biased toward coal,” she said, adding that the expansion is a 30- to 40-year investment, and that the company thinks coal prices will be more stable over that time.

Who will buy the power?

Allegrucci also says the plant isn’t needed now, even by Tri-State, and that Tri-State’s own projections say it won’t need the power until 2026.

But Gustin says a contract Westar has to buy 174 MW of power from Aquila expires in 2018, and Westar will need to get that power from somewhere else.

Allegrucci also said it’s possible the federal government might step in to stop the plant expansion, even if state officials approve it.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide, and Allegrucci said the agency intends to start doing just that beginning in January.

Exactly how that regulation will unfold remains to be seen, Allegrucci said, adding that the EPA has already required one plant in Kentucky to use natural gas instead of coal, because it creates less carbon dioxide.

“Basically, Sunflower is racing to get their permit before January 2011,” he said.

NEWS RELEASE

CONTACT:

Michael Grimaldi or John Martellaro

Trozzolo Communications Group

816-842-8111 or mgrimaldi@trozzolo.com or jmartellaro@trozzolo.com

GPACE Lauds Added Coal Plant Comment Period

KDHE does right thing to accommodate utility’s need to fix data

TOPEKA, Kan. – Scott Allegrucci, executive director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (www.gpace.org), issued the following statement today in response to the decision of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to schedule a second comment period on Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s draft air quality permit to construct a new 895-megawatt coal-burning power plant in Holcomb, Kan.:

“While it would have been preferable that Sunflower Electric Power Corp. had submitted accurately adjusted air dispersion data at the outset and thus necessitated only one comment period, the KDHE’s decision to allow additional public comment is good news for Kansas and all Kansans.

“Correctly adjusted air dispersion data is critical to a complete technical review of the project’s impact. We are grateful that KDHE will allow comments on the entire draft permit after Sunflower Electric submits revised data, since changes to one part of this complex information will impact many other aspects of air quality.

“GPACE recognizes the critical and essential role of electricity generation as a significant component of economic development and job creation in the state. What’s right for Kansas is that any major utility investment should support the state’s economy, use natural resources wisely and protect the health of citizens.

“We’re grateful that regulatory processes are in place to ensure that these objectives are met. GPACE pledges to support the work of elected officials, industry and regulators so that public policy decisions are made in the best interest of all citizens, our state and our nation.”

# # #

Note to editors:

For an informative timeline illustrating the history of the proposed Holcomb Station expansion project, visit http://rethinkrepowerks.com/

To see the KDHE’s news release about the additional comment period, visit http://www.kdheks.gov/news/web_archives/2010/07302010a.htm

By Theo Spencer for the Natural Resource Defence Council staff blog

When does a bad idea become worse? When it gets one step closer to reality.

That’s the case with the proposed ‘Sunflower’ coal-fired power plant in Kansas. Just last week, the state Department of Health and Environment issued a draft air permit for this nearly 900 megawatt behemoth.

If you want to know the details of why this is a bad idea, and why clean energy would be a much better idea, local advocates have developed a very cool new web site/tool www.rethinkrepowerks.org that contrasts the construction of the dirty plant with investments in clean energy.

The site has four tabs at the top: Job growth, health effects, economic impact and energy output. If you click on any of these in a year picked from the sliding timeline, you’ll get a side-by-side display contrasting the impacts of the coal plant against wind and natural gas. The graphics are cool and easy to read. I’ve never seen a coal plant challenge site that’s so easy to use with such a clear display of contrasting information.

The great thing about this new site is it’s essentially a template that can be lifted and used in battles against other proposed dirty coal plants in other states.

The site was developed by the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE), a Kansas non-profit. And it’s creation was timely: the public comment for the draft air permit period lasts until August 15. After that the state or EPA can deny the permit. We hope they do.

Because a lot of things don’t make sense about this proposed huge dirty coal plant. First, it’s proposed for Western Kansas, but 80 percent of the power would be shipped out of state to Colorado. So Kansas gets the pollution, and Colorado get’s the power. What’s more, water from Kansas aquifers would cool the plant, even though Kansas and Colorado have been fighting legal battles over water rights for decades.

The vast majority of the power produced by the plant would be purchased by Tri-State Generation and Transmission, based in Colorado. But the plant would be developed by the Kansas-based Sunflower Rural Electric Cooperative.

Funny thing is, Tri-State has publicly stated it does not anticipate construction starting on the plant (if it’s permitted) until at least 2016. And Tri-State’s own resource planning shows no need for coal-fired base load capacity until 2026 at the earliest.

Yet the CEO of Sunflower says the plant will be built by 2016. Go figure.

Any way you look at it, this is an un-needed dinosaur that greedy Sunflower executives only want because it would add a multi-billion dollar asset to their toy chest. Problem is, the financial risks and almost certain rate hikes related to pollution costs and construction cost overruns will likely be passed on to Kansas rate-payers, while most of the power would theoretically be shipped out of state.

And finally, the construction of excess coal-fired generation capacity to send coal-generated electricity to Colorado will almost certainly retard wind development in Kansas. Both wind and natural gas power capacity at the same level as the proposed coal plant would get permitted and built (and put Kansans to work) prior to 2016.

This plant is a bad idea, but fortunately a good one has come out of the process, this cool new tool to help fight dirty coal plants nationally.

By Jim Roth, special to The Kansas City Star

As a Prairie Village native and K-State alumnus, I have spent my life proud of my home state. Today, however, I have serious concerns for the citizens of Kansas and the future health of my family members who still live there.

In my public service as a utility regulator, I have learned a great deal about the intricacies of energy and electricity and the choices that exist for the future of both. Nothing is more risky today than coal. It is dirty and cannot affordably be cleaned up. Period.

Oklahoma rejected a risky coal plant and instead chose to rely on its own native blessings of wind and natural gas to power its future. Time has proven that to be the right decision, especially as gigantic and disastrous cost overruns are coming to light on the coal plant under construction in Illinois. Kansas ratepayers are facing the prospect of increased electric bills from cost overruns on Kansas City Power & Light Co.’s new coal plant in Iatan, Mo.

Meanwhile, native fuel sources of wind and natural gas native to Kansas can spur economic growth and forever provide cleaner electricity.

Wind power emits zero air pollution. It is rural Kansas’ greatest hope for an economic shot in the arm, and it is truly sustainable.

Natural gas is America’s cleanest reliable power source. It is abundant in Kansas and affordably keeps the lights on 24 hours a day across our country. Remember, Kansas exports natural gas to other states.

Yet, Kansas is now debating building a new coal plant in Holcomb, using Wyoming coal for the sake of Colorado utility customers. They can’t build the plant in Colorado, so they want to build it in Kansas.

Colorado will get the power, but the problems will remain with Kansas: Risky capital debt for the 60-year life of the plant, depletion of Kansas’ finite ground water, and massive amounts of dirty air and pollution across Kansas’ skies for the next three or more generations.

A new, massive coal plant in Holcomb makes no sense for a state that prides itself on common sense. Why would Kansas pollute our future, stall our own local, native energy economy and ship Kansas citizens’ money out-of-state for this dirty coal plant?

Because of the pollution expected from this proposed plant, Holcomb’s parent company, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., must obtain an air permit from regulators. That process is underway now and allows parents and grandparents a chance to stand and have their voices heard.

The public hearings begin at 2 p.m. Aug. 2 at Blue Valley Northwest High School in Overland Park. They continue Aug. 4 at the Highway Patrol Training Center in Salina, and Aug. 5 at Garden City Community College.

It’s time that clean air advocates speak out. It’s time for parents who want local Kansas’ energy jobs to exist for their children to speak out.

It’s time that Kansans stand up for Kansas, and I hope you will.

Jim Roth, an attorney and former member of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, resides in Oklahoma City.

By Scott Rothschild of The Lawrence Journal World

The Kansas utility wanting to build a giant coal-burning electric power plant is also interested in nuclear energy.

Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. has joined a consortium promoting the technology to build smaller commercial nuclear reactors and the regulatory changes needed to bring them to market.

“Sunflower’s board is pretty visionary. We are always investigating new technology,” Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel said Friday.

She emphasized the consideration of nuclear energy is in the beginning stages. “We’re just part of a consortium that says this is a viable technology that needs to be pursued,” Hertel said.

The consortium includes a number of utilities promoting a proposal by Babcock & Wilcox Co. to build small nuclear reactors that can be built in factories and then shipped to sites. Babcock, of Lynchburg, Va., now makes small reactors for the Navy.

Sunflower Electric is seeking a permit to build an 895-megawatt coal-fired plant in Finney County. Public hearings on the project are scheduled next month in Overland Park, Salina and Garden City.

—

For more information, visit The Climate and Energy Project blog.

From WIBW TV

Sunflower Electric has applied for an air quality permit to build a new coal-fired plant in Holcomb, Kansas. KDHE is offering opportunities for the public to comment via e-mail, letter

HOLCOMB, Kansas – Sunflower Electric Power Corp has applied for an air quality constructionpermit to construct one new 895-megawatt coal-fired steam generating unit and associated equipment at its generating station located in Holcomb.

Public comments will be accepted July 1 – August 15 and a series of public hearings are scheduled for August.

Public Hearings Scheduled
Overland Park – Monday, August 2 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 pm.
Blue Valley Northwest High School, 135th and Switzer

Salina – Wednesday, August 4 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
Highway Patrol Training Center Auditorium, 2025 East Iron

Garden City – Thursday, August 5 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
801 Campus Drive

In each location, the public hearing will begin at 2 p.m. and continue until all participants present have an opportunity to offer written and/or verbal comments, but no later than 5 p.m. The hearing will reconvene at 6:30 p.m. and continue until all verbal and/or written comments have been submitted by participants. People requiring special accommodations to participate in the public hearings should notify Linda Vandevord at (785) 296-6423 by 5 p.m. on July 23.

The public comment period began on July 1, 2010 and ends on August 15, 2010. All comments should be submitted by e-mail to sunflowercomments@kdheks.gov, or presented at the hearing, or in writing to:
KDHE Bureau of Air
Attn: Sunflower Comments
1000 SW Jackson, Suite 310
Topeka, KS 66612-1366

A copy of the draft permit, permit application, supporting documentation, and information relied upon during the permit application review process are available for public review online at http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/index.html or at the above Topeka address during normal business hours (8 a.m. until 5 p.m.) July 1 – August 15.

Copies of the draft permit and all supporting documentation can also be reviewed at the KDHE Northwest District Office, 2310 East 13th St., Hays, or at the KDHE Southwest District Office, 302 W. MacArtor Road, Dodge City. The standard departmental cost will be assessed for any copies requested.

To obtain or review the draft permit and supporting documentation, contact Linda Vandevord at (785) 296-6423 in Topeka; Allen Guernsey, District Environmental Administrator at the KDHE Southwest District Office (620) 225-0596; or Dan Wells, District Environmental Administrator at the KDHE Northwest District Office at (785) 625-5665.

From the American Natural Gas Alliance

Michigan-based municipal utility Traverse City Light & Power has put off plans to replace a coal-fired power plant with a biomass project, and is instead eyeing plans to build a natural gas-fueled plant Bloomberg reports .

The original plans called for the facility to burn wood (biomass) to help Traverse City Light & Power meet a goal of supplying 30 percent of their electricity requirements with renewable energy by 2020. The utility’s board will revisit those plans in July to discuss the shift in direction and to re- evaluate its strategic goals, the Traverse City Record- Eagle reports .

“We’ve listened to many of our ratepayers tell us they don’t know enough about biomass and some have suggested they are more comfortable with natural gas as a power generation resource,” said Chairman Mike Coco.  A utility-commissioned survey released in April 2010 revealed that more than 53 percent of local resident and business respondents supported the natural gas project.

Natural gas is a clean and highly efficient form of energy. It is twice as clean as coal when it comes to carbon emissions. It also produces 80 percent fewer NOx emissions than coal power and virtually no sulfur dioxide, mercury or particulate pollution. In fact, a study released last week by MIT, titled “The Future of Natural Gas” suggests that by decommissioning older, less efficient coal plants, the U.S. can quickly and substantially reduce the amount of carbon and other harmful pollutants from entering the atmosphere.

Natural gas also is extremely reliable and provides the essential back-up critical for renewables in electric power production – key to helping Michigan meet its renewable portfolio standard, which requires utilities to derive 10 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2015.

Our nation’s vast domestic supplies of natural gas—including new findings in Michigan –significantly change the energy game in the U.S. Last June, the Potential Gas Committee reported the U.S. has 35 percent more recoverable natural gas than thought before. That’s the highest resource total ever reported by the organization in its 44 years. Our nation’s abundance of shale gas also continues to be a major player in helping keep residential rates for consumers affordable.

Like Traverse City Light & Power, more and more utilities are looking to natural gas as a clean, abundant and reliable choice to meet our nation’s energy needs. Natural gas is a smart choice. It’s also the natural choice for utilities across the country – as they stand on the front lines of reducing our environmental footprint and progressing our clean-energy future.