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.

Sunflower project will face thorough environmental review, new administration decision

Washington, D.C. — Judge Emmett Sullivan, in the federal district court today, effectively blocked an 895-MW coal-fired power project in western Kansas—the notorious Sunflower expansion—until a thorough environmental review of the project is finalized. The decision emphasized the significant impacts to human health that would arise if the project was constructed.

 

The current Sunflower Electric Power Plant in Holcomb, KS. (DOE)

The ruling is the latest chapter in a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club against the Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”), an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, over its ongoing financial support for and approval of the Sunflower expansion. In March 2011, the court found that RUS had failed to consider environmental impacts of the proposed Sunflower plant expansion, in violation of federal law. The government has a financial stake in the plant because of loan arrangements made with plant owners by the federal Rural Utilities Service.

In his decision, Judge Emmett Sullivan emphasized that the expansion will need additional approval from the federal government as a result of changes to the project from earlier configurations. He enjoined the government from issuing any additional approvals pending a full “environmental impact statement” (“EIS”) disclosing all of the environmental and human health impacts of the project, which includes harm to human health as well as contribution to climate change. An EIS must also discuss “alternatives” to a proposed project, such as renewable energy projects and energy conservation.

“The people of Kansas and downwind states will now get their legitimate public health concerns heard,” said Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice who led the lawsuit on behalf of the Sierra Club. “Once the facts of this dirty and dangerous project are exposed to the public, we think that the federal government will have to just say no.”

“The financial and public health risks involved in the development of this project have always made it a bad deal for those of us who will have to breathe dirty air and pay unnecessary costs for this coal plant,” said Lee Messenger of Garden City, an opponent of the expansion. “Sunflower needs to be accountable for the debt it has already created with its existing coal plant, not get in over its head again with another risky and unneeded coal plant.”

“From a public health and environmental perspective, coal-fired power is the most expensive option available,” said Scott Allegrucci of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “We are confident that once the environmental impacts of this plant are considered in light of alternatives, the project’s impacts will be unacceptable and it will be rejected.”

According to recent American Wind Energy Association fourth quarter data, Kansas has the largest number of wind projects under construction in the nation. This decision comes as utility companies and developers across the country are abandoning planned coal plants as unnecessary and too costly and are moving toward a greater reliance on clean energy.

Background:

In this lawsuit, Sierra Club argued that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provided extensive financial support—including writing off millions of dollars of public debt—so that Sunflower could build the new power plant. These agreements left the RUS with close oversight of Sunflower’s business operations and required federal approval to proceed with the Holcomb project. Much of Sunflower’s financial struggles stem from overbuilding capacity at their existing unit, Holcomb I, which is a scenario that could be repeated if Holcomb II is constructed since neither Sunflower nor Tri-State, the Colorado partner, has demonstrated the project is needed. The lawsuit argued that, as an essentially federal project, greater environmental review and consideration of alternatives—like greater conservation and renewables—is required.

Meanwhile, when Kathleen Sebelius was governor, the state rejected the proposed plant because of its potential, massive contributions to climate change. While popular with citizens, the decision upset coal-connected legislators. But, try as they did, they couldn’t overcome Sebelius’ vetoes.

Even when Sebelius left office—and was replaced by a governor who quickly gave Sunflower the green light—the coal lobby was stymied by legal pressures and by Rod Bremby, the state environmental health chief who had first rejected the plant permit under Sebelius. He held the line for three years until finally being fired over the issue. His successor promptly issued the permit last December. An appeal of the air permit is pending in the Kansas Supreme Court.

• Read the Court’s March 2011 decision on the merits.
• Read today’s ruling effectively halting the project.

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

As communities battle toxic air, business shapes EPA and state regulation

When the top environmental regulator in Kansas rejected its bid to build two new power units in 2007, citing health concerns, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. refused to take no for an answer. When the governor vetoed bills that would have paved the way for construction in 2008 and 2009, Sunfloweragain refused to relent.

The company’s persistence paid off. In 2009, the new governor approved construction of a new coal plant in the tiny city of Holcomb, so long as Kansas legislators backed renewable energy policies at the same time. The state regulator who initially denied Sunflower’s permit? He was let go.

Sunflower said it won the permit on merit, and that political influence was not a factor.

Yet the company’s success is a telling snapshot of how, when industry flexes its muscles over Clean Air Act issues, it often wins. From Kansas to Louisiana to Texas, Wisconsin and Ohio, community groups have fought new plants, expansions and chronic emissions – only to see industry score victories with regulators and politicians.

“We’re not protecting public health today,” said Jim Tarr, an air pollution consultant in California who worked as an engineer for the Texas Air Control Board in the 1970s. “One of the primary reasons we’re not is that the environmental agencies have been co-opted by the people doing the polluting.”

Industry’s influence plays out at every step of the process: From the campaign contributions it spreads to sway policy to its role shaping clean air rules to its resistance to enforcement actions brought by regulators.

Its reach is deeper than most realize.

Two just-published reports – one from academic researchers, the other from the Environmental Protection Agency’s own inspector general – detail industry’s role in shaping Clean Air Act regulations meant to protect communities from dirty air.

The academics’ study – Rulemaking in the Shade: An Empirical Study of EPA’s Air Toxic Emission Standards – examined the level of input by industry and public interest groups at key stages as the EPA wrote rules for more than 100 major industries. Those stages: Before a proposed rule was published; once notice was given and the public weighed in; and during the final rule-writing process.

The results surprised even the study’s authors:

• At the early, pre-proposal stage, industry had an average of 84 informal communications with the EPA per rule compared to less than 1 for public interest groups;
• During the public comment period, industry provided more than 8 of every 10 comments;
• Changes to the final rule favored industry 4-1 over those benefiting public interest groups.

“We expected imbalance in engagement, but did not imagine it would be that badly skewed,” said co-author Wendy Wagner, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

For every two industry comments, she said, one change was made weakening the final rule.

Industry said its motivation is no secret.

“It’s survival,” said Robert Bessette, president of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, a trade group representing manufacturers that use boilers to power their operations. “Industry, when pushed up against the wall, reacts.”

The council is pushing back against a proposed EPA rule to curb toxic emissions from boilers – an effort that includes prodding Congress to pass legislation and meeting with the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget, Bessette said.

Political contributions help ease industry’s access. Thirteen states house three-fourths of the nation’s most worrisome air polluters – facilities listed on an EPA “watch list” of alleged violators that haven’t faced timely enforcement. Those companies, their corporate parents and executives have made nearly $60 million in overall state campaign contributions since 2006, the Center for Public Integrity found.

Facilities in the six congressional districts with the greatest number of watch list sites contributed $120,350 to their federal representatives since 2006.

Uneven state enforcement

In some states, industry influence is clear.

The EPA IG’s recent report, EPA Must Improve Oversight of State Enforcement, documents breakdowns in Clean Air Act enforcement that can translate into fewer health protections for communities in the shadow of power plants, refineries and chemical manufacturers.

“When neither states nor EPA takes enforcement actions when needed, these health benefits are not realized and premature deaths and illnesses are not prevented to the extent that they could be,” the IG concluded. “As a result, EPA cannot assure that Americans in all states are equally protected from the health effects of pollution or that enforcement of regulated entities is consistent nationwide.”

The IG said a culture of protecting industry was clear in some states with the weakest records of enforcing the Clean Air Act, such as Louisiana.

“State, EPA regional, and external interview responses attributed Louisiana’s poor performance to several factors, including a lack of resources, natural disasters, and a culture in which the state agency is expected to protect industry,” the IG found.

The EPA did not respond to the Center’s questions about Rulemaking in the Shade. In its reply to the IG’s report, the agency questioned some of the research methodology – but ultimately agreed “that state enforcement performance varies widely across the country.”

“We also agree that there are steps EPA Headquarters and regional offices can and should take to strengthen our oversight and address longstanding state performance issues,” the EPA replied.

That industry weighs in with frequency and success is no surprise to environmental activists, people who live near plant fence-lines and some political leaders who have long tangled with Big Oil.

“The fight that industry wages against any kind of threat to their pollution is across the board,” said James “Jim” Cox, a retired state senator from southwest Louisiana. “It boils down to the control the industry has of the community. It’s a jobs situation. It’s a well-organized lobbying situation.”

Health fears in Mossville

One long-running battle centers on Mossville, a small African-American community founded in the 1790s across from Lake Charles, La.

Fourteen major industrial facilities surround the community, including an oil refinery, a coal plant, chemical manufacturers and one of the largest clusters of vinyl production facilities in the United States.

For 15 years, residents have been asking government and industry to relocate them from the powerful odors and toxic chemicals released by the plants, citing reports showing dangerous levels of dioxins in the air. Dioxins, researchers say, can cause cancer and reproductive damage and slow child development.

In 1998, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that Mossville residents had an average dioxin blood level three times above that in the typical U.S. community.

The report, however, did not identify the source of the exposure. A later ATSDR report said residents in the neighboring parishes of Calcasieu and Lafayette had typical blood dioxin levels. But, residents say, that report included a larger group outside Mossville. Their health fears continue.

Wilma Subra, a chemist from Louisiana who studied the community, produced a report linking dioxin levels to local industry.

As Mossville residents pressed for answers, the government continued to issue permits fueling industry’s growth. The EPA’s enforcement website lists more than a dozen facilities in Lake Charles out of compliance with the Clean Air Act.

In 2005, the people of Mossville filed an environmental racism petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States. When the commission accepted the complaint last year, it became the first such U.S. case to move forward.

“Filing the human rights petition is really our last resort,” said one of the community’s lawyers, Monique Harden, co-director of the public interest law firm Advocates for Environmental Human Rights.

“It’s been 15 years of evolving strategies,” Harden said. “Residents want a voluntary relocation program that they help to develop. They want medical care services. They want pollution reduction and cleanup of contaminated sites. So it’s been years of trying to get both the industry in the Mossville area and governmental agencies to meet the community on these remedies.”

Some residents have been relocated, but the petition seeks a more far-reaching move-out for those who want it. It asks that the U.S. “refrain from issuing environmental permits and other approvals that would allow any increase in pollution.”

Lake Charles-area companies deny causing any harm to residents, saying they strive to curtail emissions.

“We strongly support efforts to reduce dioxins in the environment,” Georgia Gulf Corp., which makes a raw ingredient in polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, wrote on the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre website.

“Our industry is responsible for quality products that consumers want, buy and use every day. Medical supplies, medicines and pharmaceutical products, computer keyboards, PVC pipe, automobile dashboards, toys and sporting goods and food wrap are products Louisiana plants help make, and these products in turn help Louisianans enjoy a healthy and productive lifestyle,” the company wrote.

Echoing other facilities, PPG Industries said it operates “in a manner that is protective of public health, safety and the environment.” ConocoPhillips, the world’s fifth-largest refiner, declined an interview request but cited its website, saying it is committed to working with its neighbors.

‘They love their polluters’

In some communities, activists feel like lone wolves.

In Longview, in East Texas, the Eastman Chemical Co. plant is among the top national emitters of ethylene glycol, chloromethane and chloroform – compounds that can damage the nervous system, liver, kidneys or lungs. EPA records show $420,004 in Clean Air Act penalties levied in the last five years against Eastman, which manufactures more than 40 major chemical and polymer products.

Eastman said it diligently monitors emissions and its Longview site meets air-quality standards. “Protecting air quality is an essential and complex part of Eastman’s environmental program,” the company said in a statement. “The men and women at Eastman not only strive to improve Eastman’s compliance with the Clean Air Act because it is the law, but also because we and our families live in the adjacent communities.”

Over a five-year period from August 2005 to August 2010, no residents filed complaints about the facility with the Tyler office of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, records show.

That is not surprising, some say, in a region proud of the economic jolt industry provides, where Eastman Road runs astride the plant and where, in 2009, the Texas Chemical Council awarded Eastman its “Excellence in Caring for Texas” award. The plant employs more than 1,500, placing it among the largest employers in a region replete with industry.

Tammy Cromer-Campbell, a professional photographer and environmental activist, is a rare breed in Longview: a critic who stands up against pollution. She said the mission has been lonely. “They love their polluters,” Cromer-Campbell said with a laugh while driving near Longview’s industrial hub.

A co-founder of a group called WECAN – Working Effectively for Clean Air Now – she rose up at meetings of the Northeast Texas Air Care, a cooperative association of local governments and industries. Cromer-Campbell found herself the outsider looking in.

“Whenever I go to those meetings, I don’t have a crowd of people behind me, supporting me. It’s all industry,” she said. “I got burnt out. We couldn’t get a lot of other people to join me.”

Picking up the slack

Some Texas officials are frustrated, too.

Two veteran lawyers with the Harris County Attorney’s Office – whose jurisdiction includes Houston and the nation’s largest petrochemical complex – seem to be in perpetual conflict with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

One, Terry O’Rourke, called the agency “a lap dog for polluters” and said state regulators are too quick to overlook companies that poison the air and water. O’Rourke said his office, which represents the Harris County Pollution Control Services Department, has picked up the slack.

“We have to stop the pollution at its source,” said O’Rourke, who began prosecuting polluters as an assistant state attorney general in 1973. “You do it the same way you write speeding tickets. If you don’t enforce the law, everybody will be driving 100 miles per hour.”

His colleague, Rock Owens, said the TCEQ “treats the regulated community as if they are customers. It’s always with an eye toward the convenience and the bottom line of the major players.”

Owens cited a recent example. On five occasions from April 2008 through March 2010, according to a civil complaint drafted by the county attorney’s office, a Shell Chemical plant east of Houston “illegally released over eight tons of toxic petrochemicals into the air in Harris County, including known carcinogens such as benzene and butadiene. . .”

Shell, however, failed to report the releases to the county within 24 hours, as required. The TCEQ fined Shell $71,900 for one of the incidents in 2008. Owens’s office deemed this insufficient and went after Shell, preparing a complaint in 2010 that sought more than $6 million in penalties.

The case was settled this year, with Shell agreeing to pay $500,000 to the county. O’Rourke said he remains annoyed the TCEQ didn’t move more aggressively.

“That, to me, is fundamentally offensive,” O’Rourke said. “TCEQ slapped their wrist. We’ve got kids who play in schoolyards in the shadow of these [plants]. Most of them are black and brown, and a lot of them are poor. Just because they’re poor doesn’t mean they should have to breathe crap.”

He added: “We can have the largest petrochemical complex in the United States and still have a clean environment. They are not incompatible.”

In a written statement, Shell said that while it “disputes the claims and allegations made by Harris County, we are complying with the settlement in the interest of securing a timely and effective resolution to this matter.”

The TCEQ said in a statement that it has fined Shell more than $1.4 million over the past five years as a result of 26 enforcement orders, many involving “unauthorized emissions and failure to comply with permitted emission limits.”

The TCEQ “emphasizes compliance to protect our citizens from harm, coupled with swift, sure and firm enforcement for those who do not comply,” the statement said.

Owens scoffed at the amount of the TCEQ penalties, saying large companies like Shell consider them “just another part of doing business in Texas. Pay a little fine, go about your way – that’s not an effective deterrent.”

Shell, which reported profits of $18.6 billion in 2010, cited $7 billion in profits in the third quarter of 2011 alone.

Working Washington

Big industry pays big lobbying fees to press its agenda in Washington.

The Washington lobby shop for San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp., for instance, spent $496,000 in the first three quarters of this year pressing environmental issues ranging from air and water quality to fuel specifications.

The company also hired outside lobbyists to work the aisles of Congress and federal agencies, according to Senate lobbying disclosure records.

One firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, spent $140,000 lobbying for Valero on “clean air, energy legislation and other environmental issues relating to the refining industry.” Among the lobbyists is a former acting general counsel for the EPA.

Six Valero plants – five refineries and one ethanol plant – are on the EPA’s November Clean Air Act watch list.

Still, the company’s message to its shareholders has been reassuring. Even if “one or more [enforcement actions] were decided against us, we believe that there would be no material effect on our financial position or results of operations,” Valero said in its 2010 annual report.

A Valero spokesman declined to comment, saying, “Our advocacy efforts are outlined in required filings.”

‘There were abuses’

Industry often prevails over critics – and, sometimes, regulators.

In Holcomb, Kan., residents so far have been unable to stop the Sunflower power plant even after the state initially shot it down.

After Roderick Bremby, then head of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, denied Sunflower’s initial permit application, project supporters pushed bills in the state legislature clearing the way for construction.

In 2008 and 2009, Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the bills.

Less than a month after an April 2009 veto, Sebelius left to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson took over, and, by May 4, had struck a deal with Sunflower.

Before the plant could be built, it had to get a permit – a lengthy process allowing public input. The clock was ticking: If the permit wasn’t issued by January 2011, new rules would require the plant to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In November 2010, as the January deadline loomed, Parkinson fired Bremby.

In a statement the week after the firing, Parkinson said the decision wasn’t related to the Sunflower permit. “When evaluating the permit application,” Parkinson said, “what I have told the acting Secretary is simply this: I don’t care whether you approve the permit or not, but I do care that Kansas follows the laws and regulations governing the process.”

But Bremby, who is now commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Social Services, said during a speech at a Kansas community college this February that the permit approval process “was not a benign, pristine, routine bureaucratic process. Unfortunately, there were abuses.”

On Dec. 16, 2010, the Kansas department approved Sunflower’s permit.

Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm, soon challenged the permit in court, accusing state officials of rushing the permitting process because of pressure from Sunflower and the governor’s office. The result, the firm alleged, was a flawed permit.

Among the concerns expressed in Earthjustice’s legal brief: State regulators allowed Sunflower to underestimate the amount of toxic air pollution it would release, shielding it from requirements to install better pollution controls.

Sunflower spokesperson Cindy Hertel said the permit “was thoroughly vetted” by state regulators. “As far as influencing anyone, we certainly did not,” she said.

Some in Holcomb want the new plant for the economic boost Sunflower promises will come, but others are worried. Lee Messenger, who lives a few miles from the current plant and the proposed site for the new one, fears the expansion will drain the town’s water supply and pollute the air.

“We don’t get a chance to vote on anything,” said Messenger, 81. “These politicians like to think we elected them to take care of us. But they take care of themselves first. “

Kansas regulators declined to comment on Sunflower’s permit, citing the ongoing court case. In a brief, lawyers with the state attorney general’s office wrote, “The accusations of political bias and procedural impropriety are factually unsupportable in the administrative record.”

Business-friendly regulators

Some grassroots groups worry that state environmental agencies lean too heavily toward business interests.

In Wisconsin, Scott Walker swept into the governor’s office in 2010 on a message of job creation. Soon after, he appointed Cathy Stepp, a former Republican state senator, to head the state’s Department of Natural Resources.

Stepp had been a vocal critic of the department she now leads. In June 2009, she posted on aconservative blog that some who worked at the state agency “tend to be anti-development, anti-transportation, and pro-garter snakes, Karner blue butterflies, etc. … So, since they’re unelected bureaucrats who have only their cubicle walls to bounce ideas off of, they tend to come up with some pretty outrageous stuff that those of us in the real world have to contend with.”

The department’s No. 2 official, Matt Moroney, said that before joining the department, Stepp “was representing a constituency. She was listening closely to some of her business friends and looking at how to improve DNR.”

Her current job, he said, “is a completely different role for her.” Stepp has focused on cutting waste and streamlining the agency. This October, department officials testified in favor of a bill in the state legislature that would restrict the number of times regulators could ask companies for more information on a permit application. It would also impose stricter time limits for the department to approve permits.

Environmental groups say the department’s new approach, coupled with tightening budgets, will undermine attempts to curb pollution. “They are going to these public hearings and advocating for taking their own authority away,” said Shahla Werner, director of the state’s Sierra Club chapter. “It’s surreal to watch.”

Paint-eating pollution

Middletown, Ohio, has lived under the cloud of AK Steel for nearly a century. The largest employer in the Ohio town 40 miles north of Cincinnati, AK Steel has for decades pumped out pollution that takes the paint off residents’ cars and settles in their siding, some say.

“It got into people’s gardens, and kids playing in the yard would come in with their feet black from the soot,” said longtime resident Rachael Belz.

In 2000, the Department of Justice sued AK Steel over violations of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency joined the suit, which settled out of court and required the company to clean up Dicks Creek, which runs between the facility and a neighboring school. AK Steel committed to $66 million in pollution-control upgrades.

The facility remains on the EPA’s Clean Air Act watch list, and some say problems linger. “We still have soot in our house,” said Belz, who suffers from asthma. “You can’t sit outside on your porch for more than 10 to 15 minutes without crap flying into your coffee.”

An AK Steel spokesman said the company does not know why it is on the watch list and has complied with regulations. He declined further comment.

During the civil case, residents launched a campaign to pressure the company to meet its promises. Elected officials, community organizer Belz said, made themselves scarce.

But politicians, from the city council to the governor’s office to U.S. Rep. John Boehner – a regular beneficiary of AK Steel contributions – were on hand to cheer the company’s 2010 expansion plan. Boehner did not reply to interview requests.

“We do our campaigns in part,” Belz said, “because we can’t count on our politicians.”

Paul Abowd, Rachael Marcus and Fred Schulte contributed to this report.

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

Amid criticism from environmentalists, a power plant developer said Monday it would suspend plans for a new coal-fired unit in northeastern Arkansas for at least five years and stop efforts altogether to build a facility in southern Georgia.

LS Power Group of New York said it had reached an agreement with the Sierra Club to temporarily halt its effort to build a 665-megawatt Plum Point II power plant near Osceola, Ark., north of Memphis, Tenn., and permanently give up plans to build the 1,200-megawatt Longleaf Energy Station near Blakely in far southwestern Georgia.

“We’ve agreed not to resubmit plans for at least five years,” LS Power representative George Sciencki said Monday evening after the Sierra Club’s announcement. “The intent at Plum Point is a five-year hold.” He said poor market conditions made it easy to agree to the delay.

But Glen Hooks, spokesman for the Sierra Club in Little Rock, said the delay is as good as a death sentence for the Arkansas plant.

“It’s effectively the same thing,” Hooks said. “No matter what kind of spin they want to put on it, this plant is not going to be built.”

Environmentalists have long targeted coal-fired plants, saying their emissions can foul broad areas downwind. Hooks said tight federal regulations, particularly on mercury emissions and haze, would make it too expensive for anyone to operate a coal-fired plant.

“They will force these plants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars,” Hooks said.

Another 665-megawatt unit at Osceola, called Plum Point, began operating last year using pulverized coal from Wyoming. It was built at a cost of $1.3 billion and opened under ownership of an insurance company, a collection of municipal utilities and a Houston-based holding company.

The head of the city-owned Conway Corp. utility told the city’s Log Cabin Democrat newspaper for a story to be published Tuesday that he was not surprised the Osceola plan was on hold. Conway Corp. CEO Richie Arnold said his city was considering buying power from the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, which would have been a co-owner of the plant.

“We’re not surprised that the project’s on hold,” Arnold told the newspaper. “We’ve not seen any activity toward development of the plant in the last 18 months.” He also cited upcoming regulations and market risks for the delay.

The slightly smaller John W. Turk plant being built by SWEPCO in southwestern Arkansas is to have a capacity of 600 megawatts, making it capable of powering 300,000 to 450,000 homes, depending on the time of year. The Sierra Club and other groups are fighting its construction.

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

Coal-fired Spiritwood Station was built to serve electric co-ops. But it’s turned into a money drain.

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

Scott Allegrucci, a founding board member and executive director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE), will become the Beyond Coal Senior Campaign Representative covering Missouri, Nebraska as well as Kansas, bringing regional coordination and focus to the push for clean energy choices.

“While Scott’s role in Kansas will necessarily change, we’re very excited that his new assignment with Sierra Club can bring regional leverage to our state efforts,” said Kim Hanson, GPACE Board Chair. “Regional advocacy makes sense since coal plant pollution and electrical power distribution don’t stop at state lines. Kansas will benefit from Scott’s move because our state is very rich in cleaner and renewable energy sources.”

The Beyond Coal Campaign is the Sierra Club’s national effort to clean the air, end the coal era, and accelerate the transition to cleaner, cost-effective energy sources. Started as a three-person campaign in 2002, the Beyond Coal campaign has quickly grown into a powerhouse effort that is changing the way America produces energy.

“The GPACE mission to support a clean, secure, prosperous energy economy benefiting Kansas and all future Kansans can be advanced by a collaborative regional effort,” Allegrucci said. “With regional strategy and organization, we’ll be better able to advocate for Kansas actions that can enable clean energy, create new jobs and jump-start the American economy.”

Allegrucci said the achievements of GPACE prove that Kansans are ready to capitalize on the state’s native energy resources to create more higher-paying jobs; a resilient economy; and a healthy environment for our children and grandchildren.

“The stage is set because Kansas has a surplus of cleaner and renewable electricity fuel sources,” Allegrucci said. “The region will benefit if the kind of progress and cooperation GPACE and Sierra Club have realized in Kansas can be coordinated with similar efforts in Missouri and Nebraska.”

Allegrucci led GPACE in the successful 2008 and 2009 Kansas legislative fights that stopped Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association’s proposal to add two, huge coal-burning plants at Sunflower Electric’s Holcomb Station.

He also led GPACE’s efforts against the Tri-State and Sunflower 2010 proposal to add one plant at Holcomb. A permit was granted, but the matter was tainted by reports of political pressure and collusion between Kansas regulators and Sunflower Electric representatives. Sierra Club and Earthjustice have mounted legal challenges to the proposed expansion and to the permit granted by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

“Coal-burning power plants are the single largest source of global warming, mercury pollution and asthma attacks in children and adults,” Allegrucci said. “It’s a public health and economic issue that must be addressed on a regional and national basis as well as within individual states.”

Hanson said Allegrucci’s move is logical because GPACE and the Sierra Club have fought side by side on a number of activities in Kansas during this period.

“Sierra Club’s growing national capacity and Scott’s experience building effective partnerships on the ground mean GPACE’s mission and objectives will continue to be well served,” Hanson said.

Among the major supporters of the Beyond Coal campaign is Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, and Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has committed $50 million to the campaign.

“I can’t imagine a more effective way for Sierra Club to use some of the Bloomberg money in Kansas than to engage Scott Allegrucci on a regional basis,” said GPACE Board Member Dan Nagengast.

Under the guidance of its Board of Directors, GPACE remains engaged with national, regional, and state partners regarding efforts to fund and coordinate clean energy and clean air advocacy not only in Kansas, but also in the Great Plains region, particularly the Southwest Power Pool and EPA Region 7.  Strategic planning is under way, Allegrucci said.

Hanson added: “We expect to know in early 2012 the full impact that regional efforts, led by Scott, will have in Kansas. At that point we’ll determine what level of resources and staffing GPACE requires in order to continue to be effective in our state.”

Allegrucci begins his work with the Beyond Coal Campaign November 28^th.  His work as a Senior Campaign Representative will cover the states of Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri.

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

You might call it stretching the truth or misrepresenting the facts, but many would simply call it a lie.

The regional administrator for the federal Environmental Protection Agency was a bit more polite, saying last week that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment had “incorrectly informed the court” in written arguments last month to the Kansas Supreme Court.

The court filing was made in connection with the ongoing dispute between the EPA and KDHE over a permit that would allow construction of a coal-fired power plant in southwest Kansas. KDHE attorneys asserted that the “EPA has no substantial objection to the issuance of the construction permit.”

It’s not clear exactly what they meant by “substantial,” but the EPA certainly has objections as verified by Karl Brooks, EPA Region 7 administrator, who cited three letters from the agency telling KDHE the permit issued to Sunflower Electric Corp. was not strong enough and needed to include federal standards for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions.

After the dispute was reported last week, a KDHE spokeswoman said that the officials in that office would have no comment.

Whether people are opposed to or supportive of Sunflower’s coal-fired plant, the regulatory trail this project has traveled over the last four or five years raises questions and concerns.

The permit originally was denied while Rod Bremby was serving as KDHE secretary under Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. After Sebelius left office to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, new Gov. Mark Parkinson bartered a deal to allow the plant’s construction. As he neared the end of his term, however, the permit had not been issued. Bremby abruptly was removed from his post, and, shortly thereafter, in December 2010, the permit was issued by the acting KDHE secretary.

Several months later, a Kansas City newspaper traced a trail of emails that detailed some disturbingly cozy dealings between KDHE and Sunflower, which got to pick out and answer questions that were supposed to help shape requirements of the permit. KDHE then passed Sunflower’s responses off as its own.

KDHE has a new secretary now, Robert Moser, but the Sunflower permit process still is raising questions. Last June, Moser granted an unusual permit extension to Sunflower in an apparent attempt to allow the plant to skirt new, stricter federal pollution standards. Now, it appears KDHE attorneys were trying to mislead the Kansas Supreme Court by ignoring EPA objections to the permit.

This is a contentious fight, but it doesn’t help KDHE or Kansas to be caught misrepresenting the facts of the case.

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

Earlier this year, the public learned about the cozy relationship between the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and Sunflower Electric Power Corp. KHDE even had Sunflower respond to questions from the public about its proposed coal-fired power plant near Holcomb and then passed off some of the answers as KDHE’s own.

Now the Environmental Protection Agency is objecting to KDHE attorneys’ statement to the Kansas Supreme Court that “EPA has no substantial objection to the issuance of the construction permit.” In fact, EPA sent three letters to KDHE informing it that Sunflower’s permit was not strict enough.

So not only did KDHE ignore EPA’s directives, it tried to mislead the Supreme Court. These are people in charge of protecting our health and environment?

Read more: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2011/11/is-kdhe-a-regulator-or-a-manipulator/#ixzz1ceItwfGU

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

A depressing number of people and organizations have polluted the process used to decide whether the Sunflower coal-fired power plant will be expanded in western Kansas.

State legislators, Govs. Mark Parkinson and Sam Brownback, and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment have not acted in the public’s best interest during this tortured five-year saga. As a result, a weak permit was rushed through to allow the expansion.

Now the legitimacy of that permit is before the Kansas Supreme Court, where the case has taken another disturbing twist.

In a letter to the state health department, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has essentially accused the state of lying to the Supreme Court.

The state told the court the EPA didn’t object to the permit. But an EPA response letter says that, in fact, the feds have made it clear they don’t think the permit is strict enough.

It’s troubling that the EPA many months ago did not act more forcefully to make sure Kansas approved the strongest possible restrictions on pollution from the new plant.

Instead, the EPA unwisely let the state rush through a weak permit modeled on demands of the operator, Sunflower Electric Power Corp.

The Supreme Court needs to sort out this mess. So far, state and federal governments have failed to take appropriate steps to protect thousands of Kansans from a larger plant’s future harmful emissions.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/02/3244658/the-stars-editorial-more-dirt.html#ixzz1cdxVYyrZ

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

An Environmental Protection Agency official has accused lawyers representing a Kansas agency of lying to the state Supreme Court about support for a permit that would allow a $2.8 billion coal-fired power plant to be built in southwest Kansas.

In a letter this week to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, EPA Region 7 administrator Karl Brooks took issue with KDHE claims in written arguments to the Supreme Court last month that the EPA didn’t have a problem with the permit for construction of the Sunflower plant near Holcomb.

“EPA has no substantial objection to the issuance of the construction permit,” attorneys for KDHE wrote.

Brooks’ letter said, “Kansas incorrectly informed the court” that EPA did not object.

The Sierra Club and Earthjustice have filed a lawsuit seeking to block construction of the power plant, which has been the subject of a six-year battle between supporters who say the plant is needed and environmentalists who believe the coal-fired plant will create harmful greenhouse gases.

Lawyers for the two groups argued in a filing with the court that the state permit issued by KDHE to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. did not comply with the Clean Air Act.

The brief claims the permit does not include enforceable limits on nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide pollution, failed to follow requirements to consider use of best available control technology and denied the public a fair opportunity to participate in the agency’s evaluation.

The state says the pollution levels it allowed in a permit for the plant are safe for humans, but the Sierra Club said in its lawsuit that those levels aren’t safe.

The Kansas City Star reported Wednesday (http://bit.ly/sfmvfv ) that the EPA says it has voiced its opposition to the permit in letters and discussions over the past two years.

Brooks’ letter said KDHE failed to tell the Supreme Court that it had received three letters from the EPA saying the permit was not strict enough.

Both KDHE and Sunflower Electric declined to comment on the issue. The EPA said Brooks’ letter speaks for itself.

The Sierra Club said it plans to make a big deal out of the inaccurate Kansas statement when it files its own arguments with the court.

“EPA has consistently told the state that the permit needed more stringent limits on certain pollutants,” Stephanie Cole, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club, told The Star in an interview. “KDHE not only ignored EPA’s request to amend the permit to include the more stringent limits, but now KDHE is actually attempting to mischaracterize EPA’s position to the court.”

The project has been the center of political and legal disputes since 2006. Supporters of the project say the plant will bring crucial jobs and economic development to western Kansas. Opponents contend the plant will pollute, draw down water reserves and provide electricity that isn’t needed in Kansas. Colorado residents will receive much of the electricity.

___

Information from: The Kansas City Star, http://www.kcstar.com

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