By David Roberts of Grist

A few days ago, I offered a brief overview of the U.S. power sector. In a second post, I discussed why America still has a large fleet of filthy old coal plants with no modern pollution controls. (Of the roughly 310 GW of coal plant capacity in the U.S., about 150 GW operates with pollution scrubbers.)

The EPA effectively went into deep freeze under George W. Bush, so there’s a lot of catching up to do to keep the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws in line with the best science. Lisa Jackson’s EPA is working furiously on just that. They’ve got several irons in the fire right now. Coal-dominated utilities are terrified.

Here are the two most significant (non-CO2) regulations on the EPA’s plate right now.

1. National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)

By March of next year, EPA will release (court-mandated) new standards governing hazardous pollutants like mercury and acid gases under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. These standards have been a looong time coming. (Frank O’Donnell tells the tale; see also “The Hidden Human and Environmental Costs of Regulatory Delay” from the Center for Progressive Reform.) Two significant things about them:

• The standards apply to all coal-fired power plants, old as well as new.
• These are MACT — maximum achievable control technology — standards, which means all plants will have to match the performance of the top-performing 12 percent. There are some options with mercury, but with acid gases that basically means installing wet scrubbers, which are extremely expensive. All power plants must be in compliance by 2015, which is a fairly short window.

Note: Natural-gas power plants emit no HAPs — no mercury, no acid gases. Obviously regulations on HAPs will differentially advantage gas.

2. The Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR)

The recently released CATR regulates sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). It’s designed to protect states (mostly Eastern states) from pollution that blows across state lines. EPA says the rule will reduce power plant SO2 emissions 71 percent over 2005 levels by 2014, and NOx emissions 52 percent. CATR is a revision of the Bush administration’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), key parts of which were invalidated in court.

Note: Natural-gas power plants emit no SO2 and much less NOx than coal plants. Again, these regulations will advantage gas.

Both NESHAPs and CATR serve to force uncontrolled plants to install SO2 scrubbers. Some will find it cheaper to shut down than to make the considerable investment. Exactly how many? That depends on some educated guesses about how old is too old, or how inefficient is too inefficient, for an upgrade to be worth the expense. It also depends importantly on the ongoing price of natural gas, coal’s primary near-term competitor.

According to a report by consultancy ICF International [PDF] …

… approximately 50 percent of the unscrubbed plants or roughly 50 GW of coal fueled generating capacity is “at risk” for retirement across the U.S. in the near- mid-term.

Here’s the projected effect of the regulations according to a similar report from Bernstein Research [PDF]:

In terms of politics, obviously it matters where the effects of the regulations will be concentrated. Here’s where the at-risk plants are, from ICF.

As you can see, the vast bulk of the at-risk plants are in the Central and Southeast areas. Once again: climate politics in a nutshell.

Another way to look at the effects of the regulations is in terms of energy generation. This is from ICF:

In order to meet electric demand, the system would need to replace the roughly 250,000 GWh per year of this retired capacity from the “at risk” coal power plants.

And from Bernstein:

This brings us to the crucial question: Can the regions affected by the new EPA regulations replace the coal energy they’re going to lose with something else in time to keep all the lights on? What can or will displace coal? I’ll take a look at that question soon.

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.

KDHE News Release

The public comment period for Sunflower Electric Power Corp’s draft air quality construction permit is being restructured to accommodate changes Sunflower needs to make to its air pollution dispersion modeling data.

This week, it was determined by federal and state officials that the meteorological data Sunflower Electric used were not adjusted for differences in time zones prior to input into the dispersion model.  Modeling results simulate how the plant will impact ambient air in surrounding areas.  Sunflower has been advised this portion of the permit application will need to be revised and resubmitted. It is estimated it will take approximately 30 days to receive the revised information.

Kansas Department of Health Environment (KDHE) is committed to a public process which will include a second comment period on all aspects of the permit.  KDHE will issue an additional public notice subsequent to review of the modeling data and conduct one public hearing to receive comments on the new modeling data results as well as the entire draft permit. Details on the second comment period and final hearing will be announced at a later date.

The current public comment period is scheduled to end August 15 and KDHE encourages anyone with comments related to the permit to submit comments by this date. The public hearings scheduled for next week will continue as planned to receive comments on all aspects of the draft permit. KDHE believes it is important to hold these hearings to keep the process moving forward. The public comment period is part of the permitting process.

They public hearings will be held at the following locations:

• Overland Park – Monday, August 2 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
  Blue Valley Northwest High School, 135th and Switzer, Overland Park
• Salina – Wednesday, August 4 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
  Highway Patrol Training Center Auditorium, 2025 East Iron, Salina.
• Garden City – Thursday, August 5 at 2 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
  801 Campus Drive, Garden City

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.

All comments should be submitted by e-mail to sunflowercomments@kdheks.gov , or in writing to: KDHE Bureau of Air, Attn.: Sunflower Comments, 1000 S.W. Jackson, Suite 310, Topeka, KS 66612-1366 or presented at the hearing.

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 through August 15. Copies of the draft permit and all supporting documentation can also be reviewed at the KDHE Northwest District Office, 2301 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.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the KDHE have been meeting with Sunflower regularly throughout the application process and will continue the meetings.

# # #

As the state’s environmental protection and public health agency, KDHE promotes responsible choices to protect the health and environment for all Kansans.

Through education, direct services and the assessment of data and trends, coupled with policy development and enforcement, KDHE will improve health and quality of life. We prevent illness, injuries and foster a safe and sustainable environment for the people of Kansas.

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 Matthew Berger of SolveClimate.com

The long-awaited draft air permit for a proposed coal-fired power plant in Kansas was released last Wednesday, starting a race against the clock that will determine whether the plant – if approved – will then also be subject to the EPA’s new rules regulating the emission of greenhouse gases that go into effect January 2nd.

The draft permit was released in response to a new application, submitted to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) last January by Sunflower Electric, which is hoping to build an 895 megawatt extension to their current plant in Holcomb, Kans.

Originally, they had sought permission for a 2,100 MW facility, but their air permit for that plant was denied in 2007 by KDHE. It was the first instance of a regulatory agency denying a permit for coal plant construction on the basis of the dangers of greenhouse gas pollution.

Now that the EPA has declared greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare and tailored rules for phasing in regulations starting in 2011, Sunflower Electric will likely face yet another hurdle in obtaining approval to break ground on the troubled, controversial coal plant that has been a focus of repeated national attention.

Four Vetos by Sibelius

The Republican-controlled Kansas legislature tried four times to circumvent the KDHE’s authority to obtain a permit for the plant, but ran into a veto from Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius each time. A break for Sunflower came last year when Sebelius was confirmed as the new U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and then-Lieutenant Governor Mark Parkinson took over. Parkinson brokered a back-room deal with Sunflower – albeit for the much smaller 895 MW plant – a week after taking office.

That was last May. Since then, the EPA has moved the ball on federal regulations, so that starting in 2011 projects with the potential to emit more than 75,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year, such as the proposed Holcomb plant, would need to include an analysis of how they would use the best available control technology, or BACT, to limit those emissions, among other requirements.

Is Sunflower taking the possibility of those rules into account?

Company spokesperson Cindy Hertle said that would be “pure speculation” because those rules are not yet in place and still the subject of some controversy.

But, she says, “We’ve always followed the rules and will continue to follow the regulations, so we will undergo whatever process they deem necessary.”

A congressional effort led by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) had tried to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But that effort failed last month. While other congressional measures to block EPA action might be possible, it seems increasingly likely the new rules will go into effect on schedule on Jan. 2.

A Matter of Timing

Whether the Holcomb plant will be subject to those rules, though, is a matter of timing, but time appears to be on the side of “yes”.

“It really depends on when the final permit is issued,” Mark Smith, head of the EPA’s Air Permitting and Compliance Branch for Kansas and neighboring states, told SolveClimate.

“If this permit is issued before [Jan. 2], then these particular rules would not apply. If their final permit is issued after, then they would… and we would view greenhouse gas requirements as applying to the facility, so the state would need to address those in that permit that is issued.”

It seems likely that the final permit would not be issued until after the Jan 2nd deadline. Rod Bremby, head of the KDHE recounted how the last Sunflower permit took 17 months to approve. The state sets an 18-month deadline for issuing decisions on air quality permits.

“We have no idea how long this will take but we’ll try to be as efficient as we can,” he told SolveClimate, but cautioned that “the interest appears to be higher with this permit as opposed to the last.”

This is why his agency created multiple opportunities for public comment. Those opportunities were announced with the draft air permit: a series of public hearings in Overland Park, Salina and Garden City as well as comments received by email and in writing.

The agency received 774 written and oral comments on the 2007 permit, according to KDHE spokesperson Kristi Pankratz. “We anticipate that number or greater for this comment period,” she said.

The Timeline

The timeline, then, looks like this: The 18 month clock began ticking on the day, June 30, when KDHE deemed the permit application complete. Hearings will take place on Aug. 2, 4 and 5 and the public comment period will end Aug. 15. At that point, the comments will be reviewed and responses prepared. A summary of the responses will undergo an internal review. And, finally, a final determination will be announced.

For their part, the EPA has “been working with the state and Sunflower over the past year and looking at drafts as they’re made available to us. Our role really is as an oversight agency,” said Smith, saying that Kansas is the issuer of the permit and thus the main player.

He said the EPA will provide comments just as citizens will. It will also ensure the state responds to comments and that the requirements of the Clean Air Act and state regulations are upheld.

Coal-fired plants have come under attack as out of date, inefficient and excessively polluting by environmental groups and this pressure – combined with the prospect of stricter clean air regulations – has led many proposed projects to be shelved over the past couple years. Plans for 26 were dropped in the last year alone.

But Hertle said the Holcomb plant would be a “super critical pulverized coal plant,” which means it would “burn at higher temperatures and therefore it will use less coal when in operation. Hence, it will have fewer emissions.”

Power Would Go Out of State

But environmental groups are not so sure of the desirability or benefits of the plant.

“For Sunflower’s minimal power needs, building a near 900 MW coal plant is quite possibly the most risky option for ratepayers and the environment,” said Stephanie Cole of the Kansas Sierra Club.

They have also argued that the majority of the power generated in Holcomb would be pumped across state lines to Colorado, leaving local citizens with all the pollution and little of the benefits.

At least, notes Cole, those citizens will now have the opportunity to voice such concerns.

“Citizen input was not allowed in the agreement Governor Parkinson reached with Sunflower last year, and our hope is that the public will recognize that the permit hearings are an important opportunity to have our concerns with this project considered,” she said.

To Kansas Clean Energy Supporters:

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment released the schedule for the public comment period and hearings on the proposed Holcomb coal plant project. The comment period begins today, July 1, and ends August 15 (which means that comments can be submitted directly to KDHE outside the public hearings any time during this period).

Three public hearings have been scheduled for the first week of August:

• August 2 in Overland Park at Blue Valley Northwest High School
• August 4 in Salina at Highway Patrol Training Central Auditorium
• August 5 in Garden City at Garden City Community College Joyce Auditorium

Each hearing will begin at 2:00 PM. Hearings will break at 5:00 PM and reconvene at 6:30 PM, continuing until all written or verbal comments have submitted.  Note that the hearings start in KC and move west to Garden City.

You may see public statements indicating the “issuance of a draft permit” – this is technically correct, but misleading.

KDHE has issued a draft permit that is now the subject of the public comment process.  As with the previous process in 2007, that draft permit can be altered or amended at any time by KDHE or EPA, right up until the very end of this process.  It can also be denied.  The public comment period could also be extended if necessary.

GPACE will be posting more information in the coming days that can help inform your comments, including topical fact sheets about the impacts of the proposed coal plant project.  A form is up on our website now that allows citizens to submit comments which we will then deliver to KDHE. This form is at http://www.gpace.org/publiccomment/.

And next week keep an eye out for the first e-newsletter from GPACE with information about the proposed coal plant project, the public comment process and hearings, and breaking news and information about this entire process.

Again, please be on the lookout for more information in the next few days, and mark you calendars for these hearings.

Many Thanks,

Scott Allegrucci

Director

As the Kansas Department of Health and Environment considers the new air quality permit request for Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895mw coal-fired power plant, and before KDHE announces the schedule for public hearings, it seems like a good time to ask:  Why are we still paying attention to the whole coal plant debacle?

This blog originally ran over seven consecutive days at www.gpace.org, addressing seven of the most common questions we have heard regarding the ongoing energy policy – coal plant debate in Kansas. As the public comment period approaches for this project, the following questions could be helpful resources as you prepare to write your comment.

Governor Parkinson duped Sunflower with the whole compromise agreement, right?  That coal plant will never get built, even if they get a permit, right?

Well, no.  If Sunflower gets a permit for the current proposal, their odds of getting financing, getting grandfathered by Congressional deal-making, and/or getting the next state administration to give them another coal plant permit (or two) increase significantly.  With coal plant proposals dropping like flies nationwide, the last coal plant built prior to carbon regulation (although risky) might not be a hard sell to struggling capital markets.  As such, a permit in hand is a kind of currency at this point for coal plant developers.

Whether Governor Parkinson knew that, and whether he was concerned about it, is anybody’s guess.

Okay then, Parkinson guaranteed Sunflower a permit, so it’s a done deal, right?  No sense in continuing to fight it.

No, again.  The fundamental result of the settlement agreement between Governor Parkinson and Sunflower Electric – and the subsequent legislation passed by the Kansas Legislature – was simply to concede that they (the governor and pro-coal legislators) could not create a comprehensive energy policy for the state, and to punt the difficult tasks to the federal government.

The governor and the legislature removed even the potential of regulatory and rate oversight over Sunflower by the Kansas Corporation Commission, and stripped the Kansas Department of Health and Environment of any state authority over air quality.  But the truth is, neither the governor, nor the legislature, nor a single utility has the ability to unilaterally ignore the existing enforcement agreement between the State of Kansas and the Environmental Protection Agency.  KDHE still has a binding, legal obligation to enforce the federal Clean Air Act on behalf of EPA.

And EPA has already indicated that it has some serious concerns about the Sunflower permit request under existing CCA regulations.

All right, but don’t we need a new coal plant to “keep the lights on” in Western Kansas?

No, we don’t.  Sunflower Electric reported to the Kansas Corporation Commission in 2008 no gap between its current electrical capacity and projected demand until 2018 – and then it’s only 14 megawatts.  Their projections allow for a required 12% capacity reserve cushion, but do not include any energy efficiency measures to reduce demand or any wind or new sources of renewable energy that could be integrated by or before 2018, nor do they account for the significant (nationwide) decrease in the demand for electricity related to the economic recession.

Throw in Midwest Energy and there’s another 16 mw needed by 2018 (for a total of 30mw). That’s a long way from the 895mw capacity of the proposed coal plant.

There is enough current production capacity in Kansas to meet statewide projected demand for electricity past 2018 (again, without using any energy efficiency measures, bringing no new renewable energy online, and assuming that demand for electricity will increase as projected – which it has not).

Two other things to keep in mind:

• The proposed coal plant will take at least 5 years from the start of construction to even begin to produce electricity.  If there are urgent concerns about the power supply in Western Kansas, why wait so long to deliver “needed” electricity?
• Sunflower Electric had a permit to build a 660mw coal plant (the Sand Sage Project), which they let expire in 2005.  If there is such a critical shortage of electricity in Western Kansas, why didn’t they build that plant, which would be operational and providing electricity by now?

But they’re going to export all that extra electricity, right?

If Sunflower Electric actually owned all that extra electricity, perhaps they could export it.  But they won’t own the extra electricity.  They won’t even own the coal plant.  Tri-State (a Colorado utility) is currently the equity owner of at least 80% of the proposed coal plant itself, and will own 80% of the electricity produced.

In fact, as of 2008, Tri-State had spent $46 million on the Holcomb coal plant proposal, not including land and water rights.  By 2008, Sunflower hadn’t even made a dent in its multi-hundred-million dollar debt to American taxpayers for the first coal plant they built.

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.

So, if electricity ever moves from the proposed coal plant to Colorado, it will be because a Colorado utility already owns that electricity, not because Sunflower is selling it as an export product.

Okay…but the coal plant will provide needed jobs and economic development to Kansas in the midst of the worst recession in recent memory.  How can we say no to that?

Because it won’t – not anytime soon.  It is absolutely important to create jobs and investment in this recession.  But given all the regulatory, legal, and financial issues with the proposed project, construction won’t begin for at least a couple of years.  So, the construction jobs won’t exist until then.   How does that help Kansans now?

When they were lobbying the legislature, coal plant supporters claimed the proposed project would generate thousands of construction jobs for Kansans and as many as 400 permanent full-time jobs in the state.   But here’s the fine print:

• Tri-State is driving the project, and has a long relationship with its own coal plant builder – and it isn’t a Kansas company, or a union company.

• The specialized nature of most of the construction, and the absence of many of the needed specialized laborers in Kansas, means that the vast majority of the construction jobs will go to temporary workers from out-of-state.  Once construction finishes, they and their money would leave Kansas.

• Well after the settlement agreement was signed, Sunflower Electric quietly revised the projected permanent jobs figure down to 50.

• As of 2008, the Colorado utility that will own most of the plant and its power had given Sunflower Electric $46 million in direct payments, EXCLUDING the purchase of land and water rights in Kansas.  We know coal plant supporters hired a small army of lobbyists and lawyers (many from out of state) and bought a bunch of paid advertising to sell the project, but how many jobs has the coal plant created in Kansas with all that money in the midst of this recession?

While Kansas needed jobs and economic development, coal plant supporters blocked or slowed needed transmission and other energy investments that could have put Kansans to work.  In fact, in the midst of the worst recession in recent memory Sunflower and their allies forced Kansas to say “no” to critical jobs, investment, and revenue from native Kansas fuels and the booming renewable energy sector.  All for some coal plants that will import fuel and construction workers, and send water, electricity, and billions of dollars to other states – long after the current recession has turned toward recovery.

Speaking of renewable energy, don’t we need the coal plant to get transmission lines so that we can export our wind energy?

No, absolutely not.  The bulk of the transmission that would come as part of the coal plant project would be to move electricity from the plant to its primary owners in Colorado – not to improve or enhance the overall transmission grid in Kansas.

An operational coal plant cannot efficiently ramp up or ramp down production of electricity.  Therefore, once a large coal plant is burning coal (already purchased on long-term contracts) to generate electricity, it will flood available transmission with that electricity.  Transmission lines have a finite capacity – that is, they can only move a certain volume of electrons, like a two, four, or eight-lane highway each moves a certain number of vehicles.  As a result, the coal plant will effectively crowd out other sources of electricity, like wind turbines.

Additionally, a regional plan to build high-capacity transmission tapping the vast wind energy reserves of western Kansas and the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles is already underway independent of the proposed coal plant.

Also worth noting: the best markets for Kansas wind energy – with the highest demand for renewably generated electricity, the least ability to meet those demands, and the lowest costs for delivering the electricity – are arguably to the east/southeast, not to the west where there are existing local wind energy reserves and a phase-shift barrier.

Certainly, construction of a power plant will create some transmission infrastructure in order to move electricity toward demand.  But that does not need to be a coal plant – it could be a natural gas plant as well.  And we are seeing development of transmission infrastructure independent of any new power plants.

So it is not accurate to say that Kansas must have this proposed coal plant in order to get transmission infrastructure for wind energy.

Well, if it’s not about the jobs, or energy needs, or exporting electricity, what is the proposed Sunflower Electric coal plant about?

Exactly.  If the proposed coal plant is not the best available way to address jobs, energy needs, or economic development, why would most Kansans support it?

In fact, most Kansans don’t support it, and neither does GPACE.

The coal plant proposal has been advanced and codified into Kansas law using misinformation.  The state has been stripped of its ability to set air quality standards that benefit all Kansans for generations to come, just to allow this one unneeded coal plant to be built.  Those actions open the door for Kansas to become the dumping ground for future coal plants that other states do not want to build or operate.

All this, while our nation struggles to rebuild our economy, create lasting jobs, assert critical leadership in the exploding renewable energy economy, and Kansas squanders its abundant native fuels, including wind and natural gas.

The coal plant project does not fundamentally address Kansas energy needs or economic opportunities.  It will be financed and owned by out-of-state utilities.  Kansas’ dwindling water will be used to make their electricity, while burning imported coal will pollute the lungs of Kansas children.  It will make Kansas more dependent upon imported fuel.  And it will expose Sunflower ratepayers and Kansas taxpayers to increased costs.

Bottom line:  The proposal allows Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association to avoid stiff (and expensive) public opposition to a coal plant in Colorado.  Sunflower Rural Electric Power Corporation in Kansas has a history of questionable risk and business management (with taxpayer bailouts to prove it).  Combine those realities with manufactured partisan political hysteria about energy production and environmental accountability, and you’ve got the current coal plant proposal.

Kansas can do better.  In fact, given economic and environmental realities, we must do better if we are to remain competitive in the world we share.

That’s what we’re fighting for.  Join us.

By Sarah Portlock of the Associated Press

HOUSTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told two more companies Tuesday to bypass Texas regulators and apply directly with the federal government for their clean-air permits.

The latest development in the battle between Texas and the federal government over clean-air permits for petrochemical companies involves the Chevron Phillips Cedar Bayou plant and Garland Power & Light, a utility in north Texas.

The companies have until Sept. 30 to reapply for the permits directly with the federal agency, according to letters from the EPA to the companies. The EPA has threatened to take over Texas’ air quality program, insisting the state is violating the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA has rejected nearly 40 operating permits issued by Texas late last year. After Texas failed to meet agency demands that the permits be fixed, it barred Texas from issuing an operating permit to a refinery last month and promised to take similar action for the remaining plants.

“The people in Texas deserve the same protections under the Clean Air Act that the citizens of all the other states do,” Al Armendariz, the EPA’s regional director, told The Associated Press. “We can’t allow any state to implement or to operate a federal program like the federal Clean Air Act in a way that doesn’t follow federal law.”

The debate between Texas and the EPA centers on the state’s so-called flexible permits plan, which sets a general limit on how much pollutants an entire facility can release. The program never was approved by the EPA, and the Clean Air Act requires permits to set limits on each of the dozens of individual protection units inside a plant.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said Tuesday it is confident the flexible permitting program meets the Clean Air Act’s provisions.

“The EPA cannot deny the tremendous progress our state’s air permitting programs have achieved, which is measured in cleaner air across the state,” the state agency said in a statement. “The EPA seems intent on federalizing a successful state program.”

Gov. Rick Perry has said Texas should be lauded as the “poster child” for clean air and pollution regulation. In a statement issued Tuesday, he repeated his contention that “Washington’s latest attempt to intrude on the state’s authority not only undermines Texas’ successful clean air programs, but it will cost the state tens of thousands of jobs.”

On Monday, state officials asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to review the EPA’s decision in March to disapprove the state’s permitting process for refineries.

(This version CORRECTS that EPA has threatened to take over Texas air permitting, but has not done so.)

More from EPA on the Texas Air Permitting Program

From The Walt Bodine Show on KCUR

EPA administrator Karl Brooks has a lot on his agenda. From sewage overflows to ozone standards, the Kansas City metro area serves up a variety of environmental issues involving potential federal regulation. This region also stretches further out state, where issues like farm pollution and power generation provide additional challenges. KCUR’s Susan Wilson sits down with Brooks to talk about his new job, the perspective he brings to the role from his tenure at the University of Kansas, and his plans for cleaning up and maintaining the area’s water, land and air. Karl Brooks, regional administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7.

A link to download the podcast is available here.

EPA Joins Others Who Say Better Options Exist than Planned Facility in Clark County

By Scott Sloan of the Lexington Herald-Leader

In a letter last month to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal Environmental Protection Agency raised concerns over East Kentucky Power Cooperative’s proposed coal-fired power plant in Clark County.

It’s the latest in mounting criticism that has plagued the long-discussed plant, which was effectively placed on hold earlier this year by the cooperative, though leaders say they still intend to go forward and build it after assessing the co-op’s finances.

In the letter, which was obtained and released by a number of environmental groups that have long opposed the plant, the EPA objects to the cooperative’s proposed coal technology to power the plant and noted other more environmentally friendly options including natural gas.

The EPA’s Heinz J. Mueller, chief of the National Environmental Policy Act program office, wrote that other options might cost more than the cooperative’s favored coal-fired design, but the “EPA does not believe that the cost differential justifies selection of a power plant design that would generate substantively greater emissions.”

Mueller’s comments came as part of an environmental study that is being done by the Army Corps of Engineers for the plant, which would provide power for 150,000 homes. The co-op produces power for its 16 member co-ops that in turn service more than 500,000 homes, farms and businesses throughout Central and Eastern Kentucky.

Mueller noted, too, that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar could allow the cooperative to “reduce or even eliminate the need” to build a new power plant for its electric load.

That echoes what environmental groups, including Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, the Kentucky Environmental Foundation and the Sierra Club, have preached for years. They’ve argued the cooperative, which has struggled to maintain a strong financial condition, would be better off spending money to educate customers about consuming less electricity.

“EPA is right to call out EKPC as failing to justify this expensive, unnecessary coal plant,” Lois Kleffman, a customer of EKPC distribution cooperative Jackson Energy, said in a statement. “There are cleaner, better ways to meet energy demands that won’t force EKPC to saddle its customers with a billion dollars in debt that they’ll be paying off for generations.

“EKPC should stop wasting taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ dollars and start pursuing cleaner options now.”

Cooperative spokesman Nick Comer said the proposed plant is “the most reliable, affordable option” and noted that the state Division for Air Quality has agreed it will meet federal and state air-quality standards.

He also disputed the EPA’s assertion about solar and wind power, saying it would not be reliable enough given “sunshine and wind tend to be very intermittent in this part of the U.S.”

The EPA also expressed concern that “significant portions of the information relied upon” in a draft version of the environmental impact study is outdated, “sometimes 20 years or older,” according to the letter. “For the environmental impacts of the proposal to be adequately evaluated, this information must be updated.”

The cooperative effectively delayed the building of the plant earlier this year when it asked the state Public Service Commission to allow it to withdraw its request for approval of private financing for the project. While East Kentucky Power would have obtained the money from banks and other lenders, such action requires the approval of the three-person commission, which regulates utilities in Kentucky.

The cooperative’s filing stated only that it thinks financial prudence requires that it reassess its immediate need for financing. Comer said later “it was a business decision” and that the cooperative intends to re-file pending the outcome of the reassessment.

Opponents have seized on the cooperative’s financial condition as a reason to stop the costly plant, which at one point was to cost $553 million but now could be as much as $900 million.

The cooperative’s position deteriorated so much that it failed in 2006 to meet one of the financial ratios required by its loan covenants. It lost money during 2004 and 2005 and narrowly had a profit in 2006. It has since applied for and received approval for two rate increases and recently filed for another increase, which would raise the average customer’s bill by $5 to $6 a month.