By Scott Rothschild of The Lawrence Journal World

Is coal-fired production of electricity on the rise or is it flaming out?

A recent report by The Associated Press described a nationwide wave of coal-burning power plant construction.

And that fits in with the plan by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build an 895-megawatt unit in southwestern Kansas.

“Coal isn’t on the wane,” Earl Watkins, president and chief executive officer of Sunflower Electric, said this month after a public hearing in Garden City on the proposed plant.

Environmentalists, however, say the premise of the AP report is inaccurate.

“The coal plants that are being built today were permitted years ago when the outlook for coal was much more favorable than current conditions,” said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.

“Building a new coal plant today could be equated to making an investment in rotary dial landline telephones. Coal is yesterday’s fuel source,” Cole said.

Sunflower Electric is seeking a permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for the project. Most of the electricity will be owned by Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association for sale to out-of-state customers.

“There are some 16 coal plants in various stages of construction right now,” Watkins said. “There are another eight to 10 that have just recently been permitted by other utilities across the country.

“Coal projects that are built for speculation are dropping off the table because no one wants to make that type of an investment without knowing they have a need,” Watkins said. “But all of the participants of this project are going to be displacing lost resources, like us, or displacing higher cost market prices, so they have got a revenue stream there.”

Coal-burning has been under fire for producing climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions. President Barack Obama’s administration has proposed regulating CO2. But the AP recently reported that the nation is seeing the largest increase in coal-fired plants in two decades.

More than 30 coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction at a cost of $35 billion, AP reported. Once on line, the plants will produce enough electricity to power 15.6 million homes, the equivalent to all the homes in California and Arizona, the report said.

In addition, the plants will generate 125 million tons of greenhouse gases each year, the equivalent of putting 22 million more automobiles on the road.

But Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy in Kansas, has a different view of the coal landscape, both nationally and in Kansas.

The number of plants recently built and being built now represent just a fraction of the 151 total plants that the federal government had forecast several years ago. Allegrucci says that shows “coal as an electricity fuel is on the wane.”

And while most of the coal plants have been canceled or put on hold, renewable energy sources have been developed at a record pace.

“So, since November 2008, not a single new coal plant has broken ground for construction, but record amounts of wind, solar, and other renewables are coming online,” Allegrucci said.

And he notes that in the Kansas proposal, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, which will buy most of the power from the proposed Kansas plant, hasn’t made a concrete commitment to the project, describing the plant as an option in Tri-State’s long range plans.

Another factor not mentioned in reports of coal’s rise is that some coal plants are being mothballed, said the Sierra Club’s Cole.

“Today we’re seeing more utilities announce retirement plans for existing coal plants than we are seeing utilities announcing plans to build new coal plants,” Cole said.

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today.  My name is Scott Allegrucci and I am a third-generation Kansan. I am also the executive director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Topeka.

Our members appreciate, first, that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment plans to open a second public comment period for the draft permit in question. Obviously, since incorrect modeling data was filed, and since our engineers and consultants cannot review the full and accurate permit, we cannot speak directly to the technical aspects of the draft permit and what we expect will be bad news for Kansas air quality.  We will append our current comments with a more comprehensive and technical analysis once the draft permit is actually complete and accessible at KDHE. Today, then, we’d like to address another aspect of this project.

I come from a southeast Kansas working-class family. Early last century, many of my family members (and friends and neighbors) worked the coal mines in and around Crawford County. They were working with the technology and supplying the fuel of that era, and the Allegruccis have a long history of support for those industries as well as for the interests of working families across the state of Kansas.

Today, the organization for which I speak recognizes that Kansas needs jobs now and will likely need additional electrical power in the future. The real question is: What is the best way to create jobs and supply electricity for our economy?

Unfortunately, that question has been obscured by a false choice that has been foisted on Kansas by a powerful alliance of out-of-state, business, and political interests. That false choice is that we generate power and create jobs with another coal-burning power plant, just like we did last century – or, we do nothing.

The truth is that there is a better way to create jobs and supply power – especially in Kansas. A better way for Sunflower Electric Power Corporation to create more jobs over time, and create them sooner.  A way that develops Kansas’ native resources – especially natural gas and wind immediately.  A way that embraces the future, instead of clinging to the past, so that there will be good jobs for our children and grandchildren as well as for us, without jeopardizing the health and environment of all Kansans for generations.

I am submitting written testimony that substantiates this approach. There’s much more detail than time allows, but I will briefly share here today two examples of how Sunflower Electric could do this better for Kansans.

In August 2006, Westar Energy announced plans for two natural gas electricity production units at their Emporia Energy Center. The permits were granted in April 2007.  The first unit was complete and operational 13 months later.  The second came online a year after that.  The project was under budget, ahead of schedule, and operates at a higher efficiency than predicted.  At the peak of construction, almost 600 workers were employed.[i]

And the utilization of natural gas (a fuel Kansas currently exports) reduces carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 50% per BTU (as compared to coal), reduces the emissions of ozone precursors by even more, and nearly eliminates the dangerous particulate and mercury emissions that require the expensive and highly regulated technical controls that seem to have been problematic for Sunflower Electric’s initial modeling data.[ii]

About the same time, leaders in Nolan County, Texas, committed to developing their wind energy resources. In that one county, the wind energy industry has created more than a thousand jobs with a combined payroll of more than 45 million dollars a year. [iii][iv][v] Additionally, as you know, wind energy production emits no dangerous criteria pollutants, no greenhouse gas pollutants, no mercury, and requires none of our limited water resources to create electricity.[vi] [vii] [viii]

By contrast, nearly five years after the first version of this coal plant project was announced, Tri-State Generation &Transmission of Colorado (the entity that will own at least 80 percent of the proposed Holcomb coal plant), has publicly stated that the soonest construction would even begin for this plant would be 2016. [ix]

That’s a long time to wait for people who need jobs today.  Especially when we could have spent the last six years working together to create good, lasting jobs and industries built upon our own natural resources.

Of note, Tri-State’s own resource planning shows no need for baseload coal in their system until at least 2026.[x] So, it could be an even longer wait for those construction jobs.

Indeed, in 2004 Sunflower Electric had a permit in hand for the Sand Sage coal plant, and they chose to abandon that project.[xi] If jobs and energy production are the priorities, that project could already be providing both.

In Kansas we need to make the right choices, the smart choices, for both jobs and energy. That means developing our own native resources, both natural and human.

Kansas should not let itself be manipulated by Wyoming coal companies, a Nebraska-based railroad and a Colorado utility that all stand to make millions while Kansas is left with depleted water resources and air pollution that will poison our children and grandchildren.

In fact, Colorado-based Tri-State G&T has already funneled at least 52 million dollars to its Kansas partners to push this project,[xii] and we can find no indication that that substantial amount of money has yet to produce any jobs for Kansas workers.

Our members believe it is time to look to the future, and not to the past, and to look to Kansas and not other states, for energy generation and related economic development in Kansas.

Thank you for your diligence regarding this manner, and for the difficult work you do protecting the most precious assets Kansas possesses.

Thanks also to the Blue Valley School District and the staff of Blue Valley Northwest High School for allowing this venue to be used for such an important public event.

Scott Allegrucci

Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy

220 SW 33^rd Street, Suite 200

Topeka, KS  66611

[ii] http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html

[iii] http://www.cleanenergyfortexas.org/downloads/Nolan_County_case_study_070908.pdf

[iv] http://www.reporternews.com/news/2008/jul/11/nolan-county-economy-soars-wind-industry/

[v] http://www.sweetwaterreporter.com/content/view/100663/60/

[vi] http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EmissionKB.PDF

[vii] http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/policy/wind_air_emissions.pdf

[viii] http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/non-hydro.html#wind

[ix] http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2010/05/27/businesswire140299764.html

[x] http://www.tristategt.org/ResourcePlanning/ResourcePlanDoc.cfm

[xi] http://www.kdheks.gov/download/Application_Timeline.pdf

[xii] http://www.tristategt.org/Financials/annual-report.cfm

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.

Please join The Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy and The Resilience Group for an evening of discussion on the energy future of our state and country.

Dr. Nate Hagens, former editor of The Oil Drum, will lead a discussion on global energy supplies and their implications on our future. Following his presentation, staff from GPACE and the Kansas Sierra Club will provide information on how to effectively submit public comment to KDHE on the proposed Holcomb coal plant. For more information, please see this flyer put together by The Resilience Group.

Tuesday, July 27 at 7:00 PM

Kansas Wesleyan University

Peters Science Hall, Room 201

100 East Claflin Avenue

Salina, Kansas

Refreshments will be provided.

This is no cost to attend this event.

Please RSVP to info@gpace.org

Please join the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy and the Kansas Sierra Club to learn more about the proposed coal plant and how you can provide effective comments to KDHE.

Featured Guest Speaker: Leslie Glustrom

Leslie Glustrom is a founding member of Clean Energy Action. Training as a biochemist, she resigned from her job at UC-Boulder to work full time on climate change and clean energy issues. Leslie is recognized nationally as an expert on PRB coal supply issues.

July 22 in Lawrence

5:30 – 7:30 PM

The Depot (and Visitors’ Center)

402 North Second Street

Dinner from Local Burger and beverages will be provided.

Featuring Rep. Annie Kuether, Ranking Minority Member of the Kansas House Energy & Utilities Committee

July 23 in Overland Park

5:30 – 7:30 PM

Johnson County Community College

Capitol Federal Conference Center (on the first floor of the Regnier Center)

12345 College Boulevard

Light sandwiches, appetizers, and beverages will be provided.

Featuring Nancy Jackson, Board Chair for The Climate and Energy Project

There is no cost to attend either of these events.

Please RSVP to info@gpace.org

Click here to download a printable PDF of this informaton.

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.

Over the course of the last two and half years, a Kansas electrical utility, a Colorado electrical utility, and their allies in the Kansas legislature and Governor’s office have used political games to put their self-interest ahead of our state’s best interest and shut Kansans out of the decision-making about our energy and economic future.

We’ve already shown that Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895-MW coal plant isn’t about jobs, or energy needs, or exporting electricity, and that it isn’t even for Kansas. But it is important to note that this project isn’t just about the future of Western Kansas either. The harmful health effects stemming from this coal plant will affect citizens across the entire state of Kansas for generations to come.

Recently, Physicians for Social Responsibility issued a report showing that coal emissions contribute to four of the five leading causes of death in this country. That means that although Sunflower claims this plant will be the “cleanest in the country,” if it is built, Kansans will be at an increased risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, and lower respiratory diseases, such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema. So although Colorado is poised to get 80 percent of the energy produced by the plant, Kansas will be stuck with 100 percent of the pollution and 100 percent of the health risks.

As a result of their findings, Physicians for Social Responsibility called for an end to construction of new coal plants “so as to avoid increased health-endangering emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as other criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.”

Through my work with GPACE, I’ve watched as hundreds of Kansans sent letters to their lawmakers and wrote letters to the editor calling for just that – the end of an era of dirty coal in our state and the chance to move forward into a prosperous clean energy future.

Our voices were ignored by too many legislators and by the current Governor when they turned a secret deal to build the first of several coal plants into state law.  But now that Sunflower has been forced to refile their air quality permit as a result of EPA’s concerns about the proposed project, we – the people of Kansas – will once again have the opportunity to voice our concerns to the agency who will ultimately be making the final decision.

When the Kansas Department of Health and Environment opens up the public comment period for Sunflower Electric’s Holcomb project, this non-partisan process will be a breath of fresh air, as Kansans will no longer have to put their faith in elected officials more concerned with re-election, partisan politics, deal-making or the needs of corporate special interests, than with good policy and the health of Kansans.

As of this writing, Sunflower Electric still had not provided all the necessary information for their permit request. When the permit application is complete and KDHE has finished their initial review, the public hearing schedule and comment period will be announced. GPACE has requested that five public hearings be scheduled to accommodate all interested parties across the state. We will alert our members as soon as the hearings and comment period have been scheduled, and we will provide details on how Kansans can participate in the hearings and provide written comments to KDHE.

In the meantime, you can start preparing for these public hearings and the public comment period by thinking about why this issue is important to you. Check out the GPACE blog archives for a comprehensive look at all of the facts surrounding this project. Talk to your friends about why they should be engaged in this issue, as well. (With 75% of Kansans opposed to this project, chances are good that you’ll meet a receptive audience!) And most importantly, be on the look out for the official details on the public comment period to be released soon.

- Kelly Jacobsen, Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy