July 15 Part One – Public Comments on Sunflower Energy’s Proposed Coal-Fired Power Plant

Community Bridge opens this week with Stephanie Cole, Kansas Sierra Club, and Scott Allegrucci, Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, in a discussion of the public hearing process for Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895-MW coal plant in Holcomb.

While many may think this is a done deal because 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, 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. Making the up-coming public comment time and public hearings worth paying attention to.

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.

The public comment period for Sunflower’s Holcomb Station coal plant is open from July 1 – August 15. Public comments can be submitted to KDHE anytime during that period. Public hearing will be held on:

• August 2 in Overland Park at 2:00 PM Blue Valley Northwest High School (135th and Switzer)
• August 4 in Salina at 2:00 PM Highway Patrol Training Center Auditorium (2025 East Iron)
• August 5 in Garden City at 2:00 PM Garden City Community College Joyce Auditorium (801 Campus Drive)

Hearings will break at 5:00 PM and reconvene at 6:30 PM, continuing until all verbal and written comments have been submitted. For more information, visit KDHE’s Website.

To listen to the podcast, click here.

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.

Public hearings scheduled, controversy rekindled

From EarthJustice.org

Topeka, KS – Today, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment released a draft air permit and schedule for public hearings for Sunflower Electric’s proposed 895 MW coal plant in Holcomb, KS. The controversial expansion plans have been the subject of a multi-year debate in Kansas stemming from the many public health, environmental, and financial risks the plant poses. Although very little of the power would stay in Kansas, the Holcomb expansion poses a multitude of public health and environmental risks to Kansans.

“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.

“The draft permit is a highly technical and lengthy document, and Kansans deserve enough time to thoroughly review the details of the draft permit,” said Amanda Goodin, an Earthjustice attorney who is representing opponents of the expansion project. “Given the fact that the health and welfare of Kansas citizens is at stake, a comprehensive independent review of the permit provisions is essential,” said Goodin.

The public hearings are an opportunity for the coal plant project to be fully vetted by the public, which is a necessary element of the permitting process.

“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,” said Stephanie Cole.

Coal plant development across the country faces increased regulatory uncertainty, lack of financing, and an awareness of the financial risks coal plants pose to ratepayers. In recent years, due to record-setting clean energy growth and dramatic increases in efficiency, not a single new coal plant has broken ground for construction in the last 18 months.

Sunflower Debt to Taxpayers Remains a Sticking Point

Sunflower has yet to pay back taxpayers for their existing coal plant in Holcomb, which has been the source of financial struggles for Sunflower, as well as unnecessarily high rates for their ratepayers. A lawsuit challenging the Rural Utilities Service approval of funding mechanisms for the Sunflower expansion is already being considered in federal court.

Read information on the draft permit and public hearings.

From the Kansas Chapter of The Sierra Club

You may recall last year that Governor Parkinson entered into an agreement with Sunflower which attempted to allow construction of one coal plant. The good news for us is that governors don’t have the authority to grant air permits, so our fight is not over!

Sierra Club and Earthjustice petitioned the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to require Sunflower to update their permit and host public hearings to allow for citizen input – and we won. The EPA has agreed to our requests and public hearings will likely be scheduled in August. Since we were not allowed to voice concerns when Governor Parkinson entered into an agreement with Sunflower, now is our time to make our voice heard.

Sign onto our statement to demonstrate opposition to new coal plants in Kansas!

We need your help now more than ever to ensure unnecessary coal plants are not built in Kansas. In addition to the host of environmental and public health threats associated with this coal plant, Sunflower Electric remains in debt to taxpayers for their existing coal plant in Holcomb¹.

Sierra Club has opposed this misguided project from day one, and we need your help to keep dirty coal plants out of Kansas.

Add your name to our statement to put Kansas on a path to clean energy!

Sincerely,

Stephanie Cole
Kansas Sierra Club

P.S. We’ve launched a new website that is dedicated to the Sunflower coal plant. We’ll post updates, factsheets, and newslinks related to our Kansas Beyond Coal Campaign on this website. Check us out here.

[1] Learn more about Sunflower’s debt to taxpayers here: http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/ks/pr/pr2009-10-03.aspx

By Phillip Brownlee for the Wichita Eagle Editorial Board

Federal approval last week of a cost-sharing plan for an electricity transmission line in Kansas was a key step in profiting from our state’s strong winds. Now what’s needed is for Congress to boost the market for wind energy by approving federal renewable energy standards.

Though Kansas recently was ranked second only to Texas in its wind-energy potential, it has been limited in its ability to site wind turbines and move electricity to market because of a lack of transmission lines. But last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a plan to charge ratepayers in eight states the cost of constructing a 180-mile transmission line from Spearville in western Kansas to Wichita, with a connection to Oklahoma.

“It’s very good news,” Jim Ludwig, executive vice president at Westar Energy, told The Eagle editorial board — though the Southwest Power Pool, the regional organization that manages power transmission, still needs to make sure this will be a high-capacity transmission line.

The new line, which likely won’t be operational until at least 2013, should be a boon to wind-farm development. But for Kansas to really benefit economically from its wind, it needs a strong export market. And that’s where Congress needs to step up.

The Senate is again considering cap-and-trade legislation aimed at curbing the use of fossil fuels and encouraging greater reliance on alternative energy sources, such as wind. But because of concerns about the possible high cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions, the measure appears unlikely to pass.

Rather than let the entire measure die, Congress should approve a provision requiring a certain percentage of a state’s energy to come from renewable sources. Kansas and 28 other states already have their own renewable energy standards, but a national RES could create demand for Kansas wind power in states that don’t have strong winds or other alternative energy sources.

A national RES “would really catapult renewable energy to the next level,” Gov. Mark Parkinson has said. It also has the backing of Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., has a stand-alone proposal requiring 15 percent renewable energy by 2021. A better option would be the RES that the House approved in its cap-and-trade bill, requiring 20 percent renewable power by 2020.

It’s also important that the financial penalty for failing to meet the standard is strong. Otherwise, it might be cheaper for some states to pay the fine than to purchase wind power from Kansas.

Kansas could generate 3.6 million gigawatt-hours of the nation’s future electricity from wind, according to a report released earlier this year by the U.S. Department of Energy. But Kansas won’t meet that vast export potential unless Congress does its part and passes a meaningful RES standard.

The answer to our growing energy needs — or at least a portion of it — really is blowing in the wind.

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

By John D. Montgomery and the Hutchinson News Editorial Board

Ideologues tend to get their blinders on, and politicians like to pander to their base. That explains why State Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, sought and won a provision in the state budget to bar use of state money for implementing federal greenhouse gas regulations.

It was a mostly pointless effort but one Huelskamp probably thought principled and one that would serve the interests of anti-environmentalism rhetoric that would please his conservative base.

It seemed like poetic justice, then, when that very budget provision appeared likely to backfire on Huelskamp, imperiling the Sunflower Electric coal power plant project so important to western Kansas and to conservative, pro-coal legislators. An Environmental Protection Agency administrator expressed concern about the language of the Huelskamp amendment, communicating to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment that if Kansas lacked authority to apply federal requirements, then the EPA could exercise its oversight authority.

In other words, an effort to block EPA regulation actually could have had the effect of inviting more. If the KDHE wasn’t going to regulate air pollution, then the EPA would be forced to do so. And with the way paved with KDHE to approve air permits for the Sunflower Electric expansion of its Holcomb power plant, having the EPA in the mix would have been a concern.

Fortunately, Gov. Mark Parkinson signed the budget bill Thursday but removed that provision along with 10 others he found objectionable or problematic.

Sunflower Electric President Earl Watkins had written to the governor, urging him to remove the budget provision. Westar Energy also wanted it removed.

Huelskamp, however, stuck to his guns, saying Kansans wanted to “combat (President Barack) Obama’s cap-and-tax proposal and resist an out-of-control EPA.”

Conservative politicians will say whatever they think their base wants to hear these days. In the process, they will take empty symbolism over real results. Same goes for trying to pass worthless state legislation to protest federal healthcare reform or saying if you get elected to Congress you will get “Obamacare” repealed.

In the case of the EPA language in the budget bill, it would have been ironic symbolism had that resulted in more, rather than less, EPA regulation and new delays to the Sunflower Electric project.

By Scott Rothschild of The Lawrence Journal World

TOPEKA — Gov. Mark Parkinson on Friday was at war again with the Kansas Chamber of Commerce.

“I find myself once again completely dismayed at the behavior of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce,” Parkinson said in a news release shortly after the Legislature adjourned the 2010 session.

On Thursday, Parkinson made a line-item veto of a provision in the state appropriations bill that would have prevented the state from spending money to enforce potential regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists have linked to climate change. The measure was authored by state Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, who opposes federal regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

Parkinson said the provision would have caused a lot of problems, including the possibility that the federal Environmental Protection Agency would take over environmental regulation in Kansas. Three of the state’s largest utilities, including Westar Energy, KCP&L and Sunflower Electric, contacted Parkinson and asked that he veto the provision.

“The Huelskamp proviso was bad public policy. Therefore, I vetoed it, Parkinson said.

But the Kansas Chamber didn’t agree. Jeff Glendening, vice president of political affairs for the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, said of the veto: “We are disappointed to see the governor veto the Huelskamp EPA amendment. The real beneficiaries of today’s veto are radical environmentalists. We salute Senator Huelskamp’s efforts and thank him for offering this amendment on behalf of Kansas businesses.”

Parkinson responded, “I would expect that the Chamber would be thankful that the wishes of its members — companies which employ hundreds of Kansans, contribute to our economy and keep our lights on — were met,” he said. “But instead, they reacted with another political attack and categorized their own members, who were the ‘real beneficiaries’ of this veto, as ‘radical environmentalists.’ ”

Parkinson said the chamber’s rhetoric could hurt Kansas in recruiting business.

“Businesses expect the state chamber to be a common sense, balanced entity. Instead, it has become a partisan political machine that is counter-productive to our efforts to create jobs, grow the economy and move Kansas forward,” he said.

During the legislative session, Parkinson blasted the chamber, which opposed increasing the state sales tax.

Parkinson and a bi-partisan coalition of legislators pushed through a 1-cent increase in the state sales tax, saying it was needed to protect schools, public safety and social services.

Chamber President Kent Beisner said those who supported the tax increase “catered to the needs of those at the government trough.” At the time, Parkinson responded, saying, “It is heartbreaking to think that somebody would equate the disabled, the elderly, school children, veterans, law enforcement and the poor to pigs at a trough.”

From the Kansas City Star

Renewable energy receives deserved attention from politicians promising a greener future that’s less dependent on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas.

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama said the environmental problems caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico underscore “the necessity of seeking alternative fuel sources.”

Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson also has been an active supporter of renewable energy, including wind and solar power.

Yet as Obama, Parkinson and other elected officials recognize, simply touting the benefits of sustainable energy isn’t enough.

Utility regulators also have to come around to the cause. So do the utilities themselves.

In Kansas, it’s taking too long to find the best ways to make it possible for businesses, cities and individuals to hook up their renewable energy power supplies — such as wind turbines or solar power panels — to the electric grid.

Supporters say this grassroots approach to producing and using power could help transform how companies and households get their energy. When they are able to invest in linking their renewable power supplies to the grid, they will do more to conserve energy and to promote sustainable sources.

But the Kansas Corporation Commission has not yet put in place uniform rules for how utilities should handle those who want to hook up to the grid. A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for June 10, and the KCC expects to issue final regulations later in the year.

Missouri and many other states already have easy connection rules. They know that establishing uniform statewide standards helps encourage customers and utilities to use more renewable energy.

Officials with Kansas City Power & Light, which participates in the Missouri program, say the company is eager to join a Kansas program as well, provided any new standards recognize factors such as the differences between serving urban and rural customers.

The KCC should approve rules that encourage KCP&L, Westar and other utilities to aggressively support the use of renewable energy in the state.