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.

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 Scott Rothschild of The Lawrence Journal-World

TOPEKA — A measure tucked into the state budget could prevent Kansas from implementing Environmental Protection Agency rules on greenhouse gases.

The proposal was shepherded through by Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, during the final days of the legislative session that ended last week.

“Instead of supporting sound science and common sense, the EPA has chosen to take the radical path of attempting to regulate carbon dioxide and methane,” said Huelskamp, who also is running for the 1st District congressional seat, currently occupied by Jerry Moran.

“I’m determined to do what is best for our Kansas economy, and that is to oppose the EPA implementation of their cap-and-trade regulatory scheme at every possible opportunity,” he said.

The amendment to the appropriations bill would prohibit any state agency from spending state funds “to plan, draft, propose, promulgate, finalize or implement any rules and regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act involving the greenhouse gases identified” in the EPA’s endangerment finding.

EPA has declared that climate-changing greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and need to be regulated. Those gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment, which enforces environmental rules, is the target of the amendment, and a major issue before KDHE is a pending permit for an 895-megawatt coal-fired electric power plant in southwest Kansas, known as the Sunflower Electric Power Project.

In 2007, KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby denied the permit for the project, citing the effects of the proposal’s potential carbon dioxide emissions on health and environment.

In 2008 and 2009, Sunflower Electric and Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, which would own most of the power from the project, pushed through legislation to overturn Bremby’s decision. Then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed that legislation several times.

When Mark Parkinson became governor in 2009, after Sebelius’ departure to join President Barack Obama’s Cabinet, Parkinson made a deal with Sunflower and Tri-State to build a smaller project.

The amendment to the budget bill is now in the hands of Parkinson, who can let it become law or apply a line-item veto to it. Parkinson’s office said the governor has not yet received the appropriations bill but that once he does he will thoroughly consider every proviso before taking any action.

Environmentalists are unhappy with the amendment but, ironically, they are not asking for Parkinson to veto it.

Given Parkinson’s deal-making with Sunflower on the coal plant, they don’t see much help coming from the Statehouse.

“At this point, we’re not inclined to use the legislative process to combat these special interests anymore,” said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club. “The legislative process is being abused. We will focus on the Sunflower project in the courts.”

Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, said the provision wouldn’t stand up in court and probably would invite more scrutiny from the EPA on Kansas environmental regulation.

“We might consider more direct oversight by EPA a much more responsible and dependable pathway to regulatory certainty in Kansas,” Allegrucci said.

EPA’s Regional Administrator Karl Brooks has already written a letter to Parkinson and Bremby expressing concerns about any provision that would block federal rules.

In that letter, Brooks warns that if a state doesn’t follow federal pollution laws, the EPA will exercise its authority to make sure that projects seeking permits adhere to federal requirements.

From the GPACE team

The same kind of reckless and unregulated behavior that derailed the nations banking system has been revealed right here in Kansas.  A legal motion filed by the Sierra Club and Earthjustice now pending in federal court does not paint a pretty picture for the electric utility currently seeking to host the first of several huge coal plants for out-of-state utilities.

Nearly thirty years ago, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation took on huge debt, funded by American taxpayers, to build a coal-fired power plant in Holcomb, Kansas.  Initially the utility predicted that the plant would act as a significant revenue source and that it would help keep rates low in the Sunflower service area.

Neither prediction came true.

By 1987, Sunflower was forced to admit the plant was generating too much electricity in a market flooded by new coal plants built in the 1980′s.  Sunflower raised electricity rates on its customer-owners in an attempt to defray costs from the under-utilized facility.  Eventually Sunflower was forced to restructure over five hundred million dollars in federal taxpayer loans on three different occasions. The company was never able to meet payment of the loans that, with interest, totaled nearly a billion dollars by 2002.

The third restructuring in 2007 might leave average Kansans scratching their heads.  Sunflower Electric and the Rural Utility Service (RUS), a federal agency that supports rural electric companies, worked out an agreement to pay off some of the debt, and forgive most of what was still owed to taxpayers.  A condition of that agreement, however, is construction of up to three more coal plants at Holcomb.  The game was on, and the rules were changed again when the RUS freed Sunflower from federal environmental review of proposed new generation facilities.

The only entity left at the table to oversee Sunflower’s gamble with our money (and our air, water, and health) was the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE).

In an attempt to run the table and correct it’s fire-engine-red balance sheets, Sunflower initially proposed to build three new massive coal plants not for its Kansas member-customers, but for out-of-state utilities. That initial proposal was scaled back to two plants, which were then denied air-quality permits by KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby.  This ignited a political fracas that consumed two full legislative sessions and held hostage the state’s energy policy.

All for one company’s Hail Mary wager with our tax dollars.

Furthermore, in the deal brokered by Governor Parkinson last May, Sunflower won a concession that it had failed to achieve through the legislative process: Sunflower is now protected from having its rate increases and expansion plans reviewed by the Kansas Corporations Commission, leaving rate payers exposed to poor decision making and volatile rate spikes.  Because Sunflower is a co-operative electricity producer and not an investor-owned utility, there are no shareholders who must be informed of risk-and-reward potentials.

During this whole process, Sunflower representatives testified time and again before state legislative committees. They used words like “tyranny” and “civil rights” to describe the way in which the KDHE decision impacted their standing in the “free market” (they used that phrase repeatedly, too).

One can’t help but wonder in what reality their free market exists. Sunflower owes us our tax dollars and an explanation – not backroom deals and the promise of “economic development” with a wink and smile.

In a free market, if you can’t swim, you sink.

States and communities across the region are taking great strides toward a twenty-first century renewable energy economy.  Coal-plant projects across the country – even one proposed by another utility right here in Kansas – are being delayed or abandoned due to the financial risks and regulatory uncertainty associated with coal-fired generation.

There are options for powering America. There are other means to meet the relatively slow demand growth for electricity in rural parts of Kansas over the next twenty years.  And there are better ways to create jobs and economic development in a state rich with wind, natural gas, and solar resources.  Kansas could be an exporter of renewable energy – along with the goods and technology to support it.  Kansas could reduce the huge amount of coal we import, and the many millions of dollars we send to mine owners in Wyoming.

The inability of Sunflower to be in a position to capitalize on these options is no reason to ignore them.  Why should taxpayers simply trust that Sunflower will win our money back, after decades of losing it?  Sunflower Electric might light the lamps on Main Street, but by betting huge amounts of taxpayer money on risky business deals – even as it decries government regulation – it’s acting more like Wall Street.

from the Kansas City Star

TOPEKA | Carbon dioxide emissions will be a factor for the state in issuing air-quality permits only when new power plants are involved, the Department of Health and Environment said Monday.

The agency issued what it called a “guidance document” in hope of clarifying its policy. The document states, “Under this policy, no other permit applications are subject to carbon dioxide analysis as part of the permitting process.”

The action is another development in a dispute between Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and the department, which is blocking Sunflower’s plans to build two coal-fired power plants near the Finney County town of Holcomb.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement saying the new document “sets the record straight” and counters a “fear campaign” by supporters of Sunflower’s project. KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby, a Sebelius appointee, rejected an air-quality permit for the two plants in October 2007, citing their potential CO2 emissions.

“Kansas has always been, and will always be, open for business,” Sebelius said. “But it’s time we recognize the changing economy and embrace a clean energy future before we miss out on new investments, new jobs and new opportunities.”

She added: “Now is not the time for new coal plants in Kansas.”

Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller declined to comment on the KDHE document, saying the utility had not had time to review it.

The one-page document says KDHE’s policy is designed to “ease the transition” to expected new federal requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It says KDHE will examine the potential CO2 emissions for proposed new power plants to protect Kansans’ health and the environment. The state does not yet set specific limits on emissions of greenhouse gases that are linked by many scientists to global warming.

KDHE spokeswoman Maggie Thompson said there are no pending applications for air-quality permits for new power plants.

The document says applicants for such permits must include measures to offset or reduce CO2 emissions. The document notes that power plants are the single largest source of CO2 in Kansas, accounting for 34 percent of total emissions.

Sebelius noted that Sunflower’s application is the only one of about 3,400 to be denied since she took office in January 2003. But critics contend Bremby’s decision created an unstable regulatory environment and discouraged business investment in Kansas.

“This is a document just offering guidance,” Thompson said. “We’ve been hearing over and over again that there’s uncertainty.”

Legal challenges to Bremby’s decision from Sunflower, its business partners and others are pending in state and federal courts.

Legislators who support the coal plants also hope to pass a bill to overturn Bremby’s decision and limit the KDHE secretary’s power to deny air-quality permits in the future.

Sebelius vetoed three such bills passed by Sunflower’s legislative allies last year, and the vetoes withstood attempted overrides.

The House Energy and Utilities Committee planned to begin discussion Tuesday on a bill to overturn Bremby’s decision and other energy legislation. Chairman Carl Dean Holmes, a Republican from Liberal, declined to comment on the KDHE document, saying he hadn’t seen it.

Sierra Club spokeswoman Stephanie Cole said the environmental group was encouraged that KDHE recognized the likelihood of new federal regulations on CO2 but added, “I would like to see more from KDHE.”

“I think we can expect the federal regulations to be stricter than what they’re proposing,” she said.

You may download the Guidance Document from KDHE’s website: http://www.kdheks.gov/

from the Topeka Capital-Journal

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is endorsing a decision by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to consider carbon dioxide emissions only when evaluating air permit applications for new electric power plants.

KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby issued a “guidance document” on Monday limiting CO2 reviews to applications associated with power units. The document is intended to counter complaints that carbon regulation by the state harmed business investment.

The issue has been controversial since Bremby denied an air-quality permit in 2007 for a proposed coal-fired utility plant to be operated by Sunflower Electric Power Corp, of Hays. He based the decision on the likely emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually from the proposed plant at Holcomb.

The House Energy and Utilities Committee is scheduled to conduct hearings today on a bill to overturn Bremby’s ruling.

Sebelius said “imminent” federal regulation of carbon emissions raising the cost of operating fossil-fuel plants, opportunities to expand clean energy technology and the adequacy of base energy supplies in Kansas should make Kansas government and businesses think twice about embracing new coal projects.

“All of these facts has led us to one conclusion,” Sebelius said. “Now is not the time for new coal plants in Kansas.”

She said campaigns by Sunflower, the Kansas Chamber and other entities on behalf of the Holcomb project were unfortunate.

“For the past year,” the governor said, “we’ve seen legislators, lobbyists and even the Kansas Chamber of Commerce run a fear campaign telling businesses they’re in jeopardy because KDHE denied one, single permit.”

Sebelius said Bremby’s order “unequivocally sets the record straight. “Kansas has always been, and will always be, open for business,” she said.

Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller declined to comment.

Debate over the Sunflower plant has raged in the Statehouse for two years. Sebelius vetoed three pro-coal bills in the 2008 session.

A series of lawsuits have been filed seeking to overturn Bremby’s rejection of the air permit in October 2007.

You may download the Guidance Document from KDHE’s website: http://www.kdheks.gov/