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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many members of Congress does it take to change a light bulb bill? Not enough, apparently.

On Tuesday, House Republicans failed to get a bill passed that would have stopped the implementation of new energy-saving standards for light bulbs. The vote, 233-193, fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage.

Earlier this week, House Republicans argued the bill pointed to an overreaching government. Among the more than 60 cosponsors of the bill was U.S. Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., whose district includes part of Lawrence.

“The original light bulb mandate is a perfect example of government regulation run amuck,” Yoder noted in a written statement. “It is not the role of the federal government to tell consumers what products they can and cannot buy.”

Signed into law in 2007 by President George W. Bush, the existing legislation requires the classic incandescent light bulbs to be phased out over the next few years and replaced with more energy efficient ones.

The law doesn’t exactly ban incandescent bulbs, which haven’t changed much since Thomas Edison invented them. But it would require them to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than the traditional models. While the newer technology saves more energy, the bulbs also cost more upfront.

Some folks in Lawrence were monitoring the bill closely. Scott Allegrucci, executive director for Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, said the bill was worrisome for organizations like his.

“When you look at the nature of it, there is a strong suggestion that they are trying to turn back anything that is deemed a response to a carbon constraint,” Allegrucci said.

Even without the threat of climate change, Allegrucci said “there are a ton of good reasons why energy efficiency measures, including light bulbs, are good ideas.”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, using a more energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulb can save $40 over its lifetime.

The switch from incandescent to CFLs is one many in Lawrence have made as part of the statewide energy saving competition, Take Charge Challenge. In Lawrence, nearly 21,000 light bulbs have been switched to CFLs since the competition started in January.

Linda Cottin, owner of Cottin’s Hardware, said that hardware stores and lighting companies are aware of the light bulb changes that will kick in soon. But no one is quite clear on what exactly will change.

The industry has successfully navigated through the government’s banning of other products, such as certain chemicals and Freon. Typically, they are phased out slowly after manufacturers stop producing them.

“I definitely would like to see the country move forward with wiser manufacturing practices, but personally I’m not positive banning incandescent bulbs and replacing them with CFLs, which has mercury in them, is the best,” Cottin said.

Over the past few years, Cottin has seen sales from incandescent bulbs dwindle. The store’s onetime 12-foot long display of incandescent light bulbs has shrunk to three feet.

“It is shifting, but still there are so many light fixtures out there where there is not an option to switch,” she said.

On the other hand, the law could be just what the industry needs, Cottin said.

“I think there are alternatives out there that we could come up with that could work, that could make sense. Maybe this (law) is what is needed to make that happen,” she said.

• The Associated Press contributed to this story

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

Gov. Sam Brownback has received praise for declaring Kansas’ Flint Hills totally off limits to wind energy development. There is no question that this pristine prairie environment must not be spoiled or endangered, but we have some concerns about what happens next.

We do not doubt Brownback’s sincerity in guarding those hills, but he now must demonstrate that he is equally committed to capitalizing on his state’s vast wind energy development potential. It is much easier to declare where wind turbines cannot go than it is to open opportunities for their development.

Kansas ranks second among all states in wind energy potential, but when you cut one huge swath of the state from possible production, that potential is greatly diminished. There still are plenty of breezy flatlands out there, but there are complications in tapping it.

The Flint Hills always were a temptation to wind energy developers because transmission lines already were in place. Now, we must wonder when, where and if enough costly new transmission lines can or will be available for future wind power farms.

Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, said he and his organization do not disagree with the governor’s intentions. But he raises the key question.

“(Kansas is) saying no to wind energy in the Flint Hills, which we think is a good idea, but where is the yes to wind energy?” Allegrucci told The Sun.

Quite correctly, Allegrucci expresses dismay about the effects a new coal plant in western Kansas will have on wind power.

That coal facility near Garden City “will clog our (transmission) grid, which could retard wind development for the western part of the state,” Allegrucci said.

Ironically, much of the power generated by that controversial plant will flow into Colorado. Emissions from it, however, will float eastward on the untapped Kansas winds. So instead of getting a flow of clean energy from western Kansas, it appears there is a much greater chance that Johnson County will get the fallout of burning coal pollution.

Allegrucci also points out that incentives for placing new transmission lines through sparsely populated areas are few.

“And the reality is that in Kansas the real high wind density is in the southwest 25 percent of the state … where there aren’t lines” or many people, Allegrucci said.

So we wonder: Was it really necessary to bar wind energy development completely from the Flint Hills? Could we not have allowed it at least to some limited extent?

And please tell us, Gov. Brownback, that you have an aggressive strategy for wind development elsewhere. Please tell us that there is a plan that will provide clean energy to Johnson County.

Or, as Mr. Allegrucci asks, “Where is the yes to wind energy?”

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

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

Recently The Associated Press uncovered an e-mail from Sunflower Electric to a group including legislators and the State Treasurer.

The e-mail accuses Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Bremby of “gaming the process” for Sunflower Electric’s coal plant permit, and requests contacting the governor’s office to pressure KDHE to shorten the process. The e-mail mentions scheduled meetings between some of these individuals and the governor’s office.

Regarding whether the process is being unnecessarily delayed, compare the timelines of the current and the most recent permit process.

The previous permitting process began on 6/1/2006 and concluded on 10/18/2007. It involved a public comment period over 80 days long and the full process took over 16 months. There are no recorded complaints from Sunflower or their supporters about the length of that process.

The current permitting process began on 6/30/10 and concluded on 8/15/10 when the first public comment period ended. That’s 46 days of public comment, and the full process would take less than 6 months if the permit is decided during this calendar year.

During the 2006/2007permitting process, KDHE received about 785 total public comments (verbal and written, pro and con). Prior to the most recent public hearings, KDHE had already received over 2,200 public comments on the current draft permit – excluding comments from the public hearings and more than 800 comments submitted between the public hearings and August 15th.

Incorrect data submitted by Sunflower means that an entire section of the permit remains unavailable for review. One wonders whether this was an intentional part of Sunflower’s strategy. Without that data there can be no conclusive analysis done on the permit, since adjustments to one part of complex emissions modeling can impact the entire permit. As such, the public has been unable complete a technical review of or offer all relevant comments on the current permit.

Presumptions that a final permit can be granted before the end of the year are just that – presumptions. Sunflower and their allies are forcing KDHE to take one-third the amount of time to review and respond to at least four times the number of public comments received compared to the previous permit review process.

According to the AP article, the governor’s office claims no involvement in the permitting process and no pressure from that office on KDHE. Yet one of the legislators on the Sunflower email confirmed that pro-coal allies met with the governor’s office, which then communicated with KDHE. And KDHE has now proposed a 30-day second comment period rather than the 45-day period they had announced at a 9/9/10 Joint Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy meeting.

It seems that those making the accusations of “gaming the system” are the very ones doing the “gaming.” Efforts by elected officials and others to pressure KDHE are potentially illegal, certainly unethical, and at the very least undermine the responsibility of the agency to objectively and fairly conduct the regulatory process in the interests of the public.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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