By Michael Stand of The Salina Journal

In 2007, Kansas was temporarily in the world spotlight when Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, denied a permit to Sunflower Electric to build a new coal-fired generating plant in southwest Kansas.

The decision was so widely watched because it was the first time a permit had been denied because of the carbon dioxide a plant would emit; it declared carbon dioxide a health hazard.

Sunflower is once again looking to expand its generating capacity at Holcomb, this time seeking to build a far smaller, 895 megawatt plant, instead of the twin 700-MW plants it wanted to build a few years ago.

A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for Wednesday at the Kansas Highway Patrol training center. The hearing will begin at 2 p.m., with a break from 5 to 6:30, then resume until everyone has an opportunity to speak.

During the 2008 legislative session, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed three different bills seeking to overturn Bremby’s ruling, but after she resigned to become U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Gov. Mark Parkinson met with Sunflower officials and reached a compromise.

Included in that compromise, said Clare Gustin, Sunflower’s executive manager for external affairs, was a much smaller expansion, as well as a commitment from Sunflower to develop more renewable energy sources.

The plant is a joint project between Sunflower and Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Cooperative.

Among those opposing the plant expansion is Scott Allegrucci, executive director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy.

Allegrucci says that while the new proposal is significantly smaller — and will create less carbon dioxide — most of the objections to the earlier proposal still hold.

This isn’t exporting wheat

Allegrucci says the bulk of the power generated by the new plant will be used in Colorado, with Sunflower customers getting just 10 percent.

He acknowledges that Kansas exports lots of stuff, such as wheat, but says this case is different.

“We’re not exporting power,” he said. “Sunflower isn’t making power and then selling it on the market — essentially we’re hosting a coal plant for an out-of-state utility … Tri-State doesn’t want to fight this fight in Colorado.”

And in spite of Gustin’s assurances that Sunflower is committed to developing renewable energy sources, Allegrucci says the expansion would make it more difficult for wind and solar projects to gain a foothold.

“An overbuild of this size would flood our grid with coal-generated electrons, making (renewables) that much less economically feasible,” he said.

Why not natural gas?

He also questions why Sunflower wants to use coal to power the generators, saying he thinks natural gas would be better for a number of reasons.

“We have natural gas in Kansas, and they could be using that and keeping the money in Kansas instead of buying coal from Montana,” Allegrucci said. “Even if gas prices go higher, at least the money would be staying in Kansas.”

Gustin says choosing coal over natural gas is a sound business decision. Utilities typically use coal for so-called “base load,” because coal-fired plants must run constantly, and use gas-fired plants — which can be turned off and on almost at will — to handle peak loads only, because gas is more expensive.

“We’re not just biased toward coal,” she said, adding that the expansion is a 30- to 40-year investment, and that the company thinks coal prices will be more stable over that time.

Who will buy the power?

Allegrucci also says the plant isn’t needed now, even by Tri-State, and that Tri-State’s own projections say it won’t need the power until 2026.

But Gustin says a contract Westar has to buy 174 MW of power from Aquila expires in 2018, and Westar will need to get that power from somewhere else.

Allegrucci also said it’s possible the federal government might step in to stop the plant expansion, even if state officials approve it.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide, and Allegrucci said the agency intends to start doing just that beginning in January.

Exactly how that regulation will unfold remains to be seen, Allegrucci said, adding that the EPA has already required one plant in Kentucky to use natural gas instead of coal, because it creates less carbon dioxide.

“Basically, Sunflower is racing to get their permit before January 2011,” he said.

By Theo Spencer for the Natural Resource Defence Council staff blog

When does a bad idea become worse? When it gets one step closer to reality.

That’s the case with the proposed ‘Sunflower’ coal-fired power plant in Kansas. Just last week, the state Department of Health and Environment issued a draft air permit for this nearly 900 megawatt behemoth.

If you want to know the details of why this is a bad idea, and why clean energy would be a much better idea, local advocates have developed a very cool new web site/tool www.rethinkrepowerks.org that contrasts the construction of the dirty plant with investments in clean energy.

The site has four tabs at the top: Job growth, health effects, economic impact and energy output. If you click on any of these in a year picked from the sliding timeline, you’ll get a side-by-side display contrasting the impacts of the coal plant against wind and natural gas. The graphics are cool and easy to read. I’ve never seen a coal plant challenge site that’s so easy to use with such a clear display of contrasting information.

The great thing about this new site is it’s essentially a template that can be lifted and used in battles against other proposed dirty coal plants in other states.

The site was developed by the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE), a Kansas non-profit. And it’s creation was timely: the public comment for the draft air permit period lasts until August 15. After that the state or EPA can deny the permit. We hope they do.

Because a lot of things don’t make sense about this proposed huge dirty coal plant. First, it’s proposed for Western Kansas, but 80 percent of the power would be shipped out of state to Colorado. So Kansas gets the pollution, and Colorado get’s the power. What’s more, water from Kansas aquifers would cool the plant, even though Kansas and Colorado have been fighting legal battles over water rights for decades.

The vast majority of the power produced by the plant would be purchased by Tri-State Generation and Transmission, based in Colorado. But the plant would be developed by the Kansas-based Sunflower Rural Electric Cooperative.

Funny thing is, Tri-State has publicly stated it does not anticipate construction starting on the plant (if it’s permitted) until at least 2016. And Tri-State’s own resource planning shows no need for coal-fired base load capacity until 2026 at the earliest.

Yet the CEO of Sunflower says the plant will be built by 2016. Go figure.

Any way you look at it, this is an un-needed dinosaur that greedy Sunflower executives only want because it would add a multi-billion dollar asset to their toy chest. Problem is, the financial risks and almost certain rate hikes related to pollution costs and construction cost overruns will likely be passed on to Kansas rate-payers, while most of the power would theoretically be shipped out of state.

And finally, the construction of excess coal-fired generation capacity to send coal-generated electricity to Colorado will almost certainly retard wind development in Kansas. Both wind and natural gas power capacity at the same level as the proposed coal plant would get permitted and built (and put Kansans to work) prior to 2016.

This plant is a bad idea, but fortunately a good one has come out of the process, this cool new tool to help fight dirty coal plants nationally.

By Matthew Berger of SolveClimate.com

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

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

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

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

Four Vetos by Sibelius

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

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

Is Sunflower taking the possibility of those rules into account?

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

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

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

A Matter of Timing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Timeline

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

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

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

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

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

Power Would Go Out of State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 in a series of 7

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 proposal?

We’re answering this basic question in a series of seven consecutive blogs/questions.  Here’s the fifth.

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.

This is #5 of 7 questions – check back tomorrow for #6.

4 in a series of 7

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 proposal?

We’re answering this basic question in a series of seven consecutive blogs/questions.  Here’s the fourth.

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.

This is #4 of 7 questions – check back tomorrow for #5.

GPACE has offered a number of criticisms and questions regarding the proposed Sunflower Electric coal‐fired power plant project now being reviewed for an air quality permit by KDHE, including:

• The whole project really has nothing to do with Kansas energy needs. It will be financed and owned by out‐of‐state utilities. It will make Kansas more dependent upon imported fuel. And it will expose Sunflower ratepayers and Kansas taxpayers to increased costs.
• After holding two sessions of the Kansas legislature hostage to the Holcomb coal plant, Kansas Republican legislative leadership derailed or delayed critical action on renewable energy development, and spent Kansas taxpayer dollars and time to secure terrific economic development and energy policy for a Colorado utility (that will own the Holcomb coal plant) and Wyoming coal mines (that will provide the electricity fuel).
• How many Kansans might be working right now had Sunflower chosen to tap Kansas wind and natural gas to meet their energy needs? And energy efficiency technology and local HVAC technicians to reduce their electricity load? How much of the severance revenue, fuel purchases, and economic stimulus that will now go to Wyoming, might have come to Kansas for natural gas and wind energy? How much Kansas water will now be used to make Colorado’s electricity? How much of the money to be paid to railways shipping coal from Wyoming to the plant, might have gone to Kansas farmers, ranchers, and school districts for wind and gas leases?

If you ever wondered why we are asking these (still unanswered) questions, take a look at this page (below) from the Tri‐State Generation and Transmission Association 2008 Annual Report. Tri‐State is the Colorado utility that plans to finance and own the Holcomb coal plant, and that will own and use at least 80% of the electricity the plant would produce.

Keep in mind, the amount noted in the Tri‐State 2008 Annual Report ($46 million and counting as of 12/31/08):

• Doesn’t count Tri‐State’s direct purchases of land and water rights or the transfer of funds to Sunflower or affiliates to purchase land and water rights for the project.
• Doesn’t include any money spent by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association,Peabody Coal, railroads, and other out‐of‐state pro‐coal, anti‐regulatory organizations spent on lobbying, misleading information, and attorneys related to the coal plant fight.
• Doesn’t include the money Americans for Prosperity, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, or any other national pro‐coal, anti-regulatory front groups spent on lobbying, misleading information, and attorneys related to the coal plant fight.

One can only imagine the total amount spent by this cabal of out‐of‐state special interests to get their coal plant.

All this, and even if the permit is granted (which is not certain), the inevitable lawsuits are settled, and Sunflower can figure out how to finance the plant and absorb increased costs related to coal, the Holcomb coal plant is still at least two years away from breaking ground (and creating jobs) and at least five years away from producing electricity (for Tri‐State in Colorado).

Ahhh…Kansas.

Five rural members say they are “being asked to subsidize” higher-growth areas.

By Mark Jaffe in the Denver Post

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, which serves electric cooperatives in four Western states, is being sued by five Nebraska members for allegedly overcharging for electricity.

When the five rural Nebraska cooperatives sought to buy out their Tri-State contracts, they were told it would cost $210 million, according to the suit filed in federal district court in Omaha.

Tri-State, based in Westminster, serves 44 cooperatives in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Nebraska. There are 18 Colorado cooperatives.

Jim Van Someren, a Tri-State spokesman, said the company is charging all of its members the same rates for electricity in an effort to “be fair.”

The contracts that the Nebraska cooperatives want to buy out run to 2050, Van Someren said.

“A member has the right to buy out,” Van Someren said. “We did exactly what the cooperatives asked for and provided the dollar figures.”

Ray Gifford, the attorney for the cooperatives, said the lawsuit was a last resort for the Nebraska co-ops.

“If Tri-State doesn’t want us, at least give us an equitable divorce,” he said.

The Nebraska group contends that most of its electricity comes from cheap Western Area Power Authority hydropower.

Still, Tri-State charges double the cost it pays the power authority, the suit says.

“What’s happening is that low- cost, low-growth Nebraska co-ops are being asked to subsidize high-growth areas in Colorado and Wyoming,” Gifford said.

The price Tri-State pays for power is only part of the cost of providing electricity, which includes such items as building and maintaining transmission lines and administrative costs, Van Someren said.