Sunflower project will face thorough environmental review, new administration decision

Washington, D.C. — Judge Emmett Sullivan, in the federal district court today, effectively blocked an 895-MW coal-fired power project in western Kansas—the notorious Sunflower expansion—until a thorough environmental review of the project is finalized. The decision emphasized the significant impacts to human health that would arise if the project was constructed.

 

The current Sunflower Electric Power Plant in Holcomb, KS. (DOE)

The ruling is the latest chapter in a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club against the Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”), an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, over its ongoing financial support for and approval of the Sunflower expansion. In March 2011, the court found that RUS had failed to consider environmental impacts of the proposed Sunflower plant expansion, in violation of federal law. The government has a financial stake in the plant because of loan arrangements made with plant owners by the federal Rural Utilities Service.

In his decision, Judge Emmett Sullivan emphasized that the expansion will need additional approval from the federal government as a result of changes to the project from earlier configurations. He enjoined the government from issuing any additional approvals pending a full “environmental impact statement” (“EIS”) disclosing all of the environmental and human health impacts of the project, which includes harm to human health as well as contribution to climate change. An EIS must also discuss “alternatives” to a proposed project, such as renewable energy projects and energy conservation.

“The people of Kansas and downwind states will now get their legitimate public health concerns heard,” said Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice who led the lawsuit on behalf of the Sierra Club. “Once the facts of this dirty and dangerous project are exposed to the public, we think that the federal government will have to just say no.”

“The financial and public health risks involved in the development of this project have always made it a bad deal for those of us who will have to breathe dirty air and pay unnecessary costs for this coal plant,” said Lee Messenger of Garden City, an opponent of the expansion. “Sunflower needs to be accountable for the debt it has already created with its existing coal plant, not get in over its head again with another risky and unneeded coal plant.”

“From a public health and environmental perspective, coal-fired power is the most expensive option available,” said Scott Allegrucci of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “We are confident that once the environmental impacts of this plant are considered in light of alternatives, the project’s impacts will be unacceptable and it will be rejected.”

According to recent American Wind Energy Association fourth quarter data, Kansas has the largest number of wind projects under construction in the nation. This decision comes as utility companies and developers across the country are abandoning planned coal plants as unnecessary and too costly and are moving toward a greater reliance on clean energy.

Background:

In this lawsuit, Sierra Club argued that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provided extensive financial support—including writing off millions of dollars of public debt—so that Sunflower could build the new power plant. These agreements left the RUS with close oversight of Sunflower’s business operations and required federal approval to proceed with the Holcomb project. Much of Sunflower’s financial struggles stem from overbuilding capacity at their existing unit, Holcomb I, which is a scenario that could be repeated if Holcomb II is constructed since neither Sunflower nor Tri-State, the Colorado partner, has demonstrated the project is needed. The lawsuit argued that, as an essentially federal project, greater environmental review and consideration of alternatives—like greater conservation and renewables—is required.

Meanwhile, when Kathleen Sebelius was governor, the state rejected the proposed plant because of its potential, massive contributions to climate change. While popular with citizens, the decision upset coal-connected legislators. But, try as they did, they couldn’t overcome Sebelius’ vetoes.

Even when Sebelius left office—and was replaced by a governor who quickly gave Sunflower the green light—the coal lobby was stymied by legal pressures and by Rod Bremby, the state environmental health chief who had first rejected the plant permit under Sebelius. He held the line for three years until finally being fired over the issue. His successor promptly issued the permit last December. An appeal of the air permit is pending in the Kansas Supreme Court.

• Read the Court’s March 2011 decision on the merits.
• Read today’s ruling effectively halting the project.

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

To reach Karen Dillon, call 816-234-4430 or send email to kdillon@kcstar.com.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/01/3242889/epa-spars-with-kansas-over-power.html#ixzz1cYU8oPHv

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

Last week (Tuesday, October 18th, to be exact) marked the fourth year since then-Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment Rod Bremby issued the historic denial of air quality permits for the proposed 1400 MW Holcomb Station coal-fired expansion sought by Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (of Kansas), Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (based in Colorado), and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative (of Texas).

That Was Then

Bremby cited the (then) recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and the United Nations IPCC reports on global climate change and its impacts upon human health and the environment among his reasons for the denial.  His decision also cited Kansas statutory authority clearly delegated to the KDHE Secretary for such decisions.  His decision was the first instance in the United States of a public official blocking coal plant construction based in part upon concern for health and environmental impacts from climate change caused by coal-fired power plant emissions.

Pro-coal forces in Kansas and elsewhere immediately launched an assault on then-Governor Sebelius, with paid advertisements in national media linking the decision to support for foreign dictators and hyperbolic claims that Bremby acted “illegally” and “against the will of Kansans.”  The ads were blasted by observers everywhere as false information and fear-mongering, and subsequent multiple, bi-partisan polls in Kansas showed clear and overwhelming public opposition to the proposed coal plant project with its emphasis upon unneeded electricity generation, imported resources, pollution of Kansas, and value and economic impact for other states.

The Sebelius administration spent significant political capital defeating multiple versions of pro-coal and anti-regulatory wish-list legislation in 2008 and 2009.   As late as April of 2009, then-Lt. Governor Parkinson repeatedly and publicly called out the lies and misinformation project supporters were using to justify their efforts.

In the wake of the 2008 national elections, the pro-pollution and climate change denial machine (generously funded and guided by Kansas’ own Koch brothers) increased efforts to undermine established scientific consensus regarding climate change and human-caused drivers of global warming.  Using climate change denial and the economic recession as a kind of Trojan horse, the pro-pollution, anti-health crowd has undertaken a concerted effort to not simply stop regulation or valuation of greenhouse gases, but to undo 40 years of federal public health and environmental protections – protections that have coincided with unprecedented overall economic growth and prosperity in the United States.

Sunflower Electric and its allies dodged continuous questions about the project (from financial mismanagement, to “clean coal” falsehoods, to demand realities, to water consumption) and threw everything and the kitchen sink at the decision and support for it, including personally naming Bremby, Sebelius, and Parkinson in a frivolous federal lawsuit.   Yet, the project remained stalled for legal, regulatory, financial, and other reasons.  Golden Spread moved on, and developed wind and natural gas assets to meet its relatively small need for future generation capacity.

Public and administrative support for Bremby’s decision stood firm until Sebelius departed for a Presidential cabinet appointment.  Immediately upon being sworn in as governor, Parkinson announced his own secret deal with Sunflower Electric that gave pro-pollution advocates everything they had ever wanted (and that he had previously called “dishonest” and “unnecessary”), including a 900 MW coal plant at the Holcomb Station and a complete stripping of state responsibility for air quality.  Of note, Bremby never signed the settlement agreement and KDHE was never involved in the development of the deal.  Parkinson then embarked upon a process of collusion and political pressure that saw the project permitted before the end of 2010 despite unprecedented public opposition – ultimately firing Bremby in order to clear that path.

This Is Now

In mid-2011, former KDHE Secretary Bremby accepted an offer by the governor of Connecticut to apply his considerable talents and commitment to public service on behalf of that state’s citizens.

Former Governor Parkinson is now a highly paid lobbyist in Washington, DC, and former Sunflower Electric Power Corporation CEO Earl Watkins has retired.

The Bloomberg Foundation (of New York City’s Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg) recently donated $50 million to Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign.

And a Republican sweep of statewide elected offices and Congressional seats leaves Kansas with the most conservative (and pro-polluter) public leadership in the state’s modern history.

Meanwhile, the pesky reality that, due to massive unpaid taxpayer loans, Sunflower Electric is essentially a federal government entitlement project did not escape the attention of a federal District Judge, who ruled that Sunflower Electric and the Rural Utilities Service of USDA had violated federal law in pushing the Holcomb Station coal-fired expansion forward at taxpayer risk and without legally-required review. Remediation in that case is pending, as is a Kansas Supreme Court review of a legal challenge to the KDHE permit and process for the project.

According to the permit granted by KDHE, the proposed plant is not state of the art or clean, as claimed, but will in fact be one of the dirtiest plants in the nation.

Electricity demand is down and, even accounting for the recession, projections are for much lower demand than utilities had been claiming.

None of the primary project partners can demonstrate a need for coal-fired generation from the project – it appears to be essentially a merchant plant designed to benefit Tri-State since it will be phased for the Western Grid and will be owned entirely by Tri-State.

The much-touted jobs and economic benefit from the project are years away at best, since there is no need for the plant’s capacity and Tri-State has publicly stated construction will not begin prior to 2016, at the earliest.  Still, Kansas elected officials continue to help Tri-State delay the project while blaming “environmental extremists” for the delays.

The fundamental science that informs the worldwide observations of global warming caused by anthropogenic climate change continue to be confirmed, including by a recent study funded in part by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation.

Kansas’ relative ranking in achievable wind energy capacity has increased.  Recent tall tower data for Kansas from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows even more wind density than previously measured, with wind generation capacity factors in southwestern Kansas reaching over 50% in some instances.  Wind farm and transmission development in Kansas continue apace, regardless of the proposed Holcomb Expansion coal-fired project.

Lower prices and increased supply have made natural gas cost-competitive with long-term coal contracts, and its cleaner emissions portfolio beats coal’s performance (and cost) under increasing public health and environmental protections.  Natural gas is also a much better partner for renewable energy integration than coal.

In spite of deceptive and misleading partisan political tactics, modern and necessary public health and environmental protections (most developed under previous Republican administrations, many focused on power plant emissions) continue to be implemented and supported by a significant bi-partisan majority of Americans.

The regulatory uncertainty caused by partisan political opposition to carbon regulation or valuation, in the context of virtual certainty by key actors in capital finance markets and energy policy circles that greenhouse gases must and will be regulated in the future, has created significant overhanging risk, halting most investment in new coal plants and making the economics of coal plant retrofits questionable.

Efforts continue to obscure the facts, derail the rule of law, and deny the public interest in order to benefit the coal plant project and its special interest allies.  All in all, though, it seems that Mr. Bremby’s decision four years ago remains as visionary and important an act of public service now as it was in October of 2007.

Scott Allegrucci is the Executive Director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy

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

An electricity wholesaler that supplies power to four states is buying a 272-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Colorado from affiliates of a private investment group in Connecticut.

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, based in the Denver suburb of Westminster, said Tuesday it’s buying the plant from Starwood Energy Group of Greenwich, Conn.

The purchase price wasn’t disclosed. The plant is in Fort Lupton about 25 miles north of Denver.

Tri-State is a not-for-profit association that supplies power to 44 electric cooperatives serving 1.5 million consumers in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming.

Tri-State has been purchasing 150 megawatts from the Fort Lupton plant since 2009.

The plant is under contract to provide 122 megawatts to an unidentified third party. Tri-State says that contract will be fulfilled through 2019.

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

The state’s second largest power provider – Tri-State Generation and Transmission – has an all-of-the-above approach to energy resources, but that doesn’t mean its interest in a coal plant expansion in Kansas is meant to transform the Westminster-based company into a larger regional power wholesaler.

“We serve 44 co-ops in four states over 200,000 square miles,” Tri-State spokesman Jim Van Someren said Thursday. “That is our one-and-only mission and our board doesn’t have any intention or any philosophy to operate outside of that mission.”

Tri-State provides power to member-owned rural electric cooperatives in Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska and Wyoming. Eighteen co-ops currently get power from Tri-State in Colorado – making it the state’s second largest power supplier behind only publicly owned Xcel Energy.

“We would not invest in any sort of generation resource to meet demand outside of our membership. It’s not in our operating philosophy. It’s not in our corporate business model. So that just doesn’t reflect accurately at all,” Van Someren added.

He was responding to concerns that Tri-State’s interest in the proposed Holcomb 2 coal-fired power plant expansion just over the Colorado state line in Kansas is unnecessary because the company can meet its member’s needs through natural gas and renewable sources.

Prior to a Monday meeting at Tri-State’s headquarters in Westminster to get public feedback on its ongoing resource planning process, there was concern among environmentalists that such an investment might lead to Tri-State selling electricity outside of its membership.

Bruce Driver, a consultant and former executive director for Western Resource Advocates, says he feels Tri-State on Monday adequately addressed his concerns about the company possibly expanding the scope of its mission. He was particularly worried about Policy 506, which was approved by Tri-State’s board of directors.

“Tri-State says that [Policy 506] is intended to clarify that Tri-State provides power at wholesale to its members across state lines,” Driver said. “Apparently, Tri-State is trying to assert its authority to charge all of its members, wherever located, the same ‘postage stamp’ rate for power, so that it can implement in 2013 its new rate design.

“Tri-State explained that Policy 506, which we had heard authorized Tri-State to become a wholesale power provider serving needs beyond the Tri-State membership, is not intended to do this.”

The proposed 895-megawatt Holcomb 2 expansion is primarily a project of Kansas-based Sunflower Electric Power Association, which has won approval from state regulators there but is being challenged in court by the Sierra Club.

Tri-State is listed among the project participants, but Van Someren said the company is simply keeping its options open.

“We’re not really moving forward with (Holcomb 2),” he said. “We haven’t made any further commitment toward it. We are monitoring that. We’re certainly staying abreast of the situation, sharing information, getting information from Sunflower. But we have made no commitment and we’re not moving forward on that as of today, nor do we have any immediate plans to.”

Driver said Tri-State’s own resource acquisition plan shows the need for a new coal unit in only one out of 24 models, and that one scenario only calls for 302 megawatts by 2027, whereas Tri-State’s share of Holcomb 2 would be 695 megawatts.

Asked if there is a Tri-State business plan calling for the company to actively recruit more cooperatives to create more demand, Van Someren said “none whatsoever.” Tri-State has been at the 44-member level since 2000.

“There are folks out there that would like us to take coal off the table and at this point in time we are not willing to do that,” Van Someren said. “We’re not willing to do it with natural gas. We’re not willing to do it with renewable. We’re not willing to do it with nuclear. We are adamant about keeping all options on the table at this point. That said, we have not made any commitment to any of them.”

Follow David O. Williams on Twitter.

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

Staff Report for The Lamar Ledger

At a public meeting held Monday, Aug. 29th at Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association headquarters, rural electric co-op members urged the electricity supplier to stop spending ratepayer money on construction of a new coal-burning power plant in Kansas that Tri-State’s resource acquisition planning has concluded is unnecessary and unwise.

As of the end of last year, Tri-State had spent $57.4 million on developing the Holcomb 2 coal electric plant in Kansas, according to the co-op’s 2010 Annual Report. The 875 megawatt plant is expected to cost Tri-State about $2.4 billion of the $3 billion total, with the large share of the power (675 megawatts) for Tri-State.

Monday’s session was the only public comment meeting Tri-State will hold in advance of submitting its annual update on its resource acquisition plan to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission later this fall.

Tri-State officials said Monday that they expect little change to last year’s plan in which exhaustive analysis of some two dozen scenarios showed no need for the co-op to develop new coal-burning generation capacity over the next 20 years. With gas prices lower now than in 2010 and coal prices higher, the economics of Holcomb 2 have only become more unfavorable than they were a year ago. However, Tri-State maintained Monday that the co-op is still not willing to shelve development of the Kansas coal plant.

“Especially given the tough times so many folks are in now, it’s really troubling to hear that some of our hard-earned utility bill dollars are still being diverted into a coal-burning plant that isn’t even needed,” said Dan Morse, Executive Director of the High Country Citizens’ Alliance and a resident of Crested Butte, CO served by the Gunnison County Electric Association, a Tri-State member co-op. “Tri-State is supposed to serve the needs of its members and we simply don’t need our money spent on a coal plant in Kansas.”

Air emissions and ash from coal-burning power plants are a major source of toxins hazardous to human health. Coal ash contains arsenic, lead, mercury and other heavy metals that can cause various forms of cancer, cardiovascular problems, nervous system damage, and death. In addition to toxic metals, air pollutants from burning coal also include particulate pollution and nitrogen oxides which combine with other compounds to form fine particle pollution that can work deep into the lungs as well as ozone, which the American Lung Association calls “the most widespread pollutant in the U.S. and one of the most dangerous.”

“There are much better options than a multi-billion dollar coal plant that’s going to increase our rates because of increasing coal production costs,” said Steve Szabo, a resident of Longmont, CO served by the Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association, a Tri-State member co-op. “Energy efficiency programs can dramatically reduce future electric loads and wind and solar are already proven and reliable on the Tri-State system and should be expanded.”

Tri-State supplies electricity to 44 member cooperatives serving about 1.5 million people in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nebraska.

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

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. expects it will have to develop less renewable energy than expected on its own over the next several years because its members are developing their own projects, managers said Monday.

The electric cooperative, based in Westminster, Colo., provides power to 44 members who serve about 1.5 million people in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Nebraska.

Last fall, Tri-State submitted a 20-year plan to Colorado regulators outlining how it planned to meet demand for electricity over the next two decades while also satisfying mandates in Colorado and New Mexico to get more power from renewable sources. It plans to submit an update Nov. 30 after collecting public input.

Tri-State is studying potential renewable energy projects for the future. But at a public meeting Monday, managers said the cooperative’s members have proposed their own wind, solar, small hydro- and waste recovery projects, along with one to recover methane from landfills.

“Our members have come to us at virtually every board meeting with renewable energy projects,” said Robert Wolaver, senior manager for energy resources.

In 2010, Tri-State projected it would need the equivalent of about 150 megawatts of extra wind generation in 2015 beyond what it has now to meet Colorado and New Mexico renewable energy standards, but it now forecasts that will be closer to 50 megawatts.

However, Bruce Driver of the environmental law and policy group Western Resource Advocates expressed concern Monday that Tri-State hasn’t given up plans for Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build a coal-fired plant outside Holcomb, Kan., that could serve Tri-State customers. Kansas officials have granted a permit for the plant, but environmental groups are challenging that decision in court. Tri-State doesn’t expect a resolution until at least 2013.

Tri-State officials said it would be premature to scrap the Holcomb project because they want to keep all options—from nuclear power to wind—open when it comes to securing power in the future.

Tri-State is among the largest electricity providers in Colorado, but the state has had limited oversight of electric cooperatives. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission in 2009 considered whether it should further regulate the cooperative and its plans for providing electricity because of concerns about emissions from coal-fired plants, state mandates for more renewable energy, and uncertainty about costs for developing electricity projects.

Tri-State questioned the commission’s legal authority to oversee its plans, but in late 2009 it reached an agreement with Western Resource Advocates to voluntarily allow more public and state input into its planning.

The cooperative doesn’t need state approval of the plan.

The update to be filed Nov. 30 will reflect lower natural-gas prices and higher coal prices than Tri-State forecast last year.

Managers also said Monday the Tri-State board is considering redesigning its rates, but no changes are expected for 2012.

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

The Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association defended its possible development of a new coal-fired power plant against criticism Monday from environmental groups.

In a public meeting at the Westminster headquarters of the electric power co-op supplier, Tri-State officials said they haven’t yet made a decision on the coal plant and plan to keep their options open.

“We are constantly investigating a variety of resources,” said Ken Reif, general counsel of Tri-State. “Renewables, (natural) gas, coal, nuclear, demand-side management — all those things continue to be under continuous investigation by Tri-State.”

The meeting was designed for Tri-State to solicit public feedback as it updates its power-resource acquisition plan.

Tri-State is Colorado’s second-largest electric-power supplier behind Xcel Energy. The utility serves 44 member-owned power cooperatives in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming.

Environmental activists at the meeting sought a commitment from Tri-State that it would not pursue development of the proposed 895-megawatt Holcomb generating station in southwest Kansas.

No such commitment was offered.

“Our board reserves the right to make the best decisions for our consumers — which may or may not include development of the Holcomb plant,” said Lee Boughey, senior manager of public affairs at Tri-State.

The plant has been approved by Kansas regulators, but the Sierra Club has filed suit against the state’s issuance of air-quality permits.

In a resource plan issued last year, Tri-State said it needs 588 megawatts of new power by 2019 to serve its customers. Environmentalists and renewable-energy advocates say the utility easily could meet that need and much more with a combination of renewables, energy-efficiency programs and natural-gas-fired plants.

The coal-fired plant, critics say, would be a polluter and subject to potentially big increases in coal prices.

“We don’t understand why you’re keeping (the coal plant) as an option,” said Bruce Driver, a consultant with Western Resource Advocates, a Boulder-based environmental-research group. “Your own modeling shows no need for Holcomb.”

Environmental activist Leslie Glustrom of Boulder said Tri-State is underestimating future coal prices and the ability of coal mines to supply the nation’s coal-fired power plants.

Unlike investor-owned utilities such as Xcel Energy, Tri-State does not require approval of its resource plan by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.

Read more:Tri-State won’t rule out coal-fired plant, despite activist objections – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_18784258#ixzz1WWrFQiv2
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

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

Many supporters of the proposed Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-State)/ Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (Sunflower) coal-fired Holcomb Station expansion seem to presume that their opinions constitute undisputed facts.

So perhaps it is worth noting a few additional realities (both opinion and fact) that are ignored or contradicted in the oft-repeated assertions of coal plant supporters:

• All of the activity in Kansas related to the project (including political and regulatory corruption, public misinformation, etc.) is likely being funded by Tri-State, the huge Colorado-based Rural Electric Coop that has pumped a reported $70 million into the Kansas coal plant fight to date;
• Sunflower hasn’t even made a dent in its multi-hundred-million dollar debt to American taxpayers for the first coal plant it over-built (a project undertaken using the same justifications as the current project);
• Tri-State is on record (Fitch Ratings & Forbes Magazine) stating it won’t begin construction of the project until 2016 at the earliest (and the project will take approximately four years to build) – so it will provide no jobs prior to 2016 at the earliest, and no “needed” electricity to prevent “rolling brownouts” (as project supporters claim will occur) until 2020 at the earliest;
• Tri-State’s recent 20-year resource plan filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission clearly shows (a) no need for coal baseload capacity until 2027 at the earliest and (b) no plans for transmission from Holcomb (Sunflower also reports no need for near-term coal baseload capacity);
• The Holcomb Expansion coal unit will be phased for the western grid (CO), not the eastern grid (KS), making the electricity it produces unusable by Kansas utilities unless very expensive phase conversion technology is part of the build;
• Tri-State retains control over all 895MW of the proposed project’s capacity – the 200MW presumably reserved for Kansas is a verbal agreement only – there is no obligation under the statute created by the Parkinson settlement agreement to keep any electricity for Kansas. Tri-State is the sole equity and power owner of the project and its power;
• If Sunflower Electric actually owned any extra electricity produced by the project, perhaps it could export it.  But it won’t own the extra electricity (presuming there is any) or the plant.  Tri-State will.  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;
• Tri-State and Sunflower are Class A members of the Western Fuels Association (WFA) , meaning both have a significant interest in the specific Powder River Basin (PRB) coal mines in Wyoming that will supply coal to this project, as well as some short-line rail interests related to coal transport;
• Kansas produces virtually no utility grade coal, and Sunflower and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) crafted a permit that allows the project to avoid the legal requirement to utilize Kansas coal that project supporters passed into law as part of the Parkinson deal (so all the jobs and state revenue for fuel will go to Wyoming);
• Coal producers and coal-dependent utilities claim that they are anticipating huge price increases and subsequent profits from selling domestic (Powder River Basin) coal to the export market (largely in Asia) even as they claim that coal prices will remain “low and stable” in the domestic market – both of these things cannot happen;
• Kansas has significant, unused, existing natural gas electrical generation capacity (cheaper, cleaner, jobs, in-state fuel source, etc.);
• Kansas has significant natural gas reserves – in fact we are a major exporter natural gas (same as above);
• Natural gas prices have fallen and in fact there are utilities that have entered into long-term purchase contracts for natural gas at prices comparable to coal fuel purchase agreements, and others that are retiring coal plants to be replaced by natural gas and renewable generation (cheaper, if you count the increased expenses to build and operate coal plants and protect public health from coal-fired emissions);
• Tri-State’s construction contractor (Bechtel) is a multi-national with vast experience building such projects and will almost certainly import most of the needed workforce;
• According to wind developers, the coal plant will almost certainly retard wind development (and jobs, revenue, investment, etc.) in Western Kansas, since its purpose (and that of any related transmission) will be to flood the lines with as much coal-generated electricity as possible;
• The coal plant will likely drain more water over time from the aquifer than current “agricultural” rights (presuming all current rights are active agricultural users), even with the 40% draw-down cap after ag-to-industrial transfer – think of the competition with municipal and other water users in the future;
• There are almost certain to be adverse rate impacts (look no further than KCPL’s 14% rate increase to cover mismanagement and cost overruns on the Iatan 2 build – almost exact same size as proposed for Holcomb);
• The proposed plant/permit will mean the Holcomb expansion is actually dirtier – measuring mercury, ozone, particulate matter, and NOx pollution – than hundreds of existing coal plants, including several in Kansas; and
• Let’s not forget the outright deception of the public and elected officials by project proponents and the resulting corruption of the rule of law, legal and regulatory processes meant to serve the Kansas public as whole, and state elected offices (to the highest level) – all so a Colorado utility can build an unneeded coal plant in Kansas, that Coloradans don’t want or need, using the water, air, tax dollars, and lungs in Kansas to support the project.

If you’re so inclined, throw in concerns about the global warming impacts exacerbated by this unneeded polluter.  If not, forget that, and keep all the above.

It seems pretty clear that the fundamental priority of this project is to burn Wyoming coal for the next 50 years, rather than produce needed electricity or jobs, since the electricity isn’t needed in the near or mid-term future, the jobs aren’t coming any time prior to 2016 (if even then), and the project owners have long-term financial self-interest in burning coal for its own sake.  That’s our opinion, to be clear, but it’s based upon the factual information about the project and the permitting process that is available to the public.

It also seems that an awful lot of people feel they must lie to the public about this project, in order for it to ever have even a chance of being completed.

The facts speak for themselves on that one.

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

KDHE Gives Sunflower Coal Plant another Free Pass to Pollute. Waiver favors Colorado special interests over Kansas health and environment.

TOPEKA , KS —Thursday, KDHE quietly issued Sunflower and Tri-State another free pass to pollute by allowing the proposed Holcomb II coal plant to yet again escape compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Sunflower, which seeks to construct a controversial new coal plant in Western Kansas , was excused from a requirement to begin construction of the coal plant within 18 months of receiving a permit. Despite it only being 7 months since the permit was issued, Sunflower is already seeking to avoid the construction requirement. This is likely due to the fact that neither Sunflower nor Tri-State have a need for the coal plant, according to both coops own resource plans, and Tri-State reported long ago it had delayed constructionof the Holcomb II coal plant until 2016 at the earliest.

“By already allowing Sunflower to avoid complying with terms of the permit KDHE itself issued, one has to question what else Sunflower will be excused from in the future,” said Stephanie Cole of the Sierra Club.

“The state continues to turn its back on Kansans and the law. The Environmental Protection Agency has a clear obligation to require appropriate procedures to be followed in this case. Time and again, the EPA has allowed this project to avoid following the law. This is no longer acceptable, and we fully expect the EPA to act where KDHE has failed to do so,” said Amanda Goodin, an attorney with Earthjustice.

Ironically, Sunflower, with the help of KDHE staff “volunteering” to work overtime, rushed the permitting process last year to obtain a permit for a coal plant that it knew was not needed or even an economical endeavor in the near-term. Now, Sunflower and Tri-State are asking to delay construction without complying with provisions of the Clean Air Act that require permits to be updated to include modern pollution controls if construction cannot commence within the required 18 month timeframe.

“Just like the rush to permit the project prior to new greenhouse gas regulations taking effect, this is yet another attempt to avoid the requirements of the Clean Air Act. KDHE is giving Sunflower another free pass to pollute and doing so without even allowing the public an opportunity to comment on this unprecedented move,” said Cole.

It has been obvious for a long time to anyone remotely following the coal plant debate that near-term construction of Holcomb II was unrealistic given Sunflower’s poor financial standing, the lack of need for new generation, and Tri-State’s preparation of an electric resource plan for Colorado regulatorsthat does not include Holcomb II.

With the troubled Holcomb II coal plant being noticeably absent from Tri-State’s own resource plan and unrefuted reports that indicate the Colorado coop had long ago delayed construction of the coal plant until 2016 at the earliest, promises of jobs and arguments of urgent power needs lose credibility with Tri-State and Sunflower now delaying construction. Near-term construction of Holcomb II would result in a large overbuild of capacity, which is in large part why Sunflower remains in debt to taxpayers for its existing coal plant at Holcomb and also why it’s highly unlikely genuine plans to being construction within the required 18 month timeframe ever existed.

Rather than following the typical procedures for extending the construction requirement of a permit, Sunflower and Tri-State submitted a request to KDHE that is so unusual that even the EPA and the former Secretary of KDHE, Rod Bremby, reported to the Kansas City Star that they were unfamiliar with such a peculiar request.

IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS:

• The permit KDHE issued Sunflower requires construction of Holcomb II to commence construction by June 16, 2012.
• During the permitting process last year KDHE was presented with numerous comments that identified Sunflower and Tri-State’s transparent attempt to gain a permit prematurely. These comments requested that KDHE require the necessary permit updates and public input when the inevitable requests to delay construction were submitted.
• The Holcomb II permit is the most controversial permit KDHE has ever considered – yet the agency improperly approved a significant change to the permit without even allowing for public comment.
• Earthjustice and Sierra Club argued for KDHE to follow the appropriate and traditional requirements for permit extensions that would include an updated environmental analysis, a “Best Available Control Technology” analysis, and public input. These requests, which reflect the law, were ignored.
• The approval of Sunflower’s request will allow Sunflower to avoid requirements of the permit KDHE issued and avoid considering the most stringent pollution control technologies that would best protect public health and the environment.

READ KDHE’S ORDER HERE:http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/kdhe-order-granting-sunflower-stay.pdf

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