A Sunflower Electric Power Corp. spokesman apologized Friday for saying he would push for a boycott of Lawrence because of the city's opposition to a proposed coal-fired power plant in western Kansas.
"I absolutely did let my emotions get the best of me," said Steve Miller, Sunflower's senior manager of external affairs. "It was just a dumb thing I said and I deeply regret saying the words."
Miller earlier this week told the Salina Journal: "I personally will make it my crusade to make sure all our western Kansas dollars are diverted as far away from Lawrence as they can be, because they have unfairly stuck their nose in western Kansas' business. ... As hard as it is to create jobs in Kansas, for another Kansas town to come out against us just makes me stutter."
His comments followed the Lawrence commission's Tuesday vote to submit a letter to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment opposing the issuance of permits for a new power plant complex near Holcomb.
The $5 billion project, proposed by the Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp., would produce about 2,100 jobs for western Kansas. The proposal has faced opposition largely because of environmental concerns.
Before word of Miller's comments reached some Lawrence leaders, the power company retracted, issuing a statement from Sunflower President and CEO Earl Watkins.
"The comment made by Mr. Miller does not reflect the official view of our cooperative," Watkins said. "Mr. Miller saw the action of Lawrence as threatening our mission and he reacted emotionally. Our mission is not to damage Lawrence but to serve the people to whom we are committed."
Sunflower Electric apologizes to city of Lawrence for comments
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation apologized today for recent comments made in the Salina journal telling the city of Lawrence to 'keep it's nose out of Western Kansas' business...' Enlarge video
The City Commission voted 3-2 in favor of sending the letter of opposition. City Commissioner Mike Rundle, who proposed the idea of a letter, voted for the action, as well as Commissioners Boog Highberger and David Schauner.
Mayor Mike Amyx and Commissioner Sue Hack opposed the move, although Amyx said he would do his mayoral duty to sign it. Amyx and Hack voiced concerns that taking a stand would create ill will toward Lawrence among western Kansas lawmakers and leaders.
Miller said Friday he sent a message of apology to Amyx, City Manager David Corliss and Lawrence Chamber of Commerce President Lavern Squier.
"Apology accepted," Amyx said Friday. "I'm not going to get into a yelling match."
Amyx said that though he disagreed with the commission's opposition to the power plant, he supported the majority opinion because it was his mayoral duty to do so.
"Whatever the majority is going to say, I'm going to support," he said. "I may have a difference of opinion - and in this case I did."
Rundle said the commission's letter is part of a normal process for providing public input to KDHE.
He said he thought "it was good of (Miller) to have second thoughts and to just step back and let KDHE do their job and weigh everything that they have heard. ... Our democracy is a noisy and messy process, but it's the best form of government so far in the history of human beings."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
While Sunflower knowingly poisons the air just to make a buck. They know they are not good culprits. People in Kansas are smarter than Miller thought.
Revised Bush Air Pollution Plan Increases Attacks On Clean Air Act
One of the new provisions in the bill would allow as many as 69,000 oil refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial units to opt out of those EPA regulations that require them to reduce 74,000 annual tons of toxic chemicals including, but not limited to arsenic, lead, and formaldehyde.
The bill also includes a new loophole that exempts 52 percent of all power plant units from the bill's weak and delayed mercury cap. The loophole applies to those 580 power plant units that emit 50 pounds-per-year or less of mercury.
"Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin," said Martha Keating, senior scientist, Clear the Air. "It's outrageous that the bill's authors have chosen to exempt half of all power plant units from the bill's already weak provisions. Senators should stand up for public health advocates who vigorously oppose the Bush administration's bill instead of siding with the corporate polluters who support it."
The analysis identified the top 10 ways that the bill weakens the Clean Air Act. The president's pollution plan:
Guts Clean Air Act protections by creating enormous exemptions for most smokestack industries - not just power plants.
Repeals Clean Air Act protections that require every power plant to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollutants to the maximum extent (on the order of 90 percent) by 2008.
Exempts certain industrial facilities from EPA regulations already on the books to reduce toxic air pollutants including arsenic, lead, and formaldehyde.
Strips states of their authority to take action against pollution blowing in from other states.
Revokes local authority to require new pollution sources to meet strict emission limits in areas already suffering from unsafe air.
Repeals the Clean Air Act's New Source Performance Standards, which require new plants to install state-of-the-art pollution controls.
Repeals the Clean Air Act's New Source Review program, which requires the oldest and dirtiest plants to eventually meet modern pollution control standards.
Repeals Clean Air Act requirements that power plants reduce haze to protect national parks and wilderness areas.
Repeals Clean Air Act requirements that other smokestack industries that "opt-in" to the bill reduce haze to protect national parks and wilderness areas.
Delays deadlines for polluters to clean up to meet national health standards for ozone smog and fine particle "soot" for more than a decade, even as the science shows that the current standards are not tight even to protect public health. In late January, EPA staff recommended strengthening the national health standard for soot.
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
Lawrence people might want to be smug, but Mr. Miller only made the mistake of expressing what most in Western Kansas will think when they hear about our city commission's action.
.
Unfortunately, this action also reinforces in the minds of legislators in Topeka the stereotypes many in Kansas already have about Lawrence.
.
And this is why this is the exactly the wrong issue for Lawrencians to use to make political policy statements far far beyond the scope of the issue of the KDHE permits on this project.
.
Even if these particular permits are denied, this action will not change one paragraph of the federal regulatory environment debated about in these threads. (this means you SnowWI and Merrill) All you have done is needlessly crap in the backyard of your Kansas neighbor. Do not be surprised if your own backyard becomes fouled in exchange.
.
Excuse me while I turn on my lights powered by Lawrence's dirtier coal plant.
yankeelady (anonymous) says…
With all the wind farms already there and the technology available for cleaner power it doesn't make sense to build this. Just because the current administration is pro polluters and anti people does not make this a good idea.
WuShock (anonymous) says…
Merrill's first sentence shows how ignorant people are about Sunflower. Sunflower is NOT an investor owned utility like Aquila, Westar, or Pacific Gas and Electric. It is a cooperative owned utility where the owners are the electric cooperatives it serves. Those who sit on the Board actually live in the area and are ultimate consumers. Coops are non profit.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Most of that power does nothing for western Kansas. It's being exported for profit not for fun.
mommaeffortx2 (anonymous) says…
wow the commish is now making people outside of lawrence mad. oh well all is wel in the ole town then.
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Miller doesn't need to apologize. His hollow threat makes sense, but then again, with development quandries across the city and decreasing downtown retail operations, there really isn't that much to boycott.
Jamesaust (anonymous) says…
The plant will be approved.
The Commission will have a major membership change this spring.
Perhaps then we can begin working on plans for our anti-global warming nuclear power plant right here in Douglas County. Name it after Rundle.
deec (anonymous) says…
Please don't assume everyone in Western Kansas is in favor of the power plants. Aside from the obvious air pollution concerns, these plants will consume an enormous amount of water. Air we've got out here; water is scarce. You might want to research some of the newspapers from Hays, Salina, etc. Feelings are mixed in Western Kansas about the new plants, just as they are in Eastern Kansas.
merrywidow033 (anonymous) says…
It seems that quite a few of you people are really anti-Lawrence, and anti-Lawrence mindset. If you don't like it so much, why not move?
There are plenty of places where you can share similar conservative views with people just like yourself. Give Johnson county a try. Or how about Cloud? Or Brown? Or, well, you get the point. As my "grand"father (who thinks Dubya is too liberal) says to me "if ya don't like, LEAVE!"
*shrug* just my 1.713 cents.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
There is a reason why alternative sources of energy are not being used, they are not cost effective. That means higher costs to produce and higher prices to consumers. Jamesaust is correct, the Japanese and French have been safely using the low cost alternative, nuclear energy, for over a decade, but this discussion has gotten off point.
I accept there are many honest and differing opinions on building a coal powered electric plant in Kansas, but it simply is not the place of the PLC Kommissioners to send a letter on BEHALF of all the citizens of Lawrence opposing this project. It accomplishes nothing and makes all of Lawrence look like nothing but a bunch of busy body nannies sticking their nose into everyone else's business.
Once again the arrogance of the PLC Kommissioners is on display, but this time telling the rest of the state how they should behave and what to believe. I wonder how Lawrence would react if the Holton City Commission wrote to tell us what they thought of Lawrence's marijuana ordinance.
If the PLC Kommissioners want to write letters on their own behalf, I have no problem with that. If merrill wants to cut out irrelevant news stories and paste them to make pretty collages, again no problem. If logrithmic wants to demonstrate his ignorance of the issues and call them "developturds", he can embarrass himself all he wants.
But rightly or wrongly I suspect that the vast majority of Lawrencian's have no particular problem with the plant as long as it complies with all Federal, State and Local laws and regulations. Many Lawrencian's resent the PLC Kommissioners action implying all of Lawrence is opposed to their project and Miller's reaction is perfectly understandable.
WuShock (anonymous) says…
Deec, I have to disagree with you. The adverse reactions to the power plants in western Kansas has been limited to a few misinformed editorial writers in those newspapers.
There is a lot of misinformation being spewed forth in this debate. Sunflower's water use is not in addition to what is being taken out of the ground now. They had been buying water rights from farmers who willingly sold them. Actually, Sunflower will use less water than would have been pumped for irrigation.
deec (anonymous) says…
I live in Hays. Folks here are not in unison on this issue. I base this on conversations with folks, letters to the editor, etc. Where do you live?
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
The hypocrisy of people in Lawrence using electricity to run their computers and internet connection from a coal fired plant just north of town, criticizing people in Western Kansas who support a low emission coal plant that meets or exceeds all current government regulations is breathtakingly arrogant!
They are also "killing the planet" as much as anyone, and the people of Kansas and Missouri have to breath their "toxic air" so that they don't have to live in the "Dark Ages" and have access to cheap electricity. Build a windmill farm in the Lawrence Swamp before you criticize other for wanting what you already have!
Lynn731 (anonymous) says…
It's bad enough that the liberals that run the city of lawrence screw everything up there. It's absolutely none of their business what a power company in western Kansas does. So, keep your nose out of what isn't your business. Why not try again to keep people from talking on their cellphones in your little fiefdom, or Walmart from building a needed store. I'm sure you can think of many other ways in which your government, such as it is, can run your citizen's lives. Thank you, Lynn
Oddball (anonymous) says…
In this particular case, I'm going to have to agree w/Sigmund. Unless you're willing to boycott coal powered electricity and/or relinquish all the electric appliances and gizmos that make life easier, you have little room for criticism. Wind and solar power are the ideal renewable sources for electricity, but they cannot be the only source. Do you want AC in August only when the wind's blowing? How about heat in January only when the sky's clear? And no lights at night when the sun's down and the wind dies off. People want to slam coal generated electricity, but they aren't willing to give it up. It's supply and demand. As the demand increases year after year, more plants must be built to supply that demand. And the number of wind turbines that would need to be built to equal the output of 1 coal plant of the size being discussed is huge. Nuclear is another sane alternative to coal. Still uses water and has waste that nobody wants around, but it's cheap power and doesn't produce greenhouse gases. How about we put one right next to the Lawrence Energy Center? No? Some people are going to whine just to hear themselves.
By the way, the plant north of Lawrence has been a national leader in exploring ways to reduce pollution and increase output to delay new construction. Companies from overseas have visited it to learn their methods of pollution control and improved combustion. No plant is perfect, but each new one has better technology than the one before it. Why not start a drive to give homeowners an incentive to install solar panels? A tax break and rebates sufficient enough to make solar affordable. They even have solar shingles now. But the cost is prohibitive for most homeowners. Drop the demand for electricity, if you want to make a difference.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Miller and the members of the Sunflower Co-Op should organize a boycott of the Merc, as consumers and as vendors.
That would be more appropriate.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
Now for some substance--as Kansas residents, anything that directly involves the quality of the environment (which we all share, by the way) is "our business".
As Kansans, the Lawrence Commission is well within their scope, and as elected officials, they are doing their duty to protect the interests of their constituents.
***
OKAY, by that twisted logic: residents of these western Kansas communities send their children to attend KU, their teachers doctors lawyers etc., all educated here. so, these communities should have a say then in our community's laws? it seems only fair! lets see how they approve of lawrence's antiwal-mart antidevelopment stance, lawrence's pot law, our stormwater policies, lawrence's laws RE the homeless. all these and more oughta be reviewed by those western Kansas communities for their approval. we obviously impact their human environment.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Miller did not need to apologize. He made a valid point. If Lawrence City Commissioners choose to insert themselves in the economic development issues of Western Kansas, opposing the interests of the cooperatives of the western Kansas farmers, then the western Kansas farmers should, and must, unite to fight the opposition to their survival as posed by Lawrence and Kansas University.
deec (anonymous) says…
Sunflower shares are owned by its customers. When you sign up for service, you become a member/stockholder/whatever. It is not a "Farmer's Cooperative". The power plants will not supply power to Kansas. 8% is for Kansas; the rest is to be sold to nearby states. The water table will be further depleted and air quality will suffer. Its a bad idea.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"If Lawrence City Commissioners choose to insert themselves in the economic development issues of Western Kansas, "
They didn't. They "inserted" themselves where they already were-- co-inhabitants of the earth, and downwind from W. Kansas (and Colorado where the almost all of the electricity generated will be transmitted.)
I think this commission would be very supportive of a similar initiative if it used wind, solar or some other less-destructive and toxic a source of energy than coal is and probably always will be.
not_dolph (anonymous) says…
Bozo is right - the Lawrence City Commissioners were elected by our citizens of Lawrence to rule the world! What a joke.
jafs (anonymous) says…
logicsound, that is in fact not true.
If Western Kansas residents send their children to school here, then those children's general well-being, health, and safety would certainly be affected by Lawrence's laws, public transit, homeless population, etc.
The issue is an interesting one - boundaries vs. interconnectedness. In one sense, we all share the same planet and are affected by everything that goes on, so we have a vested interest in everything. Of course, in another sense, we have human-created divisions which must be reckoned with.
It's interesting also that only 8% of the power produced would be used in Kansas, according to a local resident above.
windy (anonymous) says…
deec , 'The power plants will not supply power to Kansas. 8% is for Kansas; the rest is to be sold to nearby states. The water table will be further depleted and air quality will suffer. Its a bad idea.'
********************************************
These plants will be drawing 40% less water then is used to irrigate now.
So what is the difference between power being sold to out of state buyers then say, selling beef, grains, fuels overseas?
Wind generators are good, but what if the wind stops blowing and your lights go out? Do you think they store this power in giant batteries? No!!!