Reader poll
KDHE supports coal plants in western Kansas
The staff of the Kansas Department of health and Environment recommends approval of two coal-fired power plants in western Kansas. Enlarge video
Topeka — A proposal to build coal-burning electric plants in western Kansas gained momentum Tuesday by winning staff approval at the state environmental agency.
And legislative leaders supporting the project leaned heavily on Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby to accept the staff recommendation and grant permits for the two 700-megawatt plants.
But Bremby declined to say which way he was leaning in the case, and also declined to say whether he would consider the effects of carbon dioxide emissions from the plants in his decision-making process. CO2 emissions are blamed for global warming but are not regulated.
The status of the plants was the subject of an unprecedented legislative probe into KDHE's review of permit applications from Sunflower Electric Power Corp. for the $3.6 billion project near Holcomb.
Supporters of the project say it is needed to help the western Kansas economy, meet power needs and provide transmission lines to carry future wind-generated electricity.
But environmental groups oppose the project, saying emissions from the proposed plants would harm the environment and Kansans' health while most of the electricity produced will be sold to out-of-state customers. The City Commission of Lawrence and attorneys general of eight states have officially opposed the project.
Legislative support
During Tuesday's meeting, lawmakers on the newly appointed Electric Generation Review Panel urged Bremby to approve the permits. Bremby's desk is the permits' last stop at the state level. But proponents and opponents say the matter most certainly will end up in court.
House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, said rejection of the project would wreck the western Kansas economy.
"If we want rural Kansas to move, we have to have adequate and affordable energy," he said.
State Rep. Carl Holmes, R-Liberal and chairman of the panel, criticized KDHE for taking 15 months to act on the permits. Holmes added the plants are needed to put in place transmission lines that will enable the sale of power from Kansas to both the East and West Coasts.
"It's going to affect the entire state if these permits are turned down," Holmes said.
Much of the discussion with Bremby focused on a legal opinion by Attorney General Paul Morrison that said Bremby has wide latitude to reject the proposal.
Morrison's opinion, which KDHE sought, allows the agency to consider the effect of unregulated pollutants such as carbon dioxide when granting air quality permits. In other words, Bremby could reject Sunflower's permits "to protect the health of persons or the environment."
When asked whether he would consider CO2 emissions, Bremby said, "That has not been determined."
That upset several lawmakers. Holmes said if Bremby denied the project based on carbon dioxide emissions, it could lead to shutdowns of refineries, ethanol plants and other industries.
"I have a major concern with that," he said.
Concerns for future
Tom Thompson, representing the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said he didn't agree with Holmes.
He said Kansas needs to address regulating carbon dioxide, a major subject at both the federal and state levels.
"It would behoove them to start coming up with a plan so that Kansas is not left in the dirt by other states that are trying to deal with this issue now," Thompson said.
The Sierra Club and Sarah and Ray Dean of Lawrence have filed lawsuits that seek to force KDHE to limit carbon dioxide emissions.
After testifying to the panel, Bremby said while it was interesting to get the perspective of lawmakers who support the plant, their comments would not affect his decision.
"This is a technical decision," he said.
He said that under state law the agency has until Dec. 1 to issue a ruling, but that it will announce a decision later this month. "There has been no delay," he said.
He said KDHE has been diligent in working on the case, knowing that whatever decision is made probably will be attacked in court.
While the staff has recommended approval, Bremby said that recommendation first will be considered by Ron Hammerschmidt, director of the division of environment. Bremby then will review it before making a decision on whether to accept, modify or reject the permits.
Although many legislators back the plant proposal, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has criticized it. And although he was appointed by the governor and serves as a member of her Cabinet, Bremby has said he will make an independent decision on the matter. And the governor has denied trying to exert any influence on the process.
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.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
This plant is good for Kansas.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Define "good".
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
I've read stories from several media sources on this, but only Kansas Public Radio was brave enough to quote the Speaker of the House. This story is woefully incomplete without including his outlandish comment.
Melvin Neufeld - "I'm really afraid, Mr. Secretary, you'll write rules and regs to tell me when I can exhale."
You'll also note, in the story aired on Kansas Public Radio, that unlike what you read in this newspaper, Chairman Holmes did not limit his concerns to ethanol plants.
According to Chairman Holmes, if you attempt to regulate CO2, then you will have to shut down the entire transportation industry in Kansas, because of gasoline burning engines.
Seriously - this story relies on comments from two individuals who oppose regulating CO2 because they don't want breathing and cars banned in Kansas.
Time for a reality check.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
>>"This plant is good for Kansas."
>"Define "good"."
Everything has a net effect -- the good must be compared to the bad. Overall, this plant will be great for Kansas's people and economy. But yes, it will cause some pollution. But getting a bunch of transmission line capacity and access for future wind farms tilts the good/bad ratio well into the net "very good" category.
This may be one of the last totally new coal fired power plants. My best guess is that future large base-load plants will have to be nuclear. Natural gas should only be used for summertime peaking plants; we need the natural gas for heating homes, making fertilizer, etc.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
I wonder if there would be much difference in the response of the environmental-activist community if they had proposed a two unit nuclear plant instead of a pair of coal burning plants?
I doubt it.
While I am quite sympathetic with environmentalists on many issues, at the extreme end of the environmentalist movement there is a decidedly misanthropic bent: Beavers can build dams for beaver's purposes, but humans. . .
jwils02p (anonymous) says…
These Coal Plants are not needed for Transmission Lines. Sen. Reid has a proposal that would allow the Western Area Power Administration to build the lines that would carry wind.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Does Sen. Reid have funding for his proposal? Does he have an equal ammount of funding for Western Kansas that this project would supply?
Why are you relying on reid and a plan that may or maynot ever get off the ground, through comittee or even be effective here when someone is already to put that plan into place?
snowWI (anonymous) says…
cool,
I do not support the proposed coal plants either, but they will be "cleaner" compared with the dinosaur power plants in eastern Kansas that are already over 50 years old. Kansas will always be backwards when it comes to being innovative with renewable energy technologies. The people from western Kansas do not understand that most of the younger people will not stay there even if the coal plants are built. Their is a severe brain drain and net-outmigration of younger people from rural counties that has been happening for many decades.
preebo (anonymous) says…
As a member of the Environmentalist Community I won't even touch this one.
"Beavers can build dams for beaver's purposes, but humans."
This goes right along with the State Senator's comment: "I'm really afraid, Mr. Secretary, you'll write rules and regs to tell me when I can exhale."
Would building clean renewable energy infrastructure in Western Kansas be bad for the regional economy? Hardly. As a matter of fact it would be more sustainable, economically speaking, then coal fired plants.
Even if the permits are issued we have two suits entered to halt implementation. What we're arguing for are the people of Western Kansas and their long-term environmental health.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
cool,
I know that the coal plants are not "clean", and the CO2 issue is huge when it comes to unregulated emissions. Their is no such thing as clean coal. It was said that the proposed plants would emit over 10 million tons of man-made CO2 every year. They are also using technology that will be immediately outdated with no chance at capturing CO2. I also wonder how long the oldest and dirtiest power plants in the state will continue to operate when the total emissions rate is very high for NO2, SO2, and mercury. ( The Jaffrey Energy center is one of the dirtiest power plants in the country) .
snowWI (anonymous) says…
"Would building clean renewable energy infrastructure in Western Kansas be bad for the regional economy? Hardly. As a matter of fact it would be more sustainable, economically speaking, then coal fired plants."
I definitely agree with this statement.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
What is wrong with those western Kansas legislators?
Not a damn thing.
A business entity is seaking to put jobs, money, and tax base into their constituency. That business, while certainly contraversial, is perfectly legal. It will satisfy and meet all current regulations governing its opertation.
They would be fools to push it away.
Oh yeah, you might say "but they shouldn't" or "but if you did it this way, it would be better." Well, no one is offering to do it "better". Western Kansas isn't exactly in the position that it can pick and choose what economic stimulation it receives.
Its easy to armchair quarterback from the bleachers.
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
sez tolawdjk, who would vehemently oppose the opening of a "Naughty But Nice" next door to his house.
But why?
A business entity is seaking to put jobs, money, and tax base into their constituency. That business, while certainly contraversial, is perfectly legal. It will satisfy and meet all current regulations governing its opertation.
hornhunter (anonymous) says…
cool,
Sunflower has been in the same location for over 25 years, and by the looks of things it has not hurt this persons research yet. So lets move on. BTW, since your so sure that this project is going to cause " global warming" to go nuts, why don't you change your user name to HOT.