Wichita ? Sunflower Electric Power Corp. has asked a federal judge to allow oral arguments as it seeks to keep alive its $1.5 billion lawsuit against the state over a decision not to allow two coal-fired plants in western Kansas.

In court papers filed Tuesday, the company asked U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren to hold a hearing before ruling on its motion for a preliminary injunction to keep the state from considering carbon-dioxide emissions in any future proceedings on Sunflower’s application for an air quality permit for the Holcomb plants. The Hays-based company also asked for oral arguments on the state’s motion to dismiss its lawsuit.

Sunflower filed the lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court in Wichita, saying Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby’s decision to deny the permit violated its rights to equal protection and to conduct interstate commerce.

The attorney general’s office contended in its response that the federal court lacks jurisdiction in the case because an appeal is pending before the Department of Administration’s Office of Administrative Hearings. The Kansas Supreme Court has postponed a case before it until the Office of Administrative Hearings rules.

But in its latest filing, Sunflower argued that it is not asking the federal court to enjoin the state proceeding or make any ruling on Kansas law or the role of carbon dioxide in climate change. The company said it is asking the federal court to exercise its jurisdiction over constitutional claims.

“And none of Sunflower’s claims raise any issue of Kansas state law. Therefore the conduct or outcomes of the state administrative and judicial proceedings are irrelevant to the resolution of Sunflower’s claims here, which are squarely and solely based upon defendant’s denial of Sunflower’s rights under the United States Constitution,” Sunflower said in its filing.

In its lawsuit, the company seeks more than $1.5 billion in damages. Sunflower contends it already has spent $1.42 million in consultant and attorney’s fees in connection with its preparation and prosecution of its application for the coal-fired plants.

In September 2007, the attorney general’s office told Bremby he had the authority to deny the permit to protect the health of people or environment, even though no state or federal regulations set limits on CO2 emissions.

Environmentalists opposed the $3.6 billion plan for the plants, but it had bipartisan support in the state Legislature. Many legislators, especially those from western Kansas, viewed it as economic development.

The Legislature tried three times this year to overturn Bremby’s decision. But Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed each bill, and legislators didn’t have the votes to override her.

Sebelius and Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, along with Bremby, were named in Sunflower’s lawsuit. The state’s motion asks the court to remove Sebelius and Parkinson as defendants because they don’t have the authority to act on Sunflower’s application.

“In short, the Secretary’s co-Defendants have been happy to take credit for denying Sunflower’s permit; but they now seek with equal vigor to avoid responsibility for doing so,” attorneys for the company wrote. “However, their effort to throw the Secretary under the bus fails. It is their unlawful conduct for which they have been sued here.”

The state contended in its filings that its proceedings deal with the Kansas environment and its pollution permitting process “which are important state interests that, as a matter of law, are exclusively assigned to the KDHE.”

Sunflower asked Melgren to reject that position, arguing that Kansas does not have a comprehensive policy governing regulation of CO2 emissions and even if it did, such emissions were not essentially a local problem.

Sunflower wants to sell about 86 percent of the new power from the proposed power plants.