Audio Clips
House Bill 2711
- Ear Watkins Jr., CEO of Sunflower Electric Power Corp., on House Bill 2711
- Johannes Fedenna, a professor of geography at KU, opposing coal-burning plants
- Margaret Thomas, of the Kansas Natural Resource Council, speaking against the bill
- Phil Hanson, of the American Lung Association, on his opposition to coal-burning power plants
Topeka — Electric company leaders, representatives of businesses and unions, and a former high-ranking environmental official in the Bush administration testified Monday in favor of legislation allowing two coal-burning power plants in western Kansas.
"This bill will help create new jobs, ensure that existing jobs remain in Kansas, and promote our state's economic prosperity," said Brian Moline, chairman of the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy, which includes business and labor members.
Moline made his remarks to the House Energy and Utilities Committee, one of two panels hosting hearings this week on identical bills that would overturn the denial by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' administration of two 700-megawatt coal-fired plants near Holcomb.
Meanwhile, environmentalists, who will be able to testify later in the week before the committees, held a news conference criticizing the legislation.
"These bills are sugar-coated poison pills," said Chris Cardinal, a Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy spokesman.
At issue is whether to allow construction of the $3.6 billion plants.
In October, Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby denied permits for the plants, citing the project's annual emissions of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide and its effect on climate change.
But plant developer Sunflower Electric Power Corp. helped put together House Bill 2711 and Senate Bill 515. Supporters of the measure say it is a compromise because while it allows construction of the plants it will also enact the first CO2 rules in the country.
Environmentalists and Sebelius, however, say the rules are inadequate because the bills are full of loopholes and credits that would invite even more coal-burning plants.
"This bill is the only attempt we are aware of nationwide where a state Legislature is actually proposing to accelerate global warming," said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.
Sebelius revealed last week that she offered a compromise that would have allowed Sunflower to build one 660-megawatt coal-burning plant to take care of its Kansas customers. Under Sunflower's plan, 85 percent of the 1,400 megawatts would be owned by out-of-state companies and sold to out-of-state customers.
But Earl Watkins Jr., Sunflower president and chief executive, said Monday that both plants must be built so that Sunflower could receive $95 million in "development fees" to operate the plants for the other owners, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado and Golden Spread Electric Cooperatives of Texas.
"These upfront payments provide for the equity necessary for Sunflower's 200-megawatt portion of the plant, which will cost a total of about $540 million," he said.
Another dispute in the legislation is that it would prohibit the secretary of KDHE from using any standards in excess of federal standards to evaluate permits without permission from the Legislature.
In denying the plants, Bremby relied on a legal opinion from the attorney general's office that allowed him to consider the effect of unregulated pollutants such as carbon dioxide when granting air-quality permits as part of his role in protecting the general "health of persons or the environment."
But William Wehrum, a former high-ranking EPA official with the Bush administration, said that Bremby's action was "based on a flawed interpretation of the law."
Wehrum said the state law shouldn't be construed to apply to new air emission sources, but only emergency actions needed to address existing sources of emissions.
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.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
Net metering, while an excellent idea, will be a long time coming here in KS. Can't say exactly why, just a hunch.
mooner (anonymous) says…
Maybe we should have a state-wide referendum on these coal powered plants. The people don't want them, yet their elected 'representatives' are pushing them.
bd (anonymous) says…
I just sent this message to my representitives at the state house:
I do not see the need for these two new plants when 85% of the power will go out of state!
We as a state need to step to the front and start initiatives to provide clean air for future generation!
Tell them to make these other states that need this power to do their own dirty work!
We have seen what Westar has done on their wind generation plans, force Sunflower to do the same!
We as a state have always been touted by the more "progressive states" as being backwards or behind the times.
Lets stand up and show the nation that we care about our environment, we care about our health and we care about our future generations!
Stand up and say NO!
BuddhaDude (anonymous) says…
And shutdown the coal plant in Lawrence too. The pollutants are not worth the jobs and money it brings to the city.
toefungus (anonymous) says…
You cannot put up a dish for TV in my neighborhood, so I doubt I will be allowed to put up a wind generator. Only shake shingles are allowed on the roof. The wind generated power will never be sufficient for our needs. The coal plants must be built until we are willing to build fission nuclear or wait for fusion reactors. There is one other alternative. We could reduce the population of the world. That would reduce energy needs and eliminate expansion of the generating base. Condoms for Clean Air campaigns on the horizon.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
Wind power = pi$$ing into the wind. Nowhere near enough energy can be created to supply the demand with current technology. You have a choice. Nuke or coal. Pick one.
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
Jack just jumped right in here not knowing anything about the properties of electricity its generation or transmition. Jack, maybe you should come back to the discussion after you research the east and west power grids and there inability to share power, which by the way this project will address. You don't have to act stupid unless you really are.
lucasnad27 (anonymous) says…
The focal point of the argument is CO2 emittance. What about the large amounts of mercury that originiate from coal powered electric plants? I don't know if Sunflower Electric has any technology to limit this, but it seems like it should be part of the argument alongside the effects of CO2.
merrill (anonymous) says…
new york - Three of the nation's largest investment banks said Monday they've developed new environmental standards to help lenders evaluate risks associated with investments in coal-fired power plants.
Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley say they've produced "The Carbon Principles" together with several large power companies, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council, that will make it more difficult for new U.S. coal-fired power plants to secure financing.
The focus of the principles will be to steer power companies away from plants that emit high levels of carbon dioxide _ a greenhouse gas _ and to focus on new, cleaner and renewable technologies. The principles do not, however, strictly prevent any of the banks from financing the plants.
About half of the electricity in the United States is generated from coal-fired power plants, according to the Energy Information Association.
The new lending creeds come at a time when uncertainties for coal and power companies abound. Coal-fired power plants have been scrutinized by environmental groups and regulators over the emissions of harmful pollutants. Congress is mulling legislation that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. Plans for coal-fired power plants have also recently been squashed in several states, although more are being planned to account for a predicted surge in electricity demand.
But the principles also come at a time when the country's biggest financial institutions have grown skittish after taking billions of dollars in write-downs from mortgage-related debt. Investment in coal-fired power plants could prove to be risky investments that many banks aren't willing to take.
"With these principles, we are making a very serious commitment to examine the risk around coal-fired power plants," said Eric Fornell, vice chairman of JPMorgan's natural resources investment banking unit.
The plants have economic consequences that "need to be carefully examined," he added. "Investors need to know what they are getting into."
Fornell said JPMorgan is talking to competitors about the possibility of adopting similar policies.
hornhunter (anonymous) says…
Build a jackripper power plant, they put off large amounts of BTUs and toxic waste.
belexus73 (anonymous) says…
From what I have been told while visiting in Colorado, much of the projected power that Tri-State would like would be to address the natural gas drilling in their service area. Tri-State's cost for service to the natural gas drillers needs to be lower than what the drillers could get by using the natural gas to power their equipment. It is less of an issue of the residential growth of the Front Range although there is some of that as well.
MadeInKS (anonymous) says…
Thank you Jonas!! It's refreshing to see a post in LJW commens from someone who actually knows the facts about this rather than relying on "info" from the Sierra Club and local politics! I live in Western Kansas and my community, like many others in Western Kansas, no longer generates its own power. In a way, that's a good thing, because we no longer have a lot of small power plants generating emissions that are under the wire for regulation. But that also means we are totaly dependent on purchasing our city's power from another source. I do think if the Sunflower plant is not approved soon, more small cities will consider buildling their own plants again and that just contributes to the problem. We in Western Kansas are no more excited about going without the luxury of air conditioning and appliances than people in Lawrence. The Holcomb expansion, in reality, is the cleanest, most efficient way to continue.