House passes coal plant bill

How they voted

Here is how local legislators on Tuesday voted on the bill that would allow two coal-fired plants in southwest Kansas. The House gave final approval of the bill, 77-45.

Voting against the bill were:State Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-LawrenceState Rep. Paul Davis, D-LawrenceState Rep. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin CityState. Rep. Ann Mah, D-TopekaState Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence

Voting for the bill were:State Rep. Anthony Brown, R-EudoraState Rep. Lee Tafanelli, R-Ozawkie

? (AP) – A bill allowing two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas easily won House approval Tuesday, but supporters still were searching for the votes they need to make sure it can survive a potential veto by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

The vote was 77-45.

Supporters want legislation that can pass with a two-thirds majority, or 84 of 125 votes, which is what they would need to override a veto. But they were seven votes short, with three House members not voting.

The bill’s backers will get at least one more chance, however. The Senate approved its own measure last week, and three senators and three House members must draft a final, compromise version for both chambers to consider.

Sebelius’ administration is blocking plans by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build the two plants outside Holcomb, in Finney County. The $3.6 billion project has bipartisan legislative support, and both chambers’ bills would allow the Hays-based utility to move ahead.

The House bill includes “green” provisions, such as a mandate that utilities generate 5 percent of their electricity by 2012 from renewable resources such as wind. Such provisions are designed to pick up votes from House members who worry that carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-fired plants would contribute to global warming.

The House debated the bill for three hours Monday before giving it first-round approval on a 73-45 vote. They picked up four votes overnight, but seven members had failed to vote Monday.

House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, an Ingalls Republican who supports Sunflower’s project, said Monday that he is confident House and Senate negotiators can draft something that will get a two-thirds majority, but he didn’t speculate on its contents.

“The speaker’s going to have to do a little trading,” said Rep. Bill Light, a Republican from Rolla who also supports Sunflower’s project.

Sunflower and labor unions, which support the project because of its potential construction jobs, continued to lobby Monday for the bill. Earl Watkins, Sunflower’s chief executive officer, said: “We’re very encouraged with where we are.”

Neufeld and other supporters describe the measure as comprehensive energy policy. It includes provisions designed to encourage consumers to use small, solar-powered systems to generate their own electricity. There’s also the renewable-resources mandate for utilities.

But the bill’s critics still argued that its only real purpose was to see that Sunflower builds its plants.

Rep. Joshua Svaty, an Ellsworth Democrat, said legislators eventually must lessen the state’s heavy reliance on coal-fired plants, which provide about 75 percent of Kansas’ electricity.

“There’s a lot said at the end of this debate about how this is a forward-thinking energy policy for the state, and I’m trying to find it in the bill,” Svaty said.

In a statement, Sebelius said: “Unfortunately, it looks like the final House version has less encouragement for either wind energy or carbon mitigation and further restricts the ability of the secretary of health and environment to protect the environment or the health of Kansans.”

Both the House and the Senate bills would prevent the secretary, the state’s top environmental regulator, from imposing new emissions standards without legislative approval.

In October, Secretary Rod Bremby denied an air-quality permit for Sunflower’s project, noting that state law gives a secretary the power to protect the environment and saying the state can’t ignore the dangers of global warming.

Many legislators believe Bremby exceeded his authority. Also, he denied the permit after his staff said Sunflower’s application met the technical requirements of state and federal air-quality laws.

The House Energy and Utilities Committee originally opted for softer restrictions on the secretary’s power. But the House voted 72-47 to make them tougher.

“Sunflower went through all the hoops and the hurdles up to the very last one, and then the rules got changed,” said committee chairman Carl Dean Holmes, a Republican from Liberal.

Views on the bill

Here are statements representing opposing sides on the bill that will allow the construction of two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants near Holcomb. The measure was approved by the House, 77-45

For the bill

State Rep. Bill Otto, R-Leroy”I was raised with democratic values to stand up for the working people and to not export their jobs to India and China. To protect the poor and not raise their electric rates so high they cannot pay them. To care more about the people than care about the big gas companies who want to build more gas-powered electric plants to back up the wind power that will never do the job. To stand for the rule of law and not for the rule of bureaucrats, I still have my democratic values, so I vote yes on this energy bill.”

House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, joined by others:”(The legislation) will stabilize the regulatory uncertainty currently pervasive in our great state. Regulatory uncertainty has already cost Kansas millions in new development. Producers have chosen to establish their operations in more business friendly climates. Surrounding states understand this vulnerability and are actively pursuing those currently planning to build and produce in Kansas. The state is now in jeopardy of losing literally billions of dollars in future development unless a reasonable and consistent policy is established. This bill does just that. For this reason, we vote yes.”

Against the bill

State Rep. Annie Kuether, D-Topeka:”I represent a district that is interested in renewables, real net metering for solar and wind, and the original bill also banned merchant plants and had a carbon tax that made mitigation real.I am not ready to let Washington decide our energy policy. I’m here to continue the discussion and look forward to continuing the debate. I vote no.”

State Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, and joined by others:”For the past five years, KDHE has issued 1,883 permits for construction and 919 permits for operation for a variety of facilities that require regulatory oversight. Thirty-eight operating permits and 69 construction permits have been issued since the Holcomb denial. The reality is that the denial of the Holcomb application for a huge new coal project with significant health and environment impact on Kansas is the exception and not the rule. Holcomb is the only permit denial issued in the last five years by KDHE. The claim of regulatory uncertainty does not ring true.”

State Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence.” … In committee, I successfully offered an amendment to create the Kansas Energy Science and Technology Commission to review available medical and scientific data on the impact of smokestack emissions and examine the technological capability to reduce those emissions cost-effectively. The commission would further provide scientific – not political – recommendations to the governor and the Legislature on what mix of fuel sources, including conservation, is best for Kansas so we can develop a comprehensive long-term energy policy. Because the Committee of the Whole removed the Kansas Energy Science and Technology Commission from the bill, I vote no …”