As a comprehensive energy strategy, the two bills passed in the last week by the Kansas Legislature leave much to be desired.

The main focus of the identical bills introduced at the same time in the Kansas House and Senate is to bypass state regulators and gain approval for Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build two coal-fired electrical plants near Holcomb in southwest Kansas. Although certain token “green” proposals have been added to the bills to try to gain votes, neither measure is particularly innovative or forward-thinking.

House and Senate negotiators now are working to reconcile the two bills passed in their houses and come up with something that not only can pass both houses but pass by a two-thirds margin that could override an expected veto from Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

The effort to garner those votes has become a highly political affair. Perhaps the most questionable tactic employed to try to gain favor for the plants was this week’s announcement, just before a vote on the bill in the full House, that if the plants are approved, Sunflower Corp. will donate $2.5 million over 10 years to fund clean energy research at Kansas State University. It probably is a good idea for such research to occur, but the timing of the offer gives it the appearance of a bribe, which has no place in a legislative process that is supposed to be focused on what’s best for the state as a whole.

Many legislators obviously are upset by Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Rod Bremby’s denial of permits for the plants. Many Republican legislators also wonder whether Sebelius’ opposition to the coal-fired plants is colored by her partisan political dreams for her post-governor years. Their anger is expressed in the legislation, which bars Bremby’s office from considering any emissions limits not approved by the Legislature. Because there currently are no federal limits and the Legislature has rejected all amendments aimed at setting any limits, it seems likely that carbon dioxide and other emissions will go virtually unregulated in Kansas until some regulations are established by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, action that appears to be at least two or three years away.

It’s hard to know whether the proposed Holcomb plants would meet or even come close to those EPA standards once they are set. Strong new anti-pollution standards could make many coal-fired plants obsolete or require expensive retrofitting. One or two coal-fired plants could be a sound part of a broad energy strategy for Kansas, but that strategy also is likely to include wind, solar and possibly nuclear power, which are barely noted in the current legislation. Wind and solar can fill only a fraction of the state’s needs but nuclear could be a major producer. Although some legislators want to portray the coal-fired plants as a “first step” in a comprehensive energy policy, these measures probably are best considered as a package, not in individual parts.

To prepare for a prosperous future, Kansas needs an innovative and comprehensive energy policy put together after much thoughtful consideration, not a bill conceived and pushed through in anger. Legislators need to take a deep breath, put their desire for retribution aside and think about what’s best for the state.