Coal plant compromise may be in works / LJWorld.com

Archive for Saturday, January 26, 2008

By John Hanna - Associated Press Writer

January 26, 2008

Coal plant deal may be in the works

Returning her attention to state politics, Governor Kathleen Sebelius appears to be working with other key state leaders on a possible deal involving two proposed coal-fired plants in Western Kansas. Enlarge video

Topeka — A utility, legislators and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' administration appear to be closer to a deal involving two proposed coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas.

They provided no details Friday. But they've said for weeks that they've been having discussions about plans by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build the plants outside Holcomb.

The $3.6 billion project has been blocked by Sebelius' administration over concerns about the plants' potential carbon dioxide emissions.

Two weeks ago, Sebelius acknowledged conversations that she described as "an exchange of information."

But Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, co-chairman of an energy policy council, said Friday: "We are hopeful we can reach an agreement."

Parkinson declined to comment on the goals of the ongoing discussions, saying a public discussion of specifics would hinder the talks.

Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller also wouldn't comment about the substance of the discussions but added, "I believe there's just an air of cooperation going on."

House and Senate members have said they're working on comprehensive energy legislation dealing with Sunflower's plans. But their proposals still are being drafted, and bills won't be introduced until at least next week.

Many legislators want to overturn a decision in October by Rod Bremby, state secretary of health and environment, to deny an air-quality permit for Sunflower's project. Bremby said the state couldn't ignore the dangers posed by global warming, which many scientists link to CO2 emissions.

Republican legislators have criticized Bremby's decision, but so have some of Sebelius' fellow Democrats. Many lawmakers view the Sunflower project as vital economic development and crucial to making sure Kansans have reliable power as their demand for electricity grows.

"I would prefer that we would be able to have a settlement to this issue without having to go through the legislative process," said Senate President Steve Morris, a Hugoton Republican and strong supporter of the project that's in his district. "I don't have a sense that we're there yet on that."

Sunflower wants to build two, 700-megawatt plants next to an existing coal-fired plant it operates.

The Hays-based utility, owned by six small, rural electric cooperatives, has about 400,000 customers. The 1,400 megawatts of capacity would be enough to meet the peak demands of 700,000 households, according to one state estimate.

Most of the new power would flow outside Kansas. Sunflower's partners are Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. of Westminster, Colo., and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, in Amarillo, Texas.

"If we have the strategies in place to protect the environment, we should export electricity," said House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, a Greensburg Democrat. "It's as good as exporting Boeing airplanes. It's a value-added product that brings a lot of money back to the state and generates a lot of jobs."

But like Sebelius, Parkinson questioned whether Kansas should commit to meeting other states' need for generating around-the-clock "baseload" which is the normal continuing flow of power.

"The reality is that we have to have baseload energy capacity in Kansas," Parkinson said. "The message that we have consistently said to them and everyone else is that we are completely supportive of creating baseload power for Kansas users."

Parkinson also reiterated the administration's position that Kansas needs to increase its use of wind power and aggressively promote energy conservation.

"Kansas has been a coal state for the last 100 years," Parkinson said. "We are fundamentally changing that model, and when you do that, it creates some reverberations. We're slowly doing it, and we're making progress."

Parkinson declined to say whether the discussions have involved allowing a scaled-down version of Sunflower's project.

Discussion

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.

26 January 2008
at 7:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beeline (Anonymous) says…

We should look at exporting all types of cleaner-air energy; wind, nuclear, and cleaner coal. Kansas - The Energy State. Beats The Land of Ahs.
27 January 2008
at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yankeelady (Anonymous) says…

I'm in favor of non renewal for the Jeffrey plant. It's past time for them to clean up their act. The clean air permits were not intended to be used as a means to continue on with business as usual. Maybe the next administration will be less business friendly.
28 January 2008
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

its_getting_warmer,
I agree with your opinion about the permit renewal. Jaffrey is one of the dirtiest plants in the country. However, I doubt they will shut any of the older plants down because they are grandfathered into the system. I would like to see a diversified portfolio to produce electricity in this state including: wind, solar, natural gas, and coal gasification. I would also be slightly in favor of building a coal gasification plant if we can close down one of the old polluting coal plants in this state.
28 January 2008
at 2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

I read an article the other day related to water diversions in the Upper Missouri River Valley. North Dakota wants to divert some water from the Missouri Basin to the Red River Basin in order to meet the demand of Grand Forks, Fargo, and irrigation demands. In other news, a refinery is being planned along the Missouri River near Elk Point, SD.

Missouri is “concerned” about the water diversions along the Upper Missouri basin because of the power plants located along the Missouri River near Kansas City.
In recent years the river has been downcutting along the banks and modifications to intakes along the Missouri River have been necessary. The other noted BIG concern is the ongoing eight year drought in the upper reaches of the basin that has downstream impacts such as barge traffic.
28 January 2008
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

igw,
When will the permits be up for renewal this year for the plants?
I am more supportive of coal gasification than pulverized coal. Pulverized coal is dinosaur technology, and will not be immune at all in terms of new CO2 regulations.
28 January 2008
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Windpower and noise pollution (Just for starters!; There is more!):

http://www.wvmcre.org/neg_imapcts/noi…

http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

http://www.wind-watch.org/
28 January 2008
at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

Marion,
I would still prefer noise pollution if the other option was a huge coal plant.
However, a siting requirement between the wind farms and individual residences is usually thought about ahead of time? If not, then better planning needs to be done.

28 January 2008
at 5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Although wind power could be an alternative, it is not without its own set of problems, analyses of which may be found on these sites:

http://www.stopillwind.org/

The issues in Ireland:

http://www.geocities.com/nigbarnes/

A site dedicated to examination of the TVA projects:

http://www.mensetmanus.net/windpower/