Still no decision on coal plants
Governer Sebelius says there's still no deal on two proposed coal-fire power plants in southwest Kansas. Enlarge video
Topeka — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Monday said "no deal" has resulted from ongoing talks related to her administration's rejection of coal-burning power plants in western Kansas.
In October, Sebelius' administration denied permits for two 700-megawatt plants, citing concerns with carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.
Recently, supporters of the $3.6 billion plants said they hoped to reach a compromise with Sebelius that would allow the project to go forward.
Sebelius said "conversations" are occurring about energy needs in Kansas but didn't elaborate.
She said that states were trying to find a way to deal with climate change but that Congress should implement national standards for CO2 emissions.
Her comments came during a teleconference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., just hours before President Bush's State of the Union address and Sebelius' Democratic response.
Following Sebelius' comments on the coal plants, Reid was highly critical of coal interests, saying they were spending tens of millions of dollars to try to mislead the public about the effects of coal.
"Coal is one of the things that is ruining our world," Reid said.
Pelosi said more research is needed to develop ways to mitigate the environmental impact of coal-burning plants.
Meanwhile, back in the Kansas Legislature, several key lawmakers said they expect legislation will be introduced Wednesday by supporters of the coal plants.
And on Thursday, the Senate Natural Resources Committee has scheduled a hearing on the state's power plant permitting process.
The western Kansas plants were rejected by Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby. Supporters of the plants said Bremby had no authority to deny the plants because the proposal complied with all existing state regulations.
But Bremby has said he had wide authority to rule on issues affecting the health of Kansans.
While the decision has been hailed by environmentalists, it has drawn heat from both Republicans and Democrats.
House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg, said he hoped some kind of compromise could be reached to allow construction of the plants, saying they "offer good opportunities to grow the economy."
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.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
The face-saving "out" for everyone is to make it a very large multi-unit nuclear plant instead. To make it work, the State will have to help with financing (public bonds), swift approval, and support for meeting federal requirements.
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
Logic seems to have forgotten that the nucelar plant construction industry was dismantled in the 70's. Never mind that the cost of this nucelar generation will be about .15 censt/kw vs coal at .04 cents.
Lawrence will always blame others and accept no responsability in any issue. If Lawrence was serious about this issue they would demant that their dirty coal plant be closed or cleaned up, but it seems that bashing western kansas is much easier that actually doing somthing about the problem they are creating for our air quailty.
blakus (anonymous) says…
No one is bashing Western Kansans. We are all in this together as a state both economically and environmentally. What I find interesting about this issue is what need is there for the plants? Is it to expand the ever-growing ethanol business or is it to facilitate growth within communities (which has been declining)? Having family in Garden City, I have ventured there often over the last 20 years and see a great potential for wind energy which would not add to the awful methane problems that the lovely cattle bring. Call me crazy for loving alternatives to the coal industry which has had its grip on energy for too long. Diversity is a wonderful thing.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
igw,
I agree with your points, but the old power plants are grandfathered into the system and will not likely be closed for awhile. We need alternatives to dirty pulverized coal in the form of natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear. I would rather see anything BUT a coal plant. The only technology that appears promising to me is coal gasification, but that is a rather expensive proposition along.
In conclusion, I would rather prefer to have one IGCC unit in SW Kansas and CLOSE an old polluting pulverized coal plant in E Kansas.
average (anonymous) says…
"Buy cleaner power from somewhere else. Holcomb or otherwise."
I'd zarking well *love* to. At some point, I may get more property to install some personal generation. But, until then, I and the residents of Lawrence have *no say* whatsoever in Westar's energy mix. I run a very energy-efficient household. I even buy wind credits. But, every kWh I do have to buy comes from Westar, the monopoly provider. They turn around and use part of that money on lobbying for their interests, not mine. Other states *do* have some degree of customer choice, but not Kansas.