Archive for Saturday, May 3, 2008

Coal-plant proposal resurfaces

May 3, 2008


Gov. Kathleen Sebelius talks about session

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius talks with reporters about the latest effort by supporters of the coal-fired power plants to push through legislation to authorize their construction.

— A plan to authorize construction of two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants has re-surfaced today in the Legislature.

Supporters of the plants have placed a bill for the project into legislation that includes a number of other economic development proposals that have already gained widespread support in the Legislature.

One of those is a proposal for the state to back bonds for the intermodal freight hub --a giant shipment and distribution center -- planned near Gardner.

A House-Senate conference committee was crafting a mega economic development bill for consideration by the full Legislature later today.

State Rep. Kenny Wilk, R-Lansing, and chair of that conference committee said it was appropriate for the coal-fired plants to be paired with other economic development legislation.

But state Rep. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, opposed the action. "Why are we rehashing this? I don't think we're serving the people's interests," by tying the coal-fired project to other bills.

At the center of the dispute are the two plants proposed for southwest Kansas.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed legislation authorizing the plants because of concerns about the project's carbon dioxide emissions. She has also criticized the legislation because it would strip the state's environmental agency of much of its authority in granting permits for power plants.

The House on Thursday fell four votes short of overriding her veto. But now that bill plus a companion measure will be placed in the conference committee's bill.


Richard Heckler 10 years ago

These kansas republicans are pretend conservatives. First all they have wasted way too much time which is money on this coal plant deal.Second why would a legitimate conservative want to pass legislation that would make ratepayers pay MORE for electricity? Coal and nuclear are high dollar sources of electric power.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years ago

"State Rep. Kenny Wilk, R-Lansing, and chair of that conference committee said it was appropriate for the coal-fired plants to be paired with other economic development legislation."If it hadn't just failed to pass yesterday, possibly so. Otherwise, it's just plain stubborn greed.

dirkleisure 10 years ago

Line item veto power applies solely to budget bills.

gccs14r 10 years ago

Someone needs to send Neufeld into the time-out corner.

Rick Oglesby 10 years ago

Why is so wrong to have these power plants built in our state and get the tax money, the jobs, and the economy stimulated in Kansas? These plants will be built, if not in Kansas then on our very border and then we get nothing. Why do people buy into the Sierra club lies? Call your Rep. and tell them vote for jobs and vote for the plants.

ralphralph 10 years ago

Clean. Safe. Reliable. Nuclear.... get crackin', indeed.

janeyb 10 years ago

There is also the water issue. A coal plant needs water. Western Kansas? They are still fighting Colorado for water in the Arkansas River, so they will just deplete the Aquifer. What kind of jobs will they have in SW Kansas when they are without water? Someone does need to investigate Wilk, Neufeld and some of these other politicians and find out what their pay-off is going to be. They are doing this for more than a re-election and a state pension.

Bruce Bertsch 10 years ago

Take it a step further. The plants can't be built in Colorado or Texas because of regulations or moratoriums on coal fired plants. So lets see, temporary construction jobs, a little tax, depletion of the aquifer, loads of pollution ( all that "Clean Coal" stuff is based on technology that has never been tried) and this is suposed to be an economic stimulus package? I don't think so.

Bill Chapman 10 years ago

I say the people of Kansas need to start calling their representatives and start telling them to get off their collective butts! They have wasted enough time on the power plant issue - drop it! By attaching this to another bill, the only thing that is going to be accomplished is (provided the Governor has a line-item veto) is another blockage of the coal plant. If she doesn't have the line-item veto, then the entire bill will be vetoed and more time will be wasted. The only thing accomplished by attaching the coal plants to the economic bill is a very blatant attempt to put pressure on Gov. Sebelius. If she doesn't have the line item veto, you can bet that (if she vetoes the entire bill) there will be some very public recriminations about how she is suppressing the economic growth of Kansas by ALL of the supporters of the coal plants. Of course, the fact that the coal plants were part of the bill will NOT be mentioned when these statements/ comments/ etc. are made!

Centerville 10 years ago

Since Westar has been promised no more regulation if they'll build some wind, expect your electric bills to jump right up there. And so will natural gas, as wind is impossible without NG backup. And then call the KCC to complain, where they will have a good laugh and hang up.

ENGWOOD 10 years ago

Now they might get Obama Mama and her little cronies attention. This would have an affect on the NE Kansas Eco Nazi's and Enviro Freaks wallets and they will whine till the cows come home. Smooth move there Melvin.

texburgh 10 years ago

Sadly, our energy policy boils down to "Whatever the energy companies want." This debacle was a chance to do good for the state - to craft a real energy policy that meets today's needs, moves us to cleaner alternatives and rewards conservation. Instead we have a pi$$ing match between Republicans who want to do anything that will "get" the Governor and an administration that has not provided a blueprint for a long-range sensible energy policy. Both plants are not needed - they give Kansas a few temporary jobs and fewer permanent ones; they give Kansas all the pollution; they give Kansas almost no electricity. Isn't it time to put KANSAS first? Forget about the needs of Texas and Colorado and think about KANSAS!Scale back the plants dramatically and create a long term common sense energy policy for the state. Let's elect legislators that will act more like statesmen/stateswomen, and less like petulant children.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years ago

I believe Sibelius has line-item veto power, doesn't she?

Fred Whitehead Jr. 10 years ago

Clean. Safe. Reliable. Nuclear.And radioactive for several hundred-thousand years. So instead of Kansas producing carbon dioxide, a gas essential for photosynthsis (thats the process of growing green plants for you folks in California) we will have Kansans that glow in the dark. What a great option!!!!!

ENGWOOD 10 years ago

Heck attach it to one Obama Mama's Gambling bills and see how large her Cajonies really are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rick Oglesby 10 years ago

Wow you Lawrence libs really have a problem with these plants. I ask you how many of you are using electricity in your homes. Well if you are in Lawrence you have the worst coal plant in Kansas but that is ok, it is not new. The truth is Gov. wan be Kathleen and her special interest groups have to be the one to question for kick back. Next since you all no that it takes water for a coal plant you get an A, but since you did not know that it takes people to run them these are called jobs you get an F. One more thing the millions to Kansas State from the greedy people at Sunflower are just not needed, not when we can tax the last time out of the working people Kansas. Wake up, you don't want coal you don't want nukes, that leaves gas and diesel and someday wind.

KsTwister 10 years ago

Amazing how government can only see one issue at a time and continue to beat a dead horse with a stick. Throw the bums out. Of course the fact that some will only concentrate on a fast fix whether its bad or not because they are too lazy or unintelligent enough to consider other alternatives.

dirkleisure 10 years ago

When the House voted on this proposal, it got 64 votes.Oops.

Boston_Corbett 10 years ago

Time to go visit the Legislature once again.....

Commenting has been disabled for this item.