Archive for Saturday, May 3, 2008
Lawmakers want to sue Sebelius over coal plants
May 3, 2008
Advertisement
Assistant House Minority Leader Jim Ward on resolution
Assistant House Minority Leader Jim Ward, D-Wichita, opposes resolution that would allow Legislature to sue Gov. Kathleen Sebelius related to the coal-fired power project.
House Majority Leader Ray Merrick on resolution
House Republican Leader Ray Merrick of Stilwell talks about a resolution that would allow the Legislature to sue Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for overstepping her authority in the coal-fired plants issue.
Topeka — Kansas House leaders Friday introduced a resolution to allow the Legislature to sue Gov. Kathleen Sebelius over coal-fired electric power plants.
"There is a separation of power issue, and we're going to take care of our interests and protect our members because we are an equal body," House Majority Leader Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, said.
But opponents of the coal-fired plant project said the resolution was pointless.
"The fact that they at the last minute would bring something like this up is really disrespectful to all the folks who look to us to do some concrete steps forward on their problems," said state Rep. Jim Ward, D-Wichita and the assistant minority leader.
The dispute is over two 700-megawatt coal-fired plants in southwest Kansas proposed by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and two out-of-state companies.
Sebelius has vetoed bills authorizing the plants, citing concerns about climate-changing carbon dioxide emissions. Supporters of the plants say they will be among the cleanest coal-burning units in the nation.
On Thursday, the House failed to override Sebelius' veto. On Friday, Merrick and House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, introduced HCR 5042, which would allow legislative leaders to hire private legal counsel to sue Sebelius, alleging she has overstepped her constitutional authority.
Merrick said part of the reason for the resolution was that Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson said the Sebelius administration may consider legal action if the Legislature did override her veto.
"That's arrogance and not knowing how the system works," Merrick said.
Later, Sebelius said her office had given no such consideration to litigation if her veto were overridden.
State Rep. Raj Goyle, D-Wichita, said Sebelius' statement on that issue should end speculation.
"The coal plant permits are already being litigated in multiple forums. Why spend precious taxpayer money on more lawyers to argue the same point?" Goyle said.
With the wrap-up session nearing its end, possibly as early as today, supporters of the plants were looking for possible avenues to try again to get the project approved through legislation.
"All options are open," Merrick said.
More like this
- Coal battle moves to court 53 comments / May 22, 2008
- Coal plant remarks spark House ire 45 comments / April 23, 2008
- Power plant struggle resumes 43 comments / May 1, 2008
- Residents rally with Sebelius against coal plants 22 comments / March 12, 2008
- Coal rejection energizes chamber 15 comments / June 12, 2008
Top ads RSS
- Federal Home Loan Bank
- Googols of Learning Child Development Center is now hiring for ...
- DERMATOLOGY Nurse Seeking LPN/MA for dermatology practice in Lawrence. Part-time ...
- Auto Service Tech needed with own tools & experience. Jay, ...
- 5 Assistants Needed Help schedule + set appointments for our ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- City moves forward on laboratory building November 11, 2009 · 13 comments
- Police accuse 'victim' in Long John Silver's break-in of lying, committing crime himself November 11, 2009 · 7 comments
- Blog: When Will We Get Our First Snow? November 11, 2009 · 12 comments
- Jihadist threat underplayed November 11, 2009 · 33 comments
- Blog: Strippin' Ain't E-Z November 11, 2009 · 16 comments
- Blog: Calling All Mullets: A Trial And Confession November 10, 2009 · 18 comments
- Recipe for change: Film battles policies of industrial food giants November 11, 2009 · 4 comments
- Statehouse Live: Kansas schools get A for academics in new report card November 11, 2009 · 4 comments
- Gorillas’ Iba floored by Jayhawks November 11, 2009 · 4 comments
- Mandatory service November 11, 2009 · 46 comments
- KU's Learned Hall closed for several hours after early-morning mechanical problem November 11, 2009
- Food magazines seek niche November 11, 2009
- Code Talkers break silence November 11, 2009
- First blast on section of Kansas Turnpike river bridge scheduled for early Sunday afternoon November 10, 2009
- Former Kansas governor William Avery dies at age 98 November 5, 2009
- Traumatic childhood takes 20 years off life expectancy October 6, 2009
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- Shop Talk: Sale item brings back taste of Italy November 11, 2009
- Recipe for change: Film battles policies of industrial food giants November 11, 2009
- Horoscope for November 11, 2009 November 11, 2009
3 May 2008
at 9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MCwzMC (Anonymous) says…
This is embarrassing. Solve it in the legislature, not the courts. A lawsuit would be an admission of incompetence, which unfortunately, is already apparent.If this lawsuit gets filed, maybe taxpayers should sue for wasting taxpayer assets. The entire legislature should be recalled over this BS. Its sick to see legislature more concerned with pleasing special interests that the constituents they purportedly represent.
3 May 2008
at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MCwzMC (Anonymous) says…
At least our legislators have complete immunity for anything they do on the legislature floor (just ask Neufeld). Legislative immunity makes sense when your talking about a deliberative body that legislates with the interests of its constituents in mind, but here in Kansas, it seems we need to take the carrot and the stick approach to keep these dumb chimps in line (am I being too generous comparing them to their most biologically-similar relatives?).
3 May 2008
at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…
We didn't get our way through due process, now it's time to cheat.
3 May 2008
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
On what basis do you determine “plants are desired by a wide and large number of people in W. Kansas?” I know people right here in Hays, America who oppose the plants.
3 May 2008
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
I'm surprised I didn't see these comments when it was Parkinson and Sebelius proposing to sue to keep the plants from being built when it looked like her veto was going to be overridden. Funny, if it was okay for Sebelius, why not for the Legislature?Maybe some good Lawrence socialists could clear that up for me.
3 May 2008
at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
situveux - source?If you're only source is the comments of Ray Merrick, then you have no source. Please point to specific comments by Parkinson. Please point to specific comments by Sebelius.
3 May 2008
at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MCwzMC (Anonymous) says…
IGW - Sure, some constituents support the proposal, but without Sunflower's financial support we wouldn't still be engaged in this debate. The truth is that most Kansans (and most Americans) want to tread lightly when it comes to making decisions that could have disastrous consequences for future generations. Though some may consider it hypocracy that Lawrence and other cities rely on coal for power, our political system was designed to prevent radical changes, and therefore, denying these plants is but the first step in cleaning up the way that power is generated. I fully support looking at alternative energy sources for Lawrence that will not produce the CO2 emissions currently generated. Unfortunately, there's not a company like Sunflower throwing money behind that proposal yet. If there were, I imagine that we would see some change pretty quickly.Until then, the denial of these plants is the first step. As the old cliche goes, Rome wasn't built in a day. I don't expect that changes to our energy infrastructure will be any different.
3 May 2008
at 11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
not_dolph (Anonymous) says…
If you do not think that the Administration would have sued had the bill passed/veto overridden, you are seriously dillusional. The suit makes complete sense…I hope they go through with it.
3 May 2008
at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SWGlassPit (Anonymous) says…
Everybody against the plant is preaching the CO2 line. What about the potentially more important (and potentially disastrous) consequences of building the plants: draining of the Ogallala Aquifer, which is already in bad shape in southwest Kansas. How do the farmers there feel about that?
3 May 2008
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…
The Kansas Supreme Court can threaten to hold the entire legislature in criminal contempt for not passing a school funding bill at a certain dollar figure. So, why not?
3 May 2008
at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
The state is constitutionally required to provide adequate levels of funding for public education. They are not required to approve any industrial plant that comes along.
3 May 2008
at 12:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
I would be puzzled if the administration ever filed a lawsuit over the air permit if the veto was overridden. They probably assume that other groups would do them that courtesly. Maybe I am missing something. As far as the aquifer goes, it seems it is a case of when it is drained rather than if. I don't recall any lawsuits over the water rights or usage. What does the Sierra Club know that we don't?
3 May 2008
at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kubacker (Anonymous) says…
These coal fired plants are coveted by the big land speculators and Chambers of Commerce in western Kansas, and the rest of us are expected to sit here downwind and soak up the mercury and multitude of other airborne pollutants coming our way, while 80% of the power generated goes to Colorado. What else is new?
3 May 2008
at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“They probably assume that other groups would do them that courtesly.”That seems to be the case to me, too. They might file friend of the court briefs, but they won't need to file the suits.”As far as the aquifer goes, it seems it is a case of when it is drained rather than if.”The aquifer is currently being drained at a clip that will put many areas pretty much out of water in 20 years or less. If that's the case in the Holcomb area, what happens when the choice is between agricultural, municipal and industrial demands? What if the coal plant has to shut down because of a lack of available water? Will the taxpayers have to bail out Sunflower? Because if there is no water, there won't be any agriculture, industry or people to need the electricity.
3 May 2008
at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eride (Anonymous) says…
The governor wouldn't be filing a law suit if her veto was overridden. There are plenty of private groups who are waiting in the wings to file lawsuits to stop the construction of those plants. The Sierra Club for example has publicly stated several times that they would take that step if needed.Just because some political hack makes an unsubstantiated claim in public doesn't mean it is true. Seriously, some of you people act like anything you read in the paper has to be true (as long as it supports your biased POV, if it doesn't then it is automatically a lie, or false information).The plant supporters were defeated, fair and square. The whole point of a veto is that it takes a strong majority to over turn it. How the use of a veto in this case is abusive is anyones guess. Just another crazy misuse of tax payer money that could be used to fix our infrastructure and fund our schools….
3 May 2008
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
Actually, all the Supreme Court did was agree with the plaintiffs that the Legislature had not done its job.The Supreme Court did not force the Legislature to act, the plaintiffs did.The Supreme Court does not have the power to compel Legislative action, just as the Legislature does not have the power to compel action by the court (see last year's funeral picketing law).It would be the same for this issue, if the court became involved, it would only be to act on behalf of a plaintiff or a defendant.Civics 101 is now dismissed.
3 May 2008
at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…
“If you're only source is the comments of Ray Merrick, then you have no source. Please point to specific comments by Parkinson. Please point to specific comments by Sebelius.”Sure dirk as long as you are willing to apply the same fact veracity standard to Bush and Cheney when it comes to all the conspiracy theories, rants, and gnashings that they lie.
3 May 2008
at 5:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
I most certainly am willing to apply that same fact veracity standard. I am willing to apply it to any statement not intended for sarcasm or irony or attempt at humor.So long as we're clear your earlier comment was crap, and you like to make things up in an attempt to attract friends.
3 May 2008
at 7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
I have lived in Hays for almost 2 years. I work here, shop here, and my children attend college here. There are plenty of people here who would prefer we develop the ample wind that blows, and recognize that Sunflower's project will not help in the long run. Even in western Kansas ordinary folks know they need drinkable water and breathable air in order to live.
3 May 2008
at 9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
janeyb (Anonymous) says…
People in the Garden City area would like the jobs, but not the pollution. They all ready deal with the meat packing stench. They will take the plants anyway they can get them, but would prefer the pollution be regulated. They just want jobs and nuclear or wind power would work too.Neufeld, Wilk and some of these other reps. need to be investigated and find what their pay-off is in this. They are pursuing this for more than reelection and a state pension. For awhile it looked like they were trying to discredit Sebelius, but now they are just sounding crazy and Sebelius, as usual when she takes on the Kansas GOP, is looking sane and intelligent.
3 May 2008
at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:deec, the people I know I talk to in Ellis are mostly second and third generation. They like air and water too, and would respectfully disagree with your conclusion.––––––-Oh man, this made me laugh so hard.Shut up you little whippersnapper! Why, the folk I know in Ellis County built that county stone by stone, walked uphill to school in the snow. In July.They know what is really going on, not some punk. Why don't you move back to where you came from?
3 May 2008
at 10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
penguin (Anonymous) says…
As a Hays-native whose family has been there for 4+ generations, I know plenty of people who are not pleased with the coal plants going in. I also know some that support the plants too. However, both of these groups are also a bit sick and tired of some in Eastern Kansas…namely Lawrence…telling them not to expand a coal plant when they have one of the nastier plants around.For many who support the expansion it comes down to economic development. The plant means jobs and its not like those just grow on the non-existent trees out west. At the same time, some of the greatest opponents of this coal plant expansion in Ellis County are also some of the same people fighting the development of a wind farm in the county. So needless to say I do not think the county is either largely for or against the plant expansion. However, it is not lacking in its contempt for those in other parts of the state who continue to operate dirty coal plants and then criticize their effort to do the same.
4 May 2008
at 11:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
dirkleisure:Sorry for my absence, I guess I had better things to do.1. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/apr…. The Supreme Court ordered the legislature fund education at a certain level. I forget how much they mandated, but I know it was over $1 billion. So, you're correct that they shouldn't be able to compel the legislature to do anything, but they certainly did that time…and the legislature let them do it.Rather than a civics class, you might try a journalism class on how to read a paper or maybe a recent history class.
5 May 2008
at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
situveux - I see no comments from Sebelius in your story. I see only parsed comments from Parkinson.The challenge was comments from Parkinson and from Sebelius. Your single source contains comments from Parkinson only.Your comments on the Court are the same old demagoguery from four years ago. The plaintiffs, the school districts, compelled the Legislature to act by successfully pursuing a lawsuit. No plaintiffs, no compelling of the Legislature. Your online civics and journalism and recent history courses are not teaching you as well as you believe they are.