Archive for Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Sunflower Electric sues state leaders
Company claims Sebelius and others just wanted to advance their careers
The power company that was denied the two coal plants in southwest Kansas has brought a lawsuit against the state, saying the state is discriminating against Kansans who face higher electric bills.
November 19, 2008
Advertisement
Topeka — Claiming its civil rights have been violated, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. wants a federal court to overturn decisions by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and clear the way for construction of two coal-powered electric plants in southwest Kansas.
In a lawsuit filed in Kansas City, Kan., Hays-based Sunflower Electric accused Sebelius, Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson and Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby of trying to advance their political aspirations by rejecting Sunflower’s permits for the coal-burning plants near its existing facility in Holcomb.
The officials want to “further their individual political fortunes by catering to the environmental lobby that opposes the Holcomb Expansion Project and to increase their chances of being elected or appointed to some state or national office, all at the expense of Sunflower’s constitutional rights and the rule of law in Kansas,” Sunflower’s lawsuit claims.
Sunflower is seeking a court order that would prohibit the Sebelius administration from blocking the $3.6 billion project. No hearing date has been set before U.S. District Court Judge Eric Melgren.
The company claims Sebelius’ rejection of the plants based on carbon dioxide emissions and global warming was “nothing more than a pretext” and violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection.
“Indeed, since defendants denied Sunflower a permit, they have granted hundreds of permits to other CO2 emitters and continue to allow pre-existing similarly situated CO2 emitters to operate freely,” the lawsuit states.
Sebelius said she hadn’t seen the lawsuit, and declined to comment on it. She was headed to Beverly Hills, Calif., to co-chair a meeting of worldwide officials on global warming. The meeting was set up by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Sebelius has opposed the plants, citing the project’s annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, and the fact that the project would mostly serve out-of-state customers.
Sunflower has already been fighting to gain the permits through an administrative appeals process, the state court system and the Legislature.
During the last legislative session, lawmakers approved bills requiring construction of the plants, but Sebelius vetoed the measures and supporters of the plants came up just short of gaining the necessary two-thirds majorities to overturn the governor.
In the lawsuit, Sunflower warned that if it doesn’t obtain the permits to construct the plants soon “the cost of construction may well increase to the point that the project cannot be financed at all.”
If there were no project, Sunflower argued, its customers would suffer.
“In denying the air permit, the administration has discriminated against 400,000 Kansans and over 1.5 million citizens from other states who will be forced to pay the price of this decision for decades to come through higher electric rates,” Earl Watkins, Sunflower’s president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. “We believe we have an obligation to act on behalf of the people we serve and to correct this wrong.”
Bruce Niles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, defended Sebelius’ actions.
“It is clear that with this lawsuit, the coal industry hopes to take away states’ rights to take action on global warming,” Niles said. “The writing is on the wall. Clean energy is where the future of America is, and that clean energy can be the engine of our economic and climate recovery. States should be free to pursue that clean energy future, and not be bullied for doing so.”
In a sworn statement, Watkins said the company has already spent $1.4 million in fees to lawyers and consultants to prepare for the permits and $1.1 million in legal fees and expenses to appeal the denial of the permits.
Sunflower said it filed the lawsuit in Kansas City, Kan., because that was more convenient for its law firm, which is based in Kansas City, Mo.
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Shooting in Douglas County sends Eudora man to hospital, suspect turns gun on himself July 5, 2009 · 33 comments
- Tiller murder suspect advocates ‘justifiable killing’ via mail from jail July 5, 2009 · 31 comments
- Mass St. momentum July 5, 2009 · 4 comments
- Two arrested after south Lawrence altercation, foot chase July 5, 2009 · 20 comments
- Poll: What do you do when you have a bad experience at a restaurant? July 5, 2009 · 19 comments
- Palin links her resignation to ‘higher calling’ July 5, 2009 · 53 comments
- U.S. must restore faith in monetary system July 5, 2009 · 15 comments
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009 · 49 comments
- Three detained after Sunday nightclub shooting July 5, 2009 · 49 comments
- Blog: Sarah Palin: With Interest July 4, 2009 · 137 comments
- A new reign: Lawrence landmark the Castle Tea Room open again after extensive renovations July 5, 2009
- Couple speak out on transgender issues July 5, 2009
- School district needs to cut $500K more July 3, 2009
- Free State Brewing Co. and WheatFields among 8 Wonders of Kansas Cuisine June 19, 2009
- He made a decision, not ‘a mistake’ July 5, 2009
- 1999 murder case won’t settle July 5, 2009
- U.S. must restore faith in monetary system July 5, 2009
- Serial killings have South Carolina residents on edge July 4, 2009
- CHARLIE HOAG HOPES FOR PLAYING TIME October 10, 1999
- Restaurant inspector stresses education July 5, 2009
18 November 2008
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
He we go again, I'll start by saying I am NOT in favor of these new plants even though my mother in law and her husband live in Holcomb. I like my mother in law and would like her community to flourish but not at the expense of her health and the health of our nation. I must also refer to the fact that according to some articles published recently the federal government has also denied permits to other Coal powered plants from being built.
18 November 2008
at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
The issue is now bigger than just the state's ruling against the Holcomb plants because of the ruling that EPA needs to consider CO2 emissions when granting permits.http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/nov/14/epa_panel_denies_utah_coal_plant_permit/
18 November 2008
at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nobody1793 (Anonymous) says…
Depending on what the Obama administration comes up with on coal policy, they may have gotten a big favor in getting denied. Regardless, I don't understand the “discrimination” argument. Are they saying Bremby is a “rural-ist”?
18 November 2008
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
You notice how the suit alleges that 400k from kansas and 1.5 mil from other states are affected. Who in the h*ll cares about the suffering that coloradoans and texans are experiencing by higher electricity costs. By my calculations that is a concern for the government of Colorado and texas to address and NOT Kansas.
18 November 2008
at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Given that CO2 taxes and/or cap and trade policies will very likely be adopted in the next couple of years, and that Holcomb lies in one of the best areas in the country for both wind and solar, it's going to be hard to prove the potential damages they claim.
18 November 2008
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hipper_than_hip (Anonymous) says…
Good for Sunflower! I hope they win their suit against Bremby and Sebelious.
18 November 2008
at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
hipper_than_hip. You can hope in one hand and #$%^ in another and see which happens first. But in the meantime you should take a look at the article above to see the correct spelling for the governors last name.
18 November 2008
at 1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
I love it. Sue happy rightwingers trying to ram something down the ratepayers throat faster than one can say “fascism.”
18 November 2008
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
What's next folks? An eminent domain action to condemn or air? Leave it to the rightwing and their “activist judges.”All very constitutional - you betcha, wink wink!
18 November 2008
at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
Oh. How funny. Sunflower adopts the tactics of Merrill and Bozo, and (part) of the centennial neighborhood. Sue em.It's funny that Sebelius rewarded plant-supporter McKinney with a kick into the Treasurer's seat.Ha Ha.
18 November 2008
at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
Rooster. Don't fear for the health of those in Holcomb. Yours is much more at risk in Lawrence, because the Holcomb plants will be cleaner at the beginning than the ones in Lawrence will ever be.And I for one do have compassion for the electrical rates paid by those out west. You have ignored the fact of the difference in rates those out there have had to pay forever, when compared to Lawrence's own stinking plant.If Lawrencians cared so much, they would step forward and tax themselves on the difference in the rates, and use the proceeds to invest in energy efficiency, or actually require energy efficiency in their own new construction. Lets see a few windmills in Douglas County, which wouldn't require a half-billion dollars in new power lines.
18 November 2008
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Raider (Anonymous) says…
Why won't these people just let it go? They don't give a rat's a$$ about the electric bills for people in other states. They care about lining their own pockets. Their crooked / bought politicians couldn't get the job done for them, so now they're suing. What a bunch of BS. The judge should toss it out of court. Unfortunately, they will probably win.
18 November 2008
at 2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
average (Anonymous) says…
I do not feel bad *AT ALL* for the 1.5 million ratepayers, primarily in Colorado, who will pay higher rates. Coloradans passed a ballot initiative that made it impossible to build the plants there (nearer most of the consumers, and a better water supply). They *SHOULD* be paying more.If they do force it on downwind people, Western Kansans should get deeply discounted power (stimulating jobs) while Coloradans pay a surcharge for not providing their own power and using their own water.As for eastern Kansas, bring on the Wolf Creek 2.
18 November 2008
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
Dont_ask_douglas_countyYou are right that the holcomb plants will be cleaner as won't be built.And furthermore my concern for the people of holcomb does not deflect or reduce my concern for my family's health here in dougco. When the time comes to create a new source of power here in lawrence I will voice my opposition to anything being built here that is detrimental to health. And your statement that you are concerned as to the electrical rates paid by those out west, well 1.5 million can be scratched from concern as they are NOT Kansans and texas and colorado are welcome to build whatever they want, and the 400K paying higher rates should fight for the wind/solar farms to be built. This wouldn't be the same debate if 3/4 of the proposed energy was staying here in kansas. If the debate was to provide enough power for those here in kansas they could probably justify building a small coal powered plant.
18 November 2008
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
rooster: I believe that Kansas should be a neighbor to Colo and Texas, Nebraska, and (gasp) Missouri too.It is Lawrence that repeatedly ignores the needs of those in western kansas thus proving they are not a good neighbor of those in western kansas.It is interesting that those in Lawrence are always preaching about transmission across state lines in Western Kansas… and never examing the state borders here. Isn't Kansas still shipping a lot of Wolf Creek power to Missouri?
18 November 2008
at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
“When the time comes to create a new source of power here in lawrence I will voice my opposition”yea, yea, yea. Talk is cheap. Heard it before. What is wrong with shutting it down now? It is hypocritical to wait.
18 November 2008
at 3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
There seem to be a couple of threads that Sunflower is working on here. First, the coal industry is concerned tha California is going to block new coal plants from outside the state importing electricity to California. These coal merchants are claiming a “restraint of trade”. This lawsuit may be a trial run before they file something out west. The lawfirm being used was also employed by KCPL when they were engaged in their coal plant fight a couple of years ago. This firm will churn out quality work for Sunflower. That being said, reading the complaint, it does seem like a hail mary. Given the Bonanza ruling by the EPA panel of judges last week and SCOTUS ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA last April, Sunflower's ground to stand on is very boggy to say the least. It will also be interested to see who intervenes as interested parties on each side (Chamber of Commerce? Sierra Club?). Time to get some popcorn and watch the fireworks.
18 November 2008
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
December (Anonymous) says…
Sunflower Electric Power Corp needs to step up to the plate embrace wind energy, there is plenty of wind in Southwestern Kansas. There is no reason for a coal plant to be out there polluting the area and water for Colorado's benefit.
18 November 2008
at 3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Don't ask Douglas County….since when do the people of Lawrence have any power in shutting down Lawrence Energy Center. It is owned by a private entity with a license from the state and federal government for the forseeable future. I am sure there are folks out there that are open to rational ideas for shuttering it. Do you have any?
18 November 2008
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SMe (Anonymous) says…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wa… World will remove it but hopefully somebody will see it before they do.Kayakers on the spillway of Llyn Brianne reservoir in Carmarthenshire (UK)!These dudes are moving!Sorry LJ-W I just had to share it.
18 November 2008
at 3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cadillac (Anonymous) says…
It think they have been smokin' stuff from the road ditches out there again.
18 November 2008
at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
dontaskdouglascounty says “I believe that Kansas should be a neighbor to Colo and Texas, Nebraska, and (gasp) Missouri too.”Wrong, Wrong and wrong again. Actually colorado, texas and nebraska need to be a neighbor to Kansas and send some power our way. And for that matter refill our aquifer. You must have missed the post that clearly states that colorado now has laws that prevent them from creating any more coal plants. Hmmm wonder why? Because its BAD for the environment. As for missery i mean missouri If that state is ever on fire my family wont so much as send them the dirty water in my septic system. Thats what they get for sending some retard to TRY to burn down my house 130 years ago. P.S. The ghosts of the former residents of my house that died here due to quantrills raid agree with me.
18 November 2008
at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ENGWOOD (Anonymous) says…
So where will you clowns get your third job to pay your utility bills when your electric rates are more than your house payments are and when all the businesses have moved their Plants to surrounding States where their business is actually profitable with lower taxes and utility costs and a Governor that actually supports small business.
18 November 2008
at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
To recap engwoods post,The sky is falling, the sky is falling, where will we go, what will we do, who has the duct tape and bottled water, i'll see out in the bunker. Next week electricity is projected to be 2 million dollars per watt. Go to texas or nebraska engwood. Cause Colorado aint havin it either.
18 November 2008
at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Sunflower needs to first embrace energy efficiency, which is cheaper than wind and which they have done pathetically little investment in. This could shave off almost half their power needs for the next twenty years or so. An investment in wind power would be the next logical step and this will happen as it is just a matter of time, even if Sunflower is still in denial about the demise of their coal plans. Solar thermal would be an option in southwestern Kansas, but that conversation will need to wait until Congress passes cap-and-trade legislation that is targeted for pasage late in 2009.
18 November 2008
at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Boston_Corbett (Anonymous) says…
Belexus: Yes, that suggestion is at the extreme. But the arguments of some on this board are just as ridiculous from the other side. Lets just see if the City of Lawrence can get serious itself about its own hoggish energy consumption, rather than preaching about energy to folks in Western Kansas. After all, it is our collectively rising individual consumption which creates the demand here, no? So, what is the flat-screen-HDTV penetration per household in DG County compared to western Kansas, if you get my drift? Where is the new growth coming from on a per capita basis?Lawrence can and should adopt stricter energy conservation standards for new construction and major remodels. They are starting to review those planning codes this week. It could install a few wind turbines around for demonstration projects, to provide electricity to the city, county, ku, or other governmental units. Lawrence could impose its own city 'conservation' tax on electrical consumption and direct those resources to a wide range of projects to lead the state in energy conservation. Douglas County could review their code to see what parts of the code disuade mini wind-farms (1-4 towers) which might feed nearby coops, companies, or municipalities. (Yes, I undersand KCC and state law affects the last one)Are these enough ideas? Or is it more much fun to bash the people in Colorado and Texas and the western Kansas coops, who are indeed acting with honorable intent for the benefit of their customers, despite everyone's slander otherwise on these boards?Your point about the California situation is interesting. I wasn't aware of thaI had not heard about that issue. The 'restraint of trade' argument really hinges on the impairment of interstate commerce isn't it? Isn't there is a lot of case law striking down some state regulatory schemes which do unreasonably impair interstate commerce?
18 November 2008
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
BostonCorbett, you make some points worth pondering. I am not a Douglas County resident so I will be averse to wading too depply into the details of life in Lawence. However, Westar's load growth in the near future will be Riley and Geary county due to expansion of Fort Riley. You may have a salient point of electronic toys in Lawrence compared to w. Kansas, but I have no way of quantifying that. I am glad to hear your news about the review of the planning codes as that is a key area that demand can be slowed down over the long term. I had heard about a year ago that Lawrence was going to look at more energy efficiency improvements from a munincipal standpoint, but have not observed anything tangible-but I may have missed it. It would be interesting to have Westar compare Lawrence with say, Salina as far as base and peak load and see if anything pops out one way or another as far as usage is concerned. Your idea on the wind turbines is appreciated, but the cooperatives have been more than hostile to wind power and Lawrence sits in a class two wind site which is fairly dismal compared to Kansas as a whole. I understand there is case law on the books concerning regulatory agencies and interstate commerce-cutting both ways. It will be interesting to see the initial positons taken by Sebelius, Parkinson, and Bremby. CO2 is the wildcard where there is little case law except the SCOTUS ruling. Thanks.
18 November 2008
at 6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Danimal (Anonymous) says…
wooooo!!! Lawsuit party!
19 November 2008
at 7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
If the coal-fired plants are built, power lines will be built to service them. This will allow solar and wind energy systems to be built as well. These systems can use the distribution lines paid for by the coal-fired plants.Solar and wind are labile. They must have backup generators like coal-fired or natural gas-fired plants in addition to the “green” generators. Typical duty cycle for wind and solar are about 20% to 30%. The other 70% to 80 % will be the Holcomb coal-fired plants. Energy as politics, engineering as politics, science as politics, rational thought as politics. I am very disappointed with the lack of intelligent leadership in science and engineering and in the areas of society that should know when it comes to global warming, CO2, and energy. Why do we not hear about the backup generators needed to mitigate the unreliability of alternative electricity generators?Why did we not hear about the negative energy balance of corn-based alcohol?Why are newspapers, politicians, and people who should be properly skeptical buying into a computer program? (global warming)Where are all the old hippies and protesters who were so skeptical of technology? They used to rebel against technology. Now they believe in wind mills, solar panels, bio fuel, and other technologies that are wasting resources and just not working. In the decades to come, this will be known as the era of post science. Testing and rational thought have been replaced by computer generated hype. And the people who should be wise about energy are giving in to a computer program without a whimper. Amazing!
19 November 2008
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
Nuclear power plant below clinton dam!Problem solved. Close power where it's needed. Minimal transmission lines. No use people in western Kanas having to put up with something that will be exported elsewhere.
19 November 2008
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“Nuclear power plant below clinton dam!”No — but a couple of new units at Wolf Creek make sense if the cooling pond is large enough or can be enhanced. And on the sites of large coal-fired plants when those plants reach the ends of their useful lives.
19 November 2008
at 9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” Testing and rational thought have been replaced by computer generated hype.”So how's that terra-forming project of Mars going, devobrun? Because creating another earth on which to perform experiments is the only alternative to computer modeling. (and irony of ironies, if there ever were such a project, computer modeling would be indispensable in making it happen.)Fortunately, people who know way more about climate science than you have alerted the rest of us that it appears extremely likely that we are about to drive off a cliff. So we can listen to them, and take a different course, or we can listen to you and jam the accelerator to the floor and hope that we'll just jump over the abyss that looms before us.
19 November 2008
at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“No — but a couple of new units at Wolf Creek make sense if the cooling pond is large enough or can be enhanced.”Remove all subsidies, make the nuclear industry come up with a real solution for the tons of waste they have generated, and pay for it, and make them 100% liable for any damage from accidents or terrorist acts, and let's see how many new plants get built.
19 November 2008
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
None of us on here are new to waste of time litigation. Please see SLT for more info.
19 November 2008
at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gr (Anonymous) says…
“So how's that terra-forming project of Mars going, devobrun?”Interesting you bring up Mars. Could you explain how humans have caused it to warm?
19 November 2008
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Could you explain how humans have caused it to warm?”Care to elaborate on the presupposition(s) contained in this question?
19 November 2008
at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Devobrun, we don't need transmission lines from Holcomb. There are three transmission projects in the planning stage for the state now that will be sending electricity every direction in Kansas but west in to Colorado. Also, the spinning reserve (back-up) for wind in Kansas is coming in around 10%-not 20 to 30%. By the way, at least one of these new transmission lines will be using the larger 765 kv lines which are rare at this time in most of the U.S.
19 November 2008
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyLawrenceRepublican (Anonymous) says…
“we don't need transmission lines from Holcomb. There are three transmission projects in the planning stage for the state now that will be sending electricity every direction in Kansas but west in to Colorado.”I disagree, kind of. We may not need them, but they'd be helpful. I sat in the SPP annual meeting last year when SPP Staff indicated that Holcomb would have provided much need ancillary services (reactive power) for the lines that will be built and will support wind generation.Also, there are two projects to build the lines and one is proposing 765, but they will not be energized at that voltage for some time if that project is successful - just built at that capacity.
19 November 2008
at 3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
WOW. What a bunch BS. But, yesterday, one of my few is republican friends tells me he is following my footsteps and going to law school. He like most of my friends is pretty warped but despite the fact that disagree on everything he is one my best friends. He tells me he is “worried” that Obama is going to take away his civil rights. He has is 35 and been a professional student so this law school idea is a natural progression for him. He has good grades and if does ok on the LSAT he will be accepted (at least until he loses interest in it). He has gone to business school, stock broker school (whatever that is) and even golf school to be a club pro (which I thought would stick). But, the point is that sort of shows how warped a perspective can be. He wants to be a civil rights attorney and he does not even understand the concept. He is my buddy so I will write a letter of rec for him. I just told him to try that theory with his con law teacher and see how it works out. The whole idea of Sunflower saying their rights were violated made me think they could be a potential client for my buddy (assuming he does not go to cooking school instead).
19 November 2008
at 3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…
All I can say is that I think we should look at repealing legislation that granting corporations the same rights as individual citizens. I don't know about anyone else, but the idea of a corporation having the same rights as myself makes me feel just a little uneasy.
19 November 2008
at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
logicsound; “Last time I checked, notagaindear, Western Kansas and Eastern Kansas are both part of the same state.”Ha. Yes, by legal definition, but not by any definition of being a good neighbor. While Western Kansas pays far more for electricity and has an electricity deficit, Eastern Kansas sits on the far majority of coal plants, enjoys abundant supply, cheap costs, and preaches to the West about how to solve “their” problem. Ha! Instead the Governor led Sunflower down the pike, suggesting her approval, then pulling the rug out and making this a totally political issue. Meanwhile, no other CO2 emiter permit has been denied. And in the case of a potential large emiter (the refinery) the administration publicly says in effect “we see nothing to prevent them from coming here” So 1) either that is a (wink-wink) lie, or 2) Sunflower has been unfairly discriminated against. One or the other. Probably both.
19 November 2008
at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Notnowdear, with regards to the mote that gives you concern, the Lawrence Energy Center is undergoing upgrades as we speak and will be finished cleaning up their act in 2009. So, I think we can take this issue off the table. This has been mentioned in previous energy posts on this site, but I realize not everyone checks every article on this topic. Thanks.
19 November 2008
at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
I've been to the Parthenon to see the reproduction of Foucaults pendulum. I'd like to superglue some of the posters here to the Parthenon floor below the pendulum. Especially those who explain their statements as concern for family farms or water policy.
19 November 2008
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
OLR-you make some interesting points. While I agree that the line west from Holcomb would add ancillary power, but you are correct it would be helpful-but so would 5 more lines as well. It is true that the 765 would not be fully energized to start with but it would be there waiting for capacity to be built out and save more transmission lines and money needed in the future. I am sure we could bore some of the people on this discussion by going into more transmission detail but I will pass. I must admit the tables have turned slightly and am mildly piqued by your presence at the last SPP hoedown. As far as “two projects” do you mean the tug-of-war between ITC and Westar?
19 November 2008
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by trees near a power plant is minimal. Plus, the type of pollution most folks on this topic first think about is mercury, NOX, and SOX. Those are definitely not cleaned by having trees around a power plant.
19 November 2008
at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
NND, if you can find research on forests tracts and their ability to displace CO2 from a large, local source, I would be glad to take a look at it.
19 November 2008
at 5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kryptenx (Anonymous) says…
notnowdear: Maybe a few posters have expressed hostility towards western Kansas, but no one arguing against Sunflower's plants has cited a reason of “hating western Kansas”, it's only posters like you who turn it into that. 85% of the power will not stay in Kansas, 100% of the emissions will. They can't build the plants in Colorado, so why would you want them in western Kansas? Colorado and Kansas leaders(albeit, not all of them) both agree that new coal plants are not the direction we need to be moving in.It's basically as if Sunflower was told by Colorado “you may not store your polluted sh*t in our state,” and Sunflower thinks for a minute: “I know! Let's put some more sh*t out in Kansas where they believe in intelligent design and deny humans' impact on the environment!”If Sunflower was a trash company who wanted to build a new dump in Colorado and was told no, would you let them move it to western Kansas and then let them fill 85% of it with Colorado's trash?I'm enjoying that tap water by the way, tastes good. I don't know what you're spewing about.
19 November 2008
at 7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
edjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
WHat a joke! Like they really care about Kansans paying higher bills. Talk about postering
19 November 2008
at 11:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gl0ck0wn3r (Anonymous) says…
I assume, of course, that the people who are upset with this are also upset (and do not support) the SLT lawsuits and the lawsuit against the school district?
20 November 2008
at 12:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Kryptenx (Anonymous) says…”85% of the power will not stay in Kansas,…”==================So true. That energy should first be used in western Kansas — and not have set in stone that 85% goes elsewhere. Just like the TVA brought lots of industry to that part of the country, western Kansas should get that energy first to create more jobs with lower energy costs. This takes presidence over Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and even eastern Kansas. As a native from Western Kansas, I do realize that there are distinct differences from eastern Kansas. There are even distinctions depending on what part of western Kansas you are from. For instance, in SW Kansas where I grew up, relations with the panhandles, NE New Mexico, and SE Colorado are most important due to their proximity. The whole area is sometimes known as the great high plains. I'm not from NW Kansas, but I would assume that NE Colorado and SW Nebraska matter the most up there. State borders do have somewhat of a psychological affect. For instance, Amarillo is only 25 miles further away from where I grew up than Wichita. Yet, I don't recall that we ever even discussed going to Amarillo. So do keep in mind that just like lots of people around here feel kinship with Missouri, out there, they have other kinships with other states.All that being said, this talk about being a good neighbor from some of the posters isn't very honest. Lots of the water that should be out there, isn't because you have some out there using all they want at the expense of others. Eastern Colorado hordes it — like the John Martin Reservoir they have in SE Colorado. Likewise, way to many farmers rely on irrigation at the expense of their neighbors. If the coal plants get built after all and some of this energy absolutely must go to other states, than western Kansas should get water from these other states as part of this agreement.Parts of western Kansas have become VERY dry. When I was a kid, you actually could see water in the Arkansas River (pronounced: our Kansas). Now the water is so depleted by over use that it is only underground. All you see on the surface is sandbars. I remember when I was a kid that my grandpa took me to Dodge to see the “flood”. Looking at the river bed in Dodge or Garden, you'd think I made that story up. There will never be another flood in that river in my life time — because there isn't any water to have such an event ever again as long as mankind uses the water out there like there is no tomorrow.My feeling on the coal plants is that its a bunch of BS. Sunflower should have made a big chunk of their plan based on wind energy. No, I don't think there will be one energy source “green” or “non-green” that will solve all our needs, but to totally ignore wind would be like some company going to Buffalo, NY and saying that they are going to put a couple of energy plants in and they definitely won't be hydro — only coal or nuclear…
20 November 2008
at 12:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Is global warming a fact backed up by science and is man the cause of global warming backed up by science?Or, is global warming caused by the sun and not man at all?I thought we were on a downward trend in global temperatures.
20 November 2008
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
logicsound: “There you go again with trying to turn this into a West vs. East issue.”Nope. Lawrence, starting with its city commission, did this a long time ago. >>>>>>>>>>>>>logicsound: “Opposing the Sunflower plants is not automatically “anti-W. Kansas”. It's anti-dirty power.”Sez the dirtiest part of the dirtiest half of the state enjoying cheaper power to a part of the state needing power.
20 November 2008
at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
I wonder what the Garden City city commission thinks about completing the South Lawrence Trafficway? Or construction of a downtown mall? A new library? Or continuation of operation of the T?
20 November 2008
at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
When the Lawrence plant was built, there was no known issue with global climate change, and pollution laws were considerably more lax than they are now. Not sure when the existing Holcomb plant was built, but I'm sure much the same conditions existed then.So to try to compare the existence of these decades-old plants with proposed new ones is nothing but a distraction, and really, just kind of stupid.Now, if those in W. Kansas want to help create the conditions that will allow us to shut down these old polluting behemoths, (which would include a massive investment in wind power in that region) I say welcome aboard. But if all they can do is whine because they aren't allowed to do something stupid, my suggestion is to please grow up.
20 November 2008
at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I wonder what the Garden City city commission thinks about completing the South Lawrence Trafficway? Or construction of a downtown mall? A new library? Or continuation of operation of the T?”To the extent that they are state issues, they and their representatives have a right to have their input. But given the relatively small population out there, if they start basing their votes on petty tantrums, they have more to lose than to gain.
20 November 2008
at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Holcomb I was completed in 1983. Based on my observations of the last two years in this state, if Lawrence Energy Center was in the planning stage currently, there would be a great deal of opposition to it today due to growing concerns about climate change. The environmental groups would be going full speed on it as they are all over the country. A great deal of other folks would join in as well. My own take on the east vs. west is that on first blush it makes sense but the argument falls apart if you look at the new energy paradigm that is descending upon us.
20 November 2008
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
“My own take on the east vs. west is that on first blush it makes sense but the argument falls apart if you look at the new energy paradigm”Paridigm, schmaridigm. The facts remain that those doing the most preaching (Lawrence) are not those who are the most affected (West). And the ones preaching (Lawrence) benefit from low power costs while contributing pollution at high levels. Those doing the preaching (Lawrence) benefit from energy sources and transmission lines that already cross state lines, while complaining that selling power to other states out west is not good citizenship or business.
20 November 2008
at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
When the King of France starts telling his subjects things really aren't so bad because we are in a “new paridigm,” it really doesn't go down that well.
20 November 2008
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
“Those aren't facts. That is your perception”Perception is reality. And it isn't just mine.
20 November 2008
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rooster (Anonymous) says…
Since we are on the topic of reality here's some reality,washington (cnn) – The Republican Party has hit a new low.Just 34 percent of Americans in a Gallup Poll released Thursday say they have a favorable view of the party, down 40 percent from a month ago, before the election.What’s worse: 61 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.That just Happened! Shake and Bake!
20 November 2008
at 4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Actually Don't Ask,,,, on one of these debates earlier this year several of us looked at the KCC website covering electricity rates and to our surprise western Kansas does not have the highest electric rates in the state. Check it out for yourself if you wish.
20 November 2008
at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
Belexus: Are you suggesting that Lawrence has lower rates than Western Kansas? I'll check it out. I expect we me be arguing about percentages or averaging rather than the central truth of my assertion.My assertion is that Lawrence pays far less for electricity than the majority of far western kansas.
20 November 2008
at 7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Don't ask….I was going on your earlier assertion about “east vs. west” not Lawrence vs. w. Kansas. The highest rates in the state are in areas of central Kansas and Wyandotte County based upon the data from the KCC.
20 November 2008
at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dont_ask_Douglas_County (Anonymous) says…
Belexus: I don't hear the residents of KCK complaining about Holcomb OR the transportation of electricity across state lines. It is Lawrence who passes resolutions and posts on these boards.But I will go look at those KCC numbers.
20 November 2008
at 9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
Don't Ask, I understand that Lawrence passed a resolution 3-2, I don't know where everyone lives that posts here, mostly Lawrence area I am sure, although I am an outsider. I do know that several of the leaders of resistance of Holcomb are from KCK, and that most Wyandotte legislators supported the governor. They (KCK residents) probably don't post here, but I have no idea of knowing. I did read your earlier post and while I don't know Lawrence's exact electric rates, I imagine the residential comes in around 7 cents per kilowatt hour if they are in Westar's territory. It will be higher if they are in Leav/Jeff cooperative territory but I don't know the rate there off hand.
21 November 2008
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I think we need to shed some more light on the details behind what areas are affected before trying to say this is some eastern Kansas (or Lawrence only) vs western Kansas feud…Sunflower is an electric cooporative operated by 6 western Kansas rural distribution cooporatives • Lane-Scott • Pioneer (NOTE: Pioneer acquired Aquila's electrical areas in that area which aren't reflected in the KCC maps.) • Prairie Land • Wheatland • Western • VictoryThe following Pdf has a good map of these 6 cooporatives to give you an idea of the areas involved. (These maps DO include the Aquila purchases.)http://www.southernpioneer.net/documents/MKECbrochure.pdfHere is a map that gives all the electrical distributers in the entire state:http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/maps/ks_electric_certified_areas.pdfNow here is a rate map of electrical prices in Kansas dated from 3-January. Notice that the highest rates by this map are outside the areas of the 6 cooporatives that Sunflower services. Whether they have some other agreements with Sunflower, there is nothing readily available on the internet to say one way or another. Notice that there are 5 patches of red (highest rates):1) South Central (most would consider that also part of “western” Kansas).2 & 3) Southeastern Kansas4) East Central Kansas5) Northeastern KS (just north of Douglas County)6) North Central Kansas (this one isn't red, but the only dark orange in the state — next highest)..So when some argue that 85% of the energy is to be exported out of Kansas and to do so is “neighborly”, my question is: What about the neighbors with higher rates in other parts of western Kansas? Will any of this energy go to help those with higher rates in places like Ashland, Greensburg, & Pratt? We are not talking eastern Kansas in those locations.Was any arrangement also offered for c.m.s. electric cooperative, inc. based out of Meade? (For those that want some history, the Department of Energy under Jimmy Carter was going to put a wind farm there. Unfortunately, Regan dismantled that department after he got elected, so the wind farm was never built — that was 28 years ago before there were the farms we have now out in other places in western Kansas.)Also will any energy be offered to Midwest Energy Inc., another company in western Kansas bordering Sunflowers area?
21 November 2008
at 1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
For neighborly information: Here are some maps showing the rural electrical cooperatives for other states near western Kansas:Colorado: http://www.crea.coop/membership_map.h… Mexico: http://www.nmelectric.coop/coopNdx.ph… http://www.oaec.com/Directory.php (Note have to hover over map for names)Texas: http://www.texas-ec.org/about_tec/ima… Nebraska: http://nrea.org/media/mem_systems_map…
21 November 2008
at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
One more… I think that if the coal plants are eventually built, there was also talk about sending some of the resulting power back to Wyoming — the state where the coal would come from. Thus here is Wyoming's Rural electric cooperatives map too:http://www.wyomingrea.org/members.aspx
21 November 2008
at 7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
None2, good digging for the data. Midwest was scheduled to purchase 75 MW of power originally and then that number dropped during the legislative pyrotechnics earlier this year. Midwest basically covers a large chunk of NW Kansas-but there are pockets in their service territory they don't cover. One of the problems that has become apparent is that Kansas has more rural electric cooperatives than any other state and that affects rates do the lack of an economy of scale.
22 November 2008
at 12:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Belexus73, thanks for the complement…I don't think it is a bad thing that Kansas has a lot of cooperatives. The important thing is that they come together for those things where they need the cooperation of each other — such as transmission lines and other economies of scale. I hadn't gotten into the details of the Sunflower cooperative itself. I originally assumed it was another REC which was a wrong assumption. What it really is makes sense. I am surprised that there aren't more rec's out there getting together for these kinds of purposes.However, that being said, I don't think they handled the whole request for more power plants correctly.First in the last few years we realize that environmental issues are becoming more important as well as energy conservation and energy independence.First, they should have proposed that a good chunk of this additional energy come what is native out there (wind, solar, natural gas) instead of just saying they wanted it to be 100% coal.Imagine Florida saying they want to develop a ski lodge or Colorado saying they want to open up a coral museum. Second, they should have worked to expand their membership to include ALL of the rural electrical cooperatives out there — not just the six current members. There are several more cooperatives that from what I read do need to be able to drop their rates. I didn't realize that of the 2-700MW plants they would have built, a minimum of 400MW would have belonged to Texas:http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=101803Here is the Texas REC's that would have owned it:http://www.gsec.coop/service.aspFYI: Here are all the coal plants (existing, under construction, proposed). Since it is from 2006, I don't know if the one under construction is possibly already completed.)http://kec.kansas.gov/chart_book/Chapter3/10_CoalFiredPowerPlants.pdfHere is a similar map for wind generating farms in Kansas:http://kec.kansas.gov/chart_book/Chapter6/01_WindEnergyActivityinKansas.pdfWestern Kansas needs many things including more water as well as jobs. Obviously affordable electricity is necessary for job creation, but for Sunflower to totally ignore alternative energy is a slap in the face for all those throughout the country that have said that area has one of the highest potentials for wind based energy. Sure we need the transmission lines, but we also need much more alternative energy generation out there too. If areas outside of western Kansas can see the potential out there, then why couldn't Sunflower which is based out there?
22 November 2008
at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
The main reason Sunflower has not looked at energy efficiency and wind power is that it is a member of Western Fuels and Sunflower's CEO, Earl Watkins, sits on the Western Fuels board. WF is a coal producing and transportation outfit out of Wyoming. Sunflower's corporate culture is immersed in coal with a mild nod towards natural gas. Your comment about the coal plant under construction is actually being built just across the Missouri River from Kansas by KCPL. It will serve both KS and MO. KCPL has been granted three rate increases over time to factor in this plant along with investments in wind power and energy efficiency. The coal plant has had cost overrruns and it will be interesting to see if the KCC grants a larger rate increase for the extra costs of construction or makes the shareholders eat it. There is a good possibility that the rate increases for Johnson County over KCPL's plant will make electricity more expensive than in Sunflower's territory. Time will tell.
22 November 2008
at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hornhunter (Anonymous) says…
none2,read up on your 12:08am post, http://www.sunflower.net/ you can find maps but you can't find this? Maybe you should be in bed
24 November 2008
at 9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
Belexus, the coal plant under construction was the one I was referencing from the map. It is a coal plant in Goodland, KS (Northwest corner of the state). Since the map was from around 2003, I assumed it was completed by now.My understanding is that KPL also has plans to build something down by Emporia, but I don't have any details on that.As to Western Fuels, isn't it a conflict of interest to have someone on the board of a particular energy industry when you represent coops looking for electrical energy?
24 November 2008
at 9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“My understanding is that KPL also has plans to build something down by Emporia, but I don't have any details on that.”If memory serves, they were going to build an natural-gas-fired plant, but I think they have decided against it.