The current Holcomb power plant, pictured above, runs at 85 percent capacity. The proposed new plant would run at 90 percent capacity.

Topeka ? An overwhelming majority of comments sent to the state about the proposed coal-fired power plant in western Kansas are supportive of the project.

Most of those were submitted on a form postcard from labor union members, many of whom live out of state.

Sunflower Electric Power Corp. is seeking a permit to build an 895-megawatt plant near Holcomb in Finney County.

The time period for folks interested in sending comments on the proposal to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment started on July 1 and runs through Aug. 15.

Of 204 comments received by KDHE so far, all but 10 favored the project.

Of those in favor, the vast majority were sent on postcards that read: “I trust the professional staff of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to develop a construction air permit for the Holcomb expansion project that protects public health and the environment. I am a member of a labor union, and this project would give me the opportunity to use my skills. Please approve this construction air permit.”

More than half of those cards were sent from Missouri and Iowa.

Sunflower Electric’s efforts have been mired in controversy for years. Previously, the company had proposed building two 700-megawatt plants, but that was rejected in 2007 by KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby, who cited health and environmental concerns related to the project’s emissions of carbon dioxide.

In May 2009, Gov. Mark Parkinson signed a deal with Sunflower to allow an 895-megawatt facility. The permit process again has pitted environmentalists concerned about climate change gas emissions against Sunflower.

Of the supporting commenters, there were also some individually written appeals for the project, too.

Most of those said Kansas needs the jobs, and some doubted climate change.

Nancy Hanahan of Overland Park said the environmental movement has been based on “fraudulent science” and “much political malfeasance.” She said, “We don’t drink the Environmental Kool-Aid.”

Some have criticized the project because most of the power will be sold to customers in Colorado.

Lynate Pettengill of Lawrence said, “The plant would import coal from Wyoming (instead of using Kansas wind), would send power to Colorado (not to Kansas), would pollute our air and water, and use huge amounts of water in an area that has serious water issues already.”

But Brian Wilborn of Hoisington said, “The argument was made a few years ago that ‘all of the energy would be exported out of state.’ As if that in itself is an appalling thing. Kansas exports much of what it produces from crops, beef, hogs, oil, natural gas and airplanes.”

And Bill Shrader of Jamestown, Kan., criticized those in eastern Kansas who opposed the project. “Most states are dying to get this kind of opportunity — only eastern Kansas does not know anything about western Kansas.”

House Speaker Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, and the Kansas Farm Bureau also wrote letters in support of the project.

But Randi Hacker of Lawrence said the state should focus on renewable energy “not for our sakes any more but for the sake of our children and the future of life as we know it on Earth.”

People interested in sharing their opinion about the project will also have an opportunity during three public hearings. Those are on Aug. 2 in Overland Park, Aug. 4 in Salina and Aug. 5 in Garden City.

Comments about the project can be sent by e-mail to SunflowerComments@kdheks.gov or postmarked no later than Aug. 15 to Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Air, Attn: Sunflower Comments, 1000 SW Jackson, Suite 310, Topeka, KS 66612-1366.