Topeka — A measure tucked into the state budget could prevent Kansas from implementing Environmental Protection Agency rules on greenhouse gases.
The proposal was shepherded through by Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, during the final days of the legislative session that ended last week.
“Instead of supporting sound science and common sense, the EPA has chosen to take the radical path of attempting to regulate carbon dioxide and methane,” said Huelskamp, who also is running for the 1st District congressional seat, currently occupied by Jerry Moran.
“I’m determined to do what is best for our Kansas economy, and that is to oppose the EPA implementation of their cap-and-trade regulatory scheme at every possible opportunity,” he said.
The amendment to the appropriations bill would prohibit any state agency from spending state funds “to plan, draft, propose, promulgate, finalize or implement any rules and regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act involving the greenhouse gases identified” in the EPA’s endangerment finding.
EPA has declared that climate-changing greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and need to be regulated. Those gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment, which enforces environmental rules, is the target of the amendment, and a major issue before KDHE is a pending permit for an 895-megawatt coal-fired electric power plant in southwest Kansas, known as the Sunflower Electric Power Project.
In 2007, KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby denied the permit for the project, citing the effects of the proposal’s potential carbon dioxide emissions on health and environment.
In 2008 and 2009, Sunflower Electric and Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, which would own most of the power from the project, pushed through legislation to overturn Bremby’s decision. Then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed that legislation several times.
When Mark Parkinson became governor in 2009, after Sebelius’ departure to join President Barack Obama’s Cabinet, Parkinson made a deal with Sunflower and Tri-State to build a smaller project.
The amendment to the budget bill is now in the hands of Parkinson, who can let it become law or apply a line-item veto to it. Parkinson’s office said the governor has not yet received the appropriations bill but that once he does he will thoroughly consider every proviso before taking any action.
Environmentalists are unhappy with the amendment but, ironically, they are not asking for Parkinson to veto it.
Given Parkinson’s deal-making with Sunflower on the coal plant, they don’t see much help coming from the Statehouse.
“At this point, we’re not inclined to use the legislative process to combat these special interests anymore,” said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club. “The legislative process is being abused. We will focus on the Sunflower project in the courts.”
Scott Allegrucci, director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, said the provision wouldn’t stand up in court and probably would invite more scrutiny from the EPA on Kansas environmental regulation.
“We might consider more direct oversight by EPA a much more responsible and dependable pathway to regulatory certainty in Kansas,” Allegrucci said.
EPA’s Regional Administrator Karl Brooks has already written a letter to Parkinson and Bremby expressing concerns about any provision that would block federal rules.
In that letter, Brooks warns that if a state doesn’t follow federal pollution laws, the EPA will exercise its authority to make sure that projects seeking permits adhere to federal requirements.
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.
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…
It is one thing for the average citizen to watch beck and his merry band of idiots, it is another for a politician to watch and believe, Heulskamp is an idiot extraordinaire.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
Huelskamp says;“Instead of supporting sound science and common sense, the EPA has chosen to take the radical path of attempting to regulate carbon dioxide and methane” but if this action by the EPA takes place it would be in effect supporting sound science and common sense and it is certainly only radical in the eyes of those who are opposed to just about everything that has to do with sound science and common sense.
scott3460 (anonymous) replies…
Indeed. And I am not aware of the scientific credentials Mr. Huelskamp's possesses that qualify him to make this path. I wonder what they are?
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
Huelskamp says; “I’m determined to do what is best for our Kansas economy, and that is to oppose the EPA implementation of their cap-and-trade regulatory scheme at every possible opportunity,”, but the cap-and-trade plan is an attempt to avoid simply placing carbon taxes on all carbon emitting use of fossil fuels. So let’s hear which approach he would prefer, cap and trade or carbon taxes.
Kris_H (anonymous) says…
I'm sure the EPA has plenty of scientists. How many does Huelskamp have? His views are motivated by politcal pandering to those who contribute to him, and who themselves are motivated by profits, nothing else. The EPA has nothing to gain by stating the scientific facts, other than wanting to be on the side of the truth.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
I have extended a proposal that would be in the best interests of Kansans and the Kansas economy, and I have extended it to both the Kansas Legislature and to Sunflower Electric Power who seeks to build another coal fired power plant in SW Kansas and I continue to extend it to the City of Lawrence in the hope that it will be studied. The reason I believe it is in the interests of Kansas and the Kansas economy is that it would turn the problem into its own solution and would create many new jobs and could create over a hundred jobs here in Lawrence and create numerous jobs in every county in the State of Kansas.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
Tim Huelskamp consistently raises the most campaign contributions among the other conservative Republicans in his race for election to Congress simply because Mr. Huelskamp takes the most conservative stance and the conservatives in his district are radical and oppose everything the majority of the more educated people of the 21st Century are adopting.
FreshAirFanatic (anonymous) replies…
Yep Les. Conservatives are stupid and uneducated. They actually think individuals can make their own choices and then be held responsible for them. Fools. Only people as intelligent and self-righteous as you are capable of deciding what the masses need. People who can overlook huge flaws/oversights/cover ups in "sound science". People who don't see cap and trade as a tax...but as happy alternative that hasn't crushed other economies who have tried to implement similar restrictions. People who can overlook places like Spain who by creating "green jobs" actually lost 2 jobs for every 1 gained.
That is true intelligence.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
The problem with simply allowing businesses to make choices and then be held responsible is that they will continue to pollute and destroy the planet, and then simply pay the fines, as BP has done.
Of course, if we penalized them by shutting them down instead of simply fining them, that might get their attention.
Jimo (anonymous) replies…
Conservatives aren't stupid or uneducated. It's just that a lot of stupid and uneducated people ignorantly call themselves conservative when they're the exact opposite - radical extremist revolutionaries.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"EPA has declared that climate-changing greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and need to be regulated."
And the (very conservative) US Supreme Court has ruled that under the Clean Air Act, they are authorized to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
So who is really the more conservative here; the US Supreme Court or the Republican do nothing conservatives?
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Huelskamp is a day late and a dollar short. Thursday, EPA promulgated the Tailoring rule. In effect, sources will have to obtain permits for CO2e emissions if they don't first have a permit issued before Jan. 2011.
If, as Huelskamp proposes, KDHE is prevented from issueing this permit (If Sunflower doesn't get theirs prior to Jan) it won't magically mean that Sunflower won't be subject to the regulation. It just means that EPA out of KC will have to issue it.
And that means it will most likely be delayed.
belexus73 (anonymous) says…
Has anyone considered what EPA may do if KDHE has its authority stripped to regulate GH gasses?
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Couple options, belexus73.
1) EPA may pull the authority to issue the permits necessary to cover GHG emissions. That would pretty much gut a large portion of KDHE, and is probably unlikely given the resources needed. EPA would be required to issue the permits and Region 7 doesn't have the manpower for that.
2) EPA could require sources to obtain an additional permit from them to cover the requirements that KDHE couldn't issue for. That posses some interesting legal ramifications as both of these types of permits (NSR and Title V) are required to be issued "complete", and if KDHE and EPA are issuing partials, neither would be complete. Functionally, it would work, but it would leave a big risk that I think Sierra Club would attack.
3) Huelskamp's regulation also has some interesting problems. KDHE could, in theory and practice, issue smaller permits to sources to assist them in avoiding the larger, more time consuming permits. This is done all the time under the moniker of minor NSR across the nation. However, by "preventing" them to any permitting for GHG, Huelskamp is effectively forcing sources to obtain the more costly and time consuming permits that would have to be issued by EPA.
His proposal is all bark and no bite. In fact, its more damaging to business in the state by taking the tools out of the hands of the state and forcing them into the feds.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
maybe this chucklehead can find other people to deregulate federal laws
and cause another oil mishap. You know the GOP is good at affecting
the people who affect their bottom line.
belexus73 (anonymous) says…
Tolawdjk,
Your point number 1 is what immediately came to mind although I don't know if Huelskamp or his handlers have thought this one through. Your second point is probably correct in that some enviro group could really tear into a partial permit. Huelskamps bumbling may throw (another) spanner into the machinery of this process.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Belexus73
Either way, EPA is well aware of the issue of state legislatures and potential impediments to the current regs on the books. They have not stated any "definatives" on how to handle the issue, other than each state will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, that is the way they should do it. Between each state's SIP, the differences between a delegated or approved program and the potential ways and means that states will put roadblocks up, it only makes sense to do it that way.
Techincally, I believe that there might even be the possibilty of withholding funds, but I just can't see that as being the path taken with Kansas. Now Texas, that is a different kettle of fish.
belexus73 (anonymous) says…
I bet Karl Brooks is watching this with interest.....