Topeka — A federal judge in Washington has sided with the Sierra Club in a legal dispute over a proposed coal-fired power plant in western Kansas, and an attorney for the environmental group predicted Thursday that the decision will at least delay the project.
U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan ruled in a lawsuit filed in October 2007 by the Sierra Club against the federal Rural Utilities Service. The lawsuit alleged that the RUS is required by federal law to do an environmental study of the project and have public hearings before allowing Sunflower Electric Power Corp., based in Hays, to build additional coal-fired generating capacity.
Sullivan said in a three-page order filed Tuesday that he decided in favor of the Sierra Club, but most of his decision remains under seal to protect the utility's confidential financial information. Attorneys have seen a longer, 54-page version from the judge, who plans to consider how much more information to make public next month.
Sunflower plans to build its new coal-fired plant outside Holcomb, in southwest Kansas. The RUS, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, must sign off on decisions related to the project because it provided past financial support to Sunflower and oversaw corporate reorganizations.
Sullivan's order doesn't say what RUS will be required to do to comply with his order and asks for more arguments from attorneys on proposed remedies.
Jan Hasselman, an attorney for Earthjustice, which is representing the Sierra Club, said the decision means the federal agency is likely to be required to conduct an environmental study and consider alternatives to the coal plant. He said that process could put the project on hold for 18 months to two years and could ultimately block it.
"He essentially agreed with all our arguments," Hasselman said. "What we're saying is that the government needs to take a time-out on further approval of this project before we've thought it through."
Sunflower declined to comment because most of Sullivan's decision remains under seal. The RUS also declined comment because the case is pending.
The company supplies power for about 400,000 Kansans and plans to build a plant with a capacity of 895 megawatts, enough to meet the peak demands of 448,000 households, according to one state estimate. Three-quarters of the new capacity, or 695 megawatts, would be reserved for a Sunflower partner, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc., of Westminster, Colo.
That's a sore point for many critics of Sunflower's push to add coal-fired generating capacity, but the utility's supporters say exporting electricity is as beneficial as exporting beef, wheat and other agricultural commodities.
The lawsuit in Washington is among several challenges by the Sierra Club aimed at slowing down or stopping Sunflower's $2.8 billion project.
In a case before the Kansas Supreme Court, the group is trying to overturn an air-quality permit issued for the project by the state Department of Health and Environment in December, arguing that it's too lax in regulating potential pollutants.
Last month, the group demanded aggressive action by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, telling its regional administrator in Kansas City, Mo., in writing that he's legally obligated to object to the state permit. The regional EPA office has said parts of the permit aren't stringent enough and has asked for a "dialogue" with state officials.
Hasselman said the court ruling in Washington will force the RUS to examine options for Sunflower, such as investing in conservation efforts and renewable energy.
"This project is bad for human health. It's bad for the environment," Hasselman said. "It's financially risky."
But Sunflower has said it will need extra generating capacity, and its supporters, including many legislators, argue that the project will bring economic development to western Kansas.
Sunflower previously wanted to build two 700-megawatt plants. But in October 2007, KDHE rejected an air quality permit, citing the plants' potential emissions of greenhouse gases linked by scientists to global warming.
Then-Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius stood behind the decision, and her dispute with the utility spilled into the Republican-controlled Legislature. It blocked legislation promoting renewable energy and tried unsuccessfully to override the permit denial.
Sebelius stepped down as governor in April 2009 to become U.S. health and human services secretary. Almost immediately, new Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson brokered a deal with Sunflower to allow one coal-fired plant, clearing the way for passage of "green" legislation he favored.
Parkinson left office in January, but Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is a strong supporter of the utility's plans.
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.
belexus73 (anonymous) says…
This appears to be a significant setback for Sunflower. There will likely be a hold put on any construction at the site. An EIS will probably take 18-24 months at the very least and this will go down in history as one of the longest sagas in the fight over new coal plants.
KEITHMILES05 (anonymous) says…
Another "consumer" group only adding to the cost which consumers must pay. Makes alot of sense. NOT!
gccs14r (anonymous) replies…
What is the cost of depleting the aquifer?
kusp8 (anonymous) replies…
.......or stopping the degradation of air quality?
belexus73 (anonymous) replies…
Sunflower mismanaged their last coal plant construction and is still deeply in hock to the federal government-do you acknowledge the fact that Sunflower still has millions to pay on this debt? Yes/No....
verity (anonymous) says…
What I find disturbing is " the Republican-controlled Legislature . . . . blocked legislation promoting renewable energy . . . ."
sierraclub (anonymous) says…
COOL!!! We do not need no stinking power!!!! Say no to Colorado and their plans to polute our air!!!! COOL!!!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Never mind that taxpayers are on the hook to guarantee the cost of construction and insurance on this very very expensive and reckless spending adventure.
Why some support the most expensive sources of generating energy baffles me.
The destruction of our air and water plus the mercury and radioactive ash are monster concerns!
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
Thanks Sierra Club. Good use of my donation
grammaddy (anonymous) replies…
My thoughts exactly!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Wind power takes less than a year to yield net energy, and solar or photovoltaic power nets energy in less than three years.
riverdrifter (anonymous) says…
Not enough water. Every ag irrigator within 50 miles should be raising hell -and they are.
rduhrich (anonymous) says…
I'll be glad when they sh!tcan this whole mess. It's just another example of making the public bear risks and costs while privatizing profits. Enough already!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Because it is you and me that guarantee construction costs and insurance. Construction costs are famous for their large cost over runs.
Bottom line: It is best for taxpayers and ratepayers to demand termination of all existing coal and nuke plants as both produce radioactive waste,both produce very expensive energy and cost billions to replace.
A combination of new local energy sources would produce cleaner more efficient energy. Additionally this combination would not only provide considerably more jobs throughout the states but also safer employment,reduce our cost of living and reduce the cost of doing business.
From the Union of Concerned Scientists
Rebuilding economies
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Wind
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Solar
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Biomass
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
GeoThermal
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Hydro
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
I'll second that Merrill.
The article reports; "Jan Hasselman, an attorney for Earthjustice, which is representing the Sierra Club, said the decision means the federal agency (Rural Utilities Service) is likely to be required to conduct an environmental study and consider alternatives to the coal plant." I've proposed such an alternative to Sunflower Electric Power Co. that would involve them, but Sunflower is convinced they will eventually prevail, and people will eventually be forced to allow a central power generation scheme to prevent communities from becoming self generators of their own electric power.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
A cooperative or community owned energy project offers many advantages. It stimulates the local economy by creating new jobs and new business opportunities for the community while simultaneously expanding the tax base and generating new income for local residents. A locally owned energy project also generates support from the community by getting people directly involved.
Another advantage of community energy projects is that they can be owned cooperatively or collectively through a variety of legal mechanisms. Ownership strategies can include limited liability corporations (LLCs), cooperatives, school districts, municipal utilities or other municipal entities, or combinations of these models. Sometimes a partnership with an existing utility can be mutually beneficial.
An excellent example of this approach is the prominent, commercial-scale wind turbine located on Toronto's (Ontario) harbor front that is 50 percent owned by WindShare, a 427-member cooperative of local residents, while the other half is owned by Toronto Hydro Energy Services. While the appropriate model will differ from project to project and from state to state (or province), depending on a wide range of variables, what these strategies all have in common is some form of community ownership and group benefit.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
Stolen without attribution from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/r...
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
But the main point is to identify the project as belonging to the community, which may avoid (or at least minimize) the usual conflicts between local residents and developers, whose large-scale, commercial proposals are often viewed as primarily benefiting absentee owners. Local ownership is the key ingredient that transforms what would otherwise be just another corporate energy project into an engine for greater energy security that directly benefits its owners -- the members of the community.
Community Supported Energy projects offer yet another advantage; they retain a greater amount of income in the local area and increase the economic benefits substantially over projects owned by out-of-area developers, according to a study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the Government Accountability Office. NREL compared the effect of large corporate wind farms owned out of area with similar projects owned locally.
The study found local ownership yielded an average of $4 million in local income annually, over three times more than the $1.3 million produced with out-of-area control, while job creation was more than twice as large in the local model.*
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
These community owned projects could spread across Western Kansas and provide jobs in many counties that have been suffering population declines. I think this would offer a much better means of bringing people back to Kansas counties that are in decline than to offer to abate Kansas income tax like the Brownback administration is proposing. Why let people with enough income to owe state taxes not pay their fair share when Kansas is in need of money in its accounts to pay for schools?
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
With local benefits like these, why aren't there more CSE projects? For one thing it's a relatively new concept in North America, although it's a well-established strategy in many European nations. In Denmark and Germany -- world leaders in wind energy development -- many commercial-scale wind turbines are installed as single units or in small clusters distributed across the countryside, or sometimes in or near urban areas. And many of these turbines are either owned by the farmers on whose land the turbine stands, or by groups of local residents.
This idea has spread to many other EU nations as well and is beginning to catch on in Canada and the United States, especially in states like Minnesota and Iowa, where dozens of community owned wind farms are sprouting up.
One of the best examples is MinWind, located near Luverne, Minnesota. The original project, which began in 2000, consisted of four 950-kilowatt turbines owned by 66 local farmers. The project was so successful that seven additional turbines were added in 2004. The second group of turbines is owned by approximately 200 local investors.
One of the main reasons for this success has been Minnesota's progressive promotion and support of locally owned wind projects and other renewable energy initiatives.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
It appears that Les is also forgetting that attribution thing. Does Greg Pahl know that you are passing his work off as your own?
merrill (anonymous) says…
Renewing America's Economy - A national renewable electricity standard would require electric utilities to supply a minimum percentage of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy. Similar policies have already been enacted in 21 states and the District of Columbia.
The U.S. Senate has voiced its support for a 10 percent by 2020 national standard three times since 2002—most recently in June 2005. Congress has also considered a national standard of 20 percent by 2020.
We modified the model using more optimistic assumptions for renewable energy technology costs and performance that are more in line with projections by the Department of Energy’s national laboratories. Our analysis found that a 20 percent standard would reduce electricity and natural gas prices and provide significant economic and environmental benefits for America.
Job Creation - 355,000 new jobs—nearly twice as many as generating electricity from fossil fuels
Economic Development - $72.6 billion in new capital investment, $16.2 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $5.0 billion in new local tax revenues
Consumer Savings - $49 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills
Healthier Environment - Reductions of global warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road, plus less haze, smog, acid rain, mercury contamination, and water use.
Union of Concerned Scientists
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
(ENN) -- A Lawrence, Kan., man has conceptualized an energy system that combines the power of the wind and the burning of biomass, such as municipal or ag waste. The system, he said, could help remedy climate change woes.
"Such a system could call up solid fuels to back up wind when the wind isn't blowing strongly," said Les Blevins, president of Advanced Alternative Energy Corp.
Blevins has yet to construct the system and will not release complete details of how the system works until he has secured patents for the technology. In 1993, he secured a patent for the biomass portion of the system he calls the Sequential Grates System.
However, he said energy would primarily be generated through wind turbines until the wind begins to drop, at that time system operators would dispatch the biomass burning furnaces in local communities as needed to make up the shortfall.
"I'm proposing a system of local power plants that can take municipal solid waste and turn it into clean energy and return it to the community," he said. Such a distributed system could exceed 80 percent efficiency, compared to just 32 percent efficiency for conventional fossil fuel electricity systems such as coal-fired power plants.
Blevins believes his technology is adaptable for both developing and developed nations. "It is clean, highly efficient, low cost, modular, scalable, expandable and provides waste disposal and energy independence," he said.
According to Blevins, the technology is also applicable in the fight to slow down and prevent climate change. Renewable energies, such as wind power and biomass burning, produce much less, if any, carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide known as the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
With all the power generation problems we are seeing these days; some experts believe the answer lies not in increasing the number of centralized power plants, but in creating “virtual” power plants that quickly adapt to changing energy needs.
A virtual power plant (VPP) is one of the main functions of the smart grid. A VPP matches up a variety of distributed energy systems with intelligent demand response capabilities and aggregates those resources into an asset that acts like a centralized power plant. VPPs are similar to microgrids; but while microgrids are very local in scope, VPPs can theoretically be deployed on a GW-scale at the utility level.
I would not be surprised if utilities in Japan put an increased focus on this concept moving ahead,” says Kurt Yeager, executive director of the Galvin Electricity Initiative, a leading smart grid think tank. “They're already more digitally advanced. They have the foundation to deploy this concept and with the recent cutback in power generation of about 20 to 25% due to loss of Nuclear power Japan could readily repower.”
Rudimentary forms of VPPs have been in service for decades. Traditional demand response – when a utility or outside service provider aggregates load reduction at customer sites during peak demand – is the most basic form of VPP. On the supply side, power companies in Europe have experimented with aggregating wind, combined-heat-and-power and small hydro sites together as well. But the highly-intelligent mixed-asset VPP, in which both demand-side and supply-side resources are brought together by information technologies, is still evolving.
John Simmins, program manager for smart grid projects at the Electric Power Research Institute supports the concept of VPP.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
Text written by Stephen Lacey. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/r...
You aren't doing yourself any favors here, les.
autie (anonymous) says…
There ain't enough damn water. Period. What was so difficult to understand about that? Build a power plant in a desert? Genius.
oletimer (anonymous) says…
A judge in Washington. Really? Wonder how many judges the tree huggers went to before they found one that would actually listen to them. With all the things going wrong with this ol world right now, a new coal burning plant should not be real high on the priority list.
BABBOY (anonymous) replies…
Idiot, it is were the agency is located so that is where the lawsuit has to be filed.
Stick to what little you know old boy.....
BABBOY (anonymous) says…
i have decided I am done with long posts. I think long posts are sign of insanity. For example, I got no clue what lesblevens is saying is becasuse his posts were unreadable.
To be honest, I am over the coal plant thing. Build it, don't build it, build it and blow it up, I do not care.....