State sued over coal plant

November 18, 2008 · Comment on this

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.

Related story

Comments

Cynthia Schott 6 years, 5 months ago

Just trying to make life for your kids and your kid's kids better...Who needs more pollution?

mightyquin 6 years, 5 months ago

Why don't these guys sue the states that denied them permission to build the plants where the power would be used? Seems to me if Kansas is "discriminating" then those states are as well and should be sued first. Or is the power company discriminating against Kansas?

Ann Hamil 6 years, 5 months ago

I hope Sebelius does get EPA and comes down on Sunflower like a ton of bricks.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 5 months ago

This Sunflower group is full of crap. These coal plants cost a lot of dough and will be expected to generate a lot of profit for investors. Which means to keep it looking affordable tons of tax dollars will subsidize the operation over and above initial construction. How is this better for ratepayers? It's not.Feds pulled out of CoGen due to extraordinary cost over runs. Coal and nukes are the most expensive sources. It's a taxpayer/ratepayer rip off!============================Feds pull out of coal-fired power plant projectFederal officials have quietly pulled the plug on funding for construction of the proposed Western Greenbrier Co-Generation plant.By Ken Ward Jr.Staff writerFederal officials have quietly pulled the plug on funding for construction of the proposed Western Greenbrier Co-Generation plant.U.S. Department of Energy officials now list the $416 million facility as "discontinued."Developers have for more than five years struggled to come up with private money to match DOE funds, and environmental groups have complained that the project would pollute local air and water.DOE spent more than $8 million on project planning, and the West Virginia Economic Development Authority lost $3 million in a loan guarantee approved in 2004 by the Wise administration."It's good that the federal government finally came to its senses," said Joe Lovett, director of the Lewisburg-based Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, which challenged plant permits."I think the local developers of the project were well-intentioned, but wrong, because the plant would have had significant negative consequences for the environment of the county," Lovett said. "And the economy of the county is significantly based on tourism, and it would have been a mistake to put a coal-fired power plant here."DOE dropped the project in mid-June, less than two months after it formally approved a loan of up to $107.5 million, according to federal records.The DOE action also came just a month after developers had obtained private funding to help complete a critical engineering report for other private financiers.DOE had never publicly announced the move, but agency officials confirmed the action in an e-mail statement Wednesday.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 5 months ago

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific AmericanBy burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiationBy Mara Hvistendahl http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Sparko 6 years, 5 months ago

I love that they are using consumer-fueled profits to file a frivolous law suit. This suit is ridiculous on its face. States have the right to regulate commerce and pollution within their borders. One might as well sue a state for not wanting to accept bio-waste from other states, or hazardous chemicals. Kansas is about agriculture and the larger world depends on a healthy climate here more than they ever realize.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 5 months ago

I think we should build power plants that are strictly wind and solar. The wind and solar energy would not be used directly to go into the grid. They would be used to make hydrogen. Hydrogen would then be used to power generators like we use now. But instead of coal, hydrogen. You can store hydrogen for a "rainy" day. And in an emergency, you could use natural gas. Don't tell me this is not feasable. We cracked water for hydrogen in eight grade science class. The Navy has been using a form of this technology since the fifties. Any comments?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

Share this video
E-mail to a friend

URL Paste this into an e-mail or IM