The Kansas Coal Battle
by Greg Haegele, Deputy Executive Director, Sierra Cl 
on 05. 2.08
All eyes have been on the Kansas legislature this week as they look to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto of a bill proposing two coal-fired power plants in the state. The Kansas State Senate did override the veto, but the State House did not achieve an override. Think that's a success? Hold up – there's word that the State House will try again today to override a veto that has the state making a stand for clean energy.
It's been a long road thus far in this skirmish over two proposed coal-fired power plants in the state – all stemming from Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby in Oct. 2007 denying Sunflower Electric's air-quality permit request for two 700-megawatt generators near Holcomb, Kan., "citing concerns that carbon dioxide from the plants would exacerbate climate change and threaten human health."
That decision was major – the first time coal-fired power plants had been denied based on the threat of global warming from excessive carbon emissions. Gov. Sebelius backed Bremby's decision, stating in a release that the "decision will not only preserve Kansans' health and uphold our moral obligation to be good stewards of this beautiful land, but will also enhance our prospects for strong and sustainable economic growth throughout our state."
Sebelius came out in favor of clean energy for Kansas rather than continuing to rely on dirty coal. Not happy with the governor's decision, some Kansas legislators decided to take it into their own hands and push for the plants themselves via legislation – which Sebelius then vetoed. This week, the Kansas legislature was back in session, taking on that veto. (A good history of the legislative process is here.)
Our own Stephanie Cole has been in the midst of all the action. Cole is our Kansas Sierra Club Chapter Representative and said the amount of public outcry against coal has been great so far. When the legislature came back into session on Wednesday, several clean energy proponent groups organized a rally – and more than 200 people showed up to "Pack the Capitol."
"It was a broad group of people – students, religious leaders, mothers, environmentalists, labor unions – it was great," said Cole, who has been at the Kansas State House watching the action all week. It's been an unpredictable time, she added, as new compromise bills have been introduced and rejected, then introduced again - including one compromise that Cole called "a chocolate-covered piece of coal." Now with this second chance for a veto override, Cole said the status changes almost every minute.
Cole knows the eyes of many around the U.S. (and perhaps from outside the U.S.) have been watching this process.
"It is in the hands of the state legislature now," she explained. "It's their time to shine, it's up to them. They've not seen a movement like this ever, with the amount of people who are contacting them about clean energy. With that sort of movement I don't see how they could ignore it or turn a blind eye to it. I would like our state leaders to do the right thing here."
Cole is encouraging her fellow Kansans to continue contacting their state legislators in favor of clean energy and no coal. (If you want to keep up with the ever-changing veto override process today, this blog is a great place to start).
Image credit::Sierra Club
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- The Week's Best DIY Projects: Kid-Friendly Coloring Books, Energy-Saving Chargers, and Woven Coasters
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Are You at Risk From Wind Turbine Syndrome?
- Green Glossary: Intellectual Property
- Sharing Garden Chores with a Friend: Hits and Misses
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
Having lived so close to the original power plan and knowing the farmer that sold Sunflower Electric the land for the new power plant, this topic hits very close to home.
I know that most living in Holcomb and Garden City are hoping that it passes very soon. Mostly due to economic reasons, that amount of construction would be a HUGE boost for the local economy.
I would personally like to see more wind power generation in the area (its hard to find a day without wind in Southwest Kansas). But, it is my understanding that is next to impossible right now due to the fact that Sunflower Electric owns most (if not all) of the power lines in the area needed to get the clean energy onto the grid. Sad.
The Republican majority is bringing out the dirt on this battle. They've been paid well by the coal lobbyists ($790,000 spent lobbying so far). First Republican House Speaker Ingalls accused Gov. Sebelius of using state funds to bribe lawmakers with basketball tickets for a 'no' vote. As is with most things from Ingalls he just pulled it out of his ass as the lawmakers who went with the governor to the basketball game voted the same way they did before the trip.
Another tactic they are doing is suing based on alleged abuse of the separation of powers. Like what Bush claimed about the EPA having no power to regulate carbon emissions the Republicans in Kansas are claiming the state environmental department can't be involved in environmental issues. Kinda like the mayor of the town claiming the town's dog catcher doesn't have the authority to catch dogs.
I live out in southwestern Kansas and wondered about building wind turbines to take advantage of all the wind we get. When I first heard that Kansas had rejected a coal-powered plant, I thought, good for them! But what I keep hearing is that in order for that to happen, we'd need a power plant closer to us in order to be able to use turbines. Does anyone know if this is true?
The other thing I'd heard people talk about is that most of Kansas gets its power from older plants over on the eastern part of the state; the less-populated western part of the state has fewer plants, and pays more for electricity than their eastern counterparts. But because we're rural and are seen as less important, the easterners aren't going to split utility costs with us, but they also vote against us being able to build more plants (which would be at least more efficient and cleaner than the old plants).
It's kind of a bad place to be stuck, if what everyone says is true. The difficulty, of course, is trying to get accurate information that isn't just politically biased. I heard, for instance, our representative claim that coal-powered plants were good because the CO2 helps the wheat grow. Argh.