By Tim Carpenter
Allegrucci said financial, scientific and regulatory elements changed since Sunflower built its lone unit 30 years ago."The current project ... would import coal from Wyoming, deliver electricity to Colorado and rely upon Kansas air and water for decades," he said.In January, Sunflower requested the new air permit for an 895- megawatt generating unit. The company's latest public estimate pegged the cost at $2.8 billion.Earl Watkins, Sunflower's president and chief executive officer, said the decision was "arbitrary and capricious" because the federal government didn't regulate the compound as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.Rod Bremby's desk on the fourth floor of Curtis State Office Building in Topeka is 342 miles from the tiny community of Holcomb."We know there is a lot of interest out there," Bremby said."We need base load power," said Cindy Hertel, a spokeswoman at Hays-based Sunflower. "The demand for energy continues to increase. We need diverse generation resources, but certainly base load power is essential to our way of life.""There will be 200 megawatts allotted for Kansas. It's going to effect 500,000 people in Kansas," she said.It was Bremby who became the first state regulator in the nation to justify rejection of an air quality permit for a new coal plant by declaring carbon dioxide emissions a public health hazard."We're on record saying we support and believe in traditional generating resources," he said.Relighting the fuseStephanie Cole, who works with the Sierra Club in Kansas, said the tide was pulling against development of coal-fired plants in the United States. No single coal plant broke ground in 2009, she said. Twenty-nine projects were shelved. Developers voluntarily walked away from projects, she said, citing financial risks to ratepayers, diminished demand for electricity and the uncertain regulatory future.In return, he was inundated by political and industry advocates of a coal rush. Environmentalists spiced the conversation by declaring investment in coal a fool's errand. And there were regular folks who seek nothing more than a reliable source of power when flipping the light switch at home. These actors hit the stage with scene-stealing lobbying campaigns, tight votes on coal legislation, gubernatorial vetoes, brokered backroom deals and lawsuits.The coal debate consumed the 2008 legislative sessions. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed three bills written to reverse Bremby's decision. The stalemate dragged on until Sebelius resigned in 2009. In short order, Gov. Mark Parkinson negotiated an agreement allowing Sunflower to proceed with an 895-megawatt expansion. A bill was passed to prevent Bremby from stepping beyond federal law on emissions. Sunflower agreed to build transmission lines, invest in wind power and promote energy efficiency.THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL"We know a lot more today about the impacts of these previous bad decisions," Allegrucci said. "The risks associated with outdated 20th-century technologies incurring significant additional debt and unknown additional environmental costs, are not the legacy we wish to leave our children."Scott Allegrucci, executive director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, said the expansion of Holcomb was "inconsistent with the historic values of our state."Tri-State spokesman Jim Van Someren said the Colorado cooperative's board of directors had made no final commitment to the Kansas project. The bond rating firm Fitch Ratings reported in May regulatory and environmental push back on Holcomb meant "Tri-State has revised its power supply plan and pushed the planned construction of a single Holcomb unit beyond its original 2013 start date to 2016 at the earliest."Another runVan Someren said speculating about a completion date was unproductive because so many external forces were in play. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could flex its regulatory muscle in Kansas. Congress could pass a cap-and-trade measure altering the financial landscape for new coal units. In the interim, Tri-State is investing in a wind farm in Colorado and solar facility in New Mexico."They're not doing it because they're members of the Sierra Club," Cole said.Poison legacyFor all the drama he's endured as secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment about planning for expansion of a coal-fired power plant in that southwest Kansas town, his office might as well have been inside one of the old 3,000-degree furnaces Sunflower Electric Power Corp. relies upon to generate electricity at the facility.Bremby will conduct public hearings in Overland Park, Salina and Garden City before making a final ruling on Sunflower. He might not finish before installation of a new Kansas governor in January. The decision might fall to the next KDHE secretary. Regardless of party or philosophy, the case will be a magnet to the person in the hot seat at Curtis Office Building.The rural electric cooperative is now pressing for authority to build a 795-megawatt coal unit at Holcomb. KDHE will gather public comment on the permit through Aug. 15, and then focus on the latest permit decision.Hertel said KDHE had 18 months to issue a final decision. That deadline could send the outcome to December 2011. If approved, 48 months to 52 months would be required for construction, which could place the opening in 2016. She said Sunflower's demand for electricity would grow in 2019 with expiration of a power purchase contract with Jeffrey Energy Center northwest St. Marys.Sunflower, which serves customers in western Kansas with a 360- megawatt coal-burning plant, has sought to expand for a decade. The current proposal is the third since Sunflower executives asked KDHE in 2001 for permission to put up a 660-megawatt unit called Sand Sage.The out-of-state cooperatives would invest heavily in the project to guarantee access to a majority of energy generated at Holcomb II. Sunflower would earn management fees from its partners."We're going to try to make this as transparent as we can," Bremby said.The process went sideways when Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison issued a legal opinion declaring Bremby had authority to deny a permit if the project was deemed a threat to people or the environment. Less than one month later, Bremby rejected the permit. He said the rise in carbon dioxide emissions was an unacceptable risk.
"We know there is a lot of interest out there," Bremby said.
No comments:
Post a Comment