Vetoed Again, Sunflower Electric's Kansas Coal Plant Plans Lose Support

Three vetoes weren't enough to make the Kansas Legislature rethink its push for building more coal-fired power plants.

Now lawmakers have a fourth veto to chew on – plus an imminent ruling from Washington that could make their legislative maneuvering moot, and signs that a key coal power player is losing interest.

In Washington, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is expected to issue a finding this week that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare. The proposed finding passed its White House review yesterday, right on schedule, and it goes to the heart of the Kansas case.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, meanwhile, vetoed the state legislature’s fourth attempt to clear the way for Sunflower Electric to build two huge coal-fired power plants in the western part of the state.

Sunflower supporters in the legislature are still defiant and considering an override attempt, but it might not matter for two reasons: One is the EPA and the other is an important power customer.

Sunflower Electric's plan hinges on selling the coal plants' power to out-of-state utilities. The largest of those utilities, Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission, is having second thoughts. 

At its annual meeting last week, Tri-State’s board of directors said it was re-evaluating its long-term strategy – including its support for new coal-fired power plants – because of the uncertainty surrounding future federal energy policies and the fragile state of the economy.

It listed areas where it planned to increase its investments instead: energy efficiency, renewable energy, natural gas and new technology put to use in the states it serves: Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Nebraska.

“Part of our re-evaluation process will review how coal-based resources fit into our long-term resource plans,” said Ken Anderson, Tri-State’s executive vice president and general manager.

Anderson said the Sunflower plants could be a future option, but they are not a priority.

Sunflower Electric CEO Earl Watkins blamed the Kansas governor for Tri-State's reaction and repeated his argument that without cheap coal power, electric prices will rise.

Under Sunflower’s plan, however, Kansas would end up with all the pollution and future CO2 liability from the two coal plants, but very little of the power. Only 200 of the 1,400 megawatts of power produced would actually be used in Kansas, the governor points out.

Sunflower’s own reports show that it doesn’t need the power, she wrote in her veto message. “We also know that President Obama is moving aggressively to regulate new carbon dioxide emissions." The two plants Sunflower want to build in Holcomb – plants that Watkins claims will be "the cleanest coal plants in the nation" – would pump out about 11 million tons of CO2 annually.

“What was a bad idea last year, is an even worse idea today,” Sebelius said.

The legislature got involved in the coal fight after Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby in 2007 became the first state official to refuse to issue an air permit for the two plants based on the potential danger posed by CO2.

To get around Bremby, the legislature has been trying to remove his office's authority to regulate any power plant pollutants not regulated by the federal government. CO2 is not on the U.S. EPA’s list, at least not yet. The endangerment finding expected this week from Washington could turn that around.

The Kansas legislature returns in two weeks for its wrap-up session, and it will likely attempt to override the governor’s veto. After the past three coal plant vetoes, lawmakers have come as close as one vote from succeeding.