What's The Matter With Kansas? The Fight Against Big Coal Hits the State Legislature, with National Repercussions.

By Simran Sethi, Huffington Post. Posted February 6, 2009.

On October 18, 2007, Kansas made history. Health and Environmental Secretary Roderick Bremby made the landmark decision to deny permits for two new 700 MW coal-fired power plants proposed by Sunflower Electric, on the grounds that carbon emissions from the plants would negatively impact health. "After careful consideration of my responsibility to protect the public health and environment from actual, threatened or potential harm from air pollution, I have decided to deny the Sunflower Electric Power Corporation application for an air quality permit," Bremby said in the official press statement.

Let's be clear, this decision was a game-changer. In his ruling, Bremby stated it would be "irresponsible" to ignore the impacts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on global warming. It was the first time that climate change was cited in such a context, setting a precedent for other decisions of its kind across the nation. In response, Sunflower proposed three bills to the state legislature in 2008 that would have allowed the plants to be built, but all three were vetoed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Now, with the state legislature back in session, Sunflower is continuing their fight to expand the reach of big coal.

If built, the plants in Holcomb, Kansas will belch out about 11 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, to become the largest new source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, equivalent to putting an additional 1.7 million gas-powered cars, light trucks and SUVs on the road. And the expansion could increase the mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants in Kansas by up to 80%. (Mercury's a neurotoxin that can affect the brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, up to one in 10 women in the U.S. already have enough mercury in their bloodstreams to harm the nervous system of a developing fetus.)

While the new plants would increase Sunflower's total generating capacity nearly seven-fold, most of the new power would be exported to Colorado. According to the Sierra Club, only 8% of the energy generated by the plants would provide electricity to Kansas, while the state's hearty winds will blow pollutants like mercury and fine-particle emissions from Garden City to Topeka, and everywhere in between. It's no wonder that the majority of Kansans disapprove of coal: 62% of residents oppose new coal plants at this time, and 75% would like to see more investment in wind energy.

Just 5 weeks into the legislative session, Sunflower has already flooded the state Energy and Utilities Committee with over 40 "energy policy" bills. Though discussions of renewable energy have been included, most fail to take advantage of the state's renewable resources (Kansas is ranked 3rd in the US for greatest wind potential), and instead contain measures that would allow for the expansion of coal, including Sunflower's proposed plants in Holcomb. Yes, we understand coal isn't going to disappear and we accept that it is a part of our energy mix, but it has no place in a renewable energy portfolio--especially not in Kansas, where roughly 75% of the state's energy already comes from coal. (We're not too fond of 20% of our energy being generated by nuclear, either.) The only way to achieve 20% renewable energy by 2020 is to reduce the amount of coal in play. Yet Topeka seems hell-bent on big coal.

See more stories tagged with: coal, kansas, coal plant

Simran Sethi is an award-winning journalist and the Lacy C. Haynes Visiting Professional Chair at the University of Kansas School of Journalism and Mass Communications, where she teaches courses on sustainability and environmental communications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »