The decision by KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby to deny a permit for two coal-fired power plants in western Kansas will likely have repercussions around the nation, where the decision was being closely watched by the energy industry and regulators.
The Washington Post reported that with the denial, KDHE "became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon-dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant."
Bremby’s decision was made possible by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year supporting the regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Kansas becomes the first — but likely not the last — state to use that ruling as a basis for denying coal-plant permits.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
50 Comments
It’s about time that Kansas returned to its progressive roots.
With the scientific world firmly behind the risks of potential threats to human health, population centers, and climate events caused by climate change, this decision is the right one. I am appalled that Republican “leaders” like Neufeld, Kobach and Journey would call this a political stunt rather than one deeply rooted in US court precedent, scientific fact, and with the best interests of the health and safety of Kansans, Americans and all humans in mind.
While the allure of new jobs in western Kansas is appealing, I am glad that KDHE decided that it was not worth the increased health risks posed with mercury pollution (increased cancer rates, brain damages, and infant mortality), SOx and NOx emissions (which increase the risk of heart and lung diseases), and CO2 emissions (related to increased global temperatures) was more important.
I am even more proud to be a Kansan today than I am normally – thank you Secretary Bremby and Governor Sebelius!
mk,
Indeed. A blue-ribbon day for Kansas.
Good to see the state and people of Kansas leading rather than lagging for a change!
I agree, now we can start puting in Nuclear power plants instead..
As I recall, it used to be nuke plants that the envirowackos protested. Now with counting our carbon output in fashion, it is the coal fire plants. I wonder if, when plans for nukes plants start being made, they will try to stop those too? The answer is an emphatic YES.
Some envirowackos won’t be happy until we are all living like the Amish. Well, except for the role God plays in their lives. Couldn’t allow that.
Sad day for Kansas and for all Americans. “Progressive?” Hardly. It’s Chicken little at its worst.
outlander,
I don’t mind if you build nuclear plants — just don’t make me pay the higher rates that they will cause. I don’t like wasting my money.
Higher end-use energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and other solutions are cheaper, and faster.
Higher end-use energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and other solutions are cheaper, and faster.Posted by: cosmos
Yes, but environmental groups will fight anything.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/101907dntexwindfarm.f2d0d9.html
From hud’s link,
“A group working to preserve the coast, the Coastal Habitat Alliance, said the power lines would cross a major flyway.”
“”"As I recall, it used to be nuke plants that the envirowackos protested. Now with counting our carbon output in fashion, it is the coal fire plants. I wonder if, when plans for nukes plants start being made, they will try to stop those too? The answer is an emphatic YES.”"”"
Things have changed since the days of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl. The power is much more safer and advanced now and when balanced against the pollution of coal plants, it is more desired.
I missed John Stossle handing Al Gore’s ass on a plate. Did anybody see it?
Oh well!
I applaud KDHE decision. Not only for environmental concerns but because there was no benefit for Kansas.
When Kansas does approve an energy plant, it should be for providing energy to Kansans.
John Stossel is a zero credibilty joke.
The truth about Gore’s documentary,
‘Convenient Untruths’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/
Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIbTJ6mhCqk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro&mode=related&search=
“I don’t mind if you build nuclear plants — just don’t make me pay the higher rates that they will cause. I don’t like wasting my money.”
If cost were really your concern Cosmos, then you shouldn’t have lobbied against the coal fire plant.
nathan?
Don’t you have an opinion on the nix of this unnecessary plant?
Kudos to KDHE?
Costs Out?
Can you explain your last?
BUILDING a plant costs money which the utility passes to its customers.
NOT building it costs nothing.
JR,
You keep saying the plant wasn’t needed and now you say unnecessary.
Based on what?
Obviously someone thinks it is needed and wanted if they are willing to build it.
So what on earth to you base saying it is not needed on?
Obviously there is a demand for power and this company wants to fill it.
The power was not for Kansas Nathan.
It was meant for Colorado.
I’ve heard of no blackouts or even brown outs there. Have you? Got a link?
And you are rather late to this fight. It’s over. Yes concerns as to global warming contributed to the decision. But, if YOU saw this plant as important why have we not heard from you before as to it?
JR,
The timing of my response doesn’t do anything to prove or disprove whether or not I supported this plant.
Black outs and brown outs are signs of waiting too long to build more supply.
They are not signs that it is time to start building more supply.
That is like saying getting a cavity means it is finally time to go see the dentist as opposed to getting your teeth cleaned to prevent the cavity in the first place.
Ok Nathan, that’s fair.
Can you show why this plant was needed?
Save illegal immigration, there is no surge in population. Devices are getting more energy efficient not less. Consumers are becoming more energy conscious as well.
The plant won’t be built. Feel free to show why that is a mistake.
JR,
You were the one to claim that the plant was not needed and unnecessary.
I asked you why.
Turing around and asking me to prove why it is needed is not an answer.
I have yet to assert that the plant is needed and do not feel obligated to prove it.
I am asking you for your reasons for saying it is not needed.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/Tri-State%20report%20update%201pr.pdf“· Tri-State already has sufficient capacity to meet the growing power demands of its members without building any of the new plants.
· Any growth in member demand that has occurred is not nearly as large as the company claims, and those increases can be characterized as suburban-type seasonal demand, which doesn’t require additional baseload capacity from coal.
· Much of Tri-State’s growth plans are speculative at best. In fact, according to its own projections, Tri-State will have 1,200 megawatts more in total power obligations than it needs simply to meet member co-ops’ energy demands, yet it is not saying for what. In all, the 2,100 megawatts it plans to build will result in capacity exceeding total power obligations by a whopping 1,600 MW.
· Tri-State’s long-term commitment to new coal-fired power is a huge financial risk, for reasons ranging from rising costs for coal and rail delivery to millions of dollars in additional costs for controlling greenhouse gas pollution.
“Tri-State doesn’t have any solid justification for building even one of these plants,” said Rick Gilliam, senior energy policy advisor at WRA and author of the report.”
“If cost were really your concern Cosmos, then you shouldn’t have lobbied against the coal fire plant.”
Posted by: outlander | October 19, 2007 at 09:55 PM
False. Higher end-use energy efficiency is cheaper than building new coal-fired plants.
And coal will be hit with carbon taxes in the future.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org
In the “Media/Docs” 2006 press release archives,
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/Tri-State%20report%20update%201pr.pdf
“But the WRA analysis demonstrates that the company is dramatically inflating those forecasts to justify the plants.
…According to the WRA analysis, Tri-State’s wholesale rate could spike 80 percent above current rates by 2011 and 160 percent by 2019 as a result.”
OK Nathan now you are being silly.
The time for you to show why this plant was needed is over. It will no be built.
NOW it is your time to prove why this was a mistake.
I wonder why they don’t use those coal mines that are already burning underground as a source of energy?
JR,
The decision for this plant not to be built is based on unfair political bias.
I bet you it will get overturned in the courts.
The plant was meeting more stringent restrictions on emmisions and protecting the environment than ever before.
The plant was going to be in full compliance with all federal and state laws.
“The decision for this plant not to be built is based on unfair political bias.”
Posted by: Nathan
Nathan believes that the Supreme Court is “unfair political bias”? LOL!
“The decision by KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby”
Cosmos,
Where do you get the Supreme court from?
Sunflower could not prove this plant necessary Nathan.
Can you?
Like I say, you are late to this fight.
I said MONTHS ago, “show me this plant will replace an older dirtier plant and I will consider it.”
I can get you a link if you like.
No such pitch was ever made.
JR,
That is a red herring.
Was the plant permit turned down because it wasn’t needed or because of the CO2?
Nathan, did not you read Randy’s third paragraph?
“Was the plant permit turned down because it wasn’t needed or because of the CO2?”
Well Nathan, I would say both.
No need local or otherwise for the plant was shown. The power was not for Kansas anyway and the losses to the State in water and to pollution were clearly known.
Just a week ago, Sunflower threatened: “We’ll build the plant in Oklahoma!” Go look there is a thread about it.
Oklahoma didn’t want it either.
JR,
Everything I have read about Rod Bremby’s decision to deny the permit was based on the emmisions and Global Warming.
Do you have information from KDHE or Rod Bremby which show the decision was made because the plants were not needed?
Too easy Nathan
Again, can you show the plant WAS needed?
Sunflower couldn’t.
JR,
Once again. Pay attention.
The decision to deny the permit was based on the CO2 emmisions and global warming.
The plant being “needed” is you introducing a red herring into the discussion.
I promised other thread to shut up.
Need would have trumped here if it were demonstrated don’t you think Nathan?
Now I will listen.
JR,
No I don’t. The decision, which is getting national recognition, is based on the CO2 emmisions and Global Warming.
I’ll let you get the other thread before I comment.
I need to sleep too Nathan.
Again, if there was a need for this plant, demand would have won out.
Don’t you want to be on that side Nathan? Kansans didn’t want this. It doesn’t matter why. What the people wanted won out because the people were not convinced otherwise.
JR,
Where do you get people?
One man made this decision, and that decision was made based on the CO2 emmisions and Global Warming.
Was there a vote on this I missed?
Sigh…..
Nathan?
The gov. knew this was a football. She passed it off to a functionary. That’s politics. Do I wish she would have taken the decision herself? Yes.
Public opinion won here Nathan.Kansans didn’t want a plant that polluted our air and sapped our water for someone else.
And neither Sunflower nor you post fact can dispute that on the merits. Do remember how fair I was with you here. I don’t want to beat you.
Fair is not the word that comes to mind JR.
Unresponsive…
Evasive….
Nathan,
There does not seem to be any pressing “need” to build the two coal plants that were denied permits.
Originally there were supposed to be 3 new coal plants in Holcomb — the 3rd one was cancelled earlier.
In simple terms there are 2 options here:
1) Spend $3.6 BILLION to build the 2 coal plants, and have excess capacity. Watch rates go up, to pay for the new plants. Plus watch rates go up more later, due to carbon taxes.
And if CO2 has to be cut sharply in the future, the new plants may have to be shut down. Or if the technology becomes feasible, spend more money to retrofit, and capture the CO2.
Or 2) Invest parts of that same $3.6 BILLION, as needed, in higher energy efficiency to cut future demand, and also in renewable energy.
Coal-fired plants have a lifetime of many decades.
Just because big, centralized coal-fired plants were built in the past does NOT prove they are the wisest choice for today, and the future decades.
…and no one gives a rat’s ass about the WATER this plant will use? I’m happy the CO2 issues is being addressed, but the WATER issues were far more damaging to Kansas.
Nathan – the decision was also based on Hg emissions. They constitute a significant health risk to those downwind which includes all of the populated areas of the state.
That’s what I couldn’t figure out about the Holcomb plants is who was needing the energy?
It certainly wasn’t anyone in Kansas as far as I know they sell their excess energy to other states.
I’ve always been NIMBY on coal use as it is quite polluting and the processes to control it haven’t been improved much over the years.
A lump of coal in the stocking of the Holcomb supporters unfortunately. It had so many strikes against it, it was a failed from the start.
Well Nathan, I would say both.
No need local or otherwise for the plant was shown. The power was not for Kansas anyway and the losses to the State in water and to pollution were clearly known.
Just a week ago, Sunflower threatened: “We’ll build the plant in Oklahoma!” Go look there is a thread about it.
Oklahoma didn’t want it either.
Posted by: J R | October 19, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I didn’t forget the water kfg!
Thank you JR. Water issues continue to be the third rail of Kansas politics.
Will ANYONE have the courage to address it before the water is gone?