WE Blog

Final Wrap up Session from our state house:

COAL PLANTS
The Senate took a vote last night on the newest coal power plant-eco devo-taxation-bonding authority-etc. bill. The vote was 24 to 10, with
6 members absent. It takes 27 votes in the Senate to override a veto.
At least one vote changed because of the mixed subjects in the bill. Senator Vratil of Leawood, an attorney, said that he could not vote for a package that is clearly unconstitutional because it mixes subjects. Two other senators, Roger Reitz, R-Manhattan, and David Haley, D-Kansas City, also defected from the pro-coal forces. Nobody knows how the 6 absentees would have voted. Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, also an attorney, argued for the constitutionality of the measure. All its provisions were grouped under “economic development” and the bill was titled the “Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.”
Around the rotunda this bill is being called “Coal 3.” For the third time in the 2008 legislative session, lawmakers are looking at a bill that would authorize the construction of two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants and strip the state of authority to block similar projects. Now that the Senate has passed the measure, the House will probably approve it today. If that happens, that would likely set up another veto by Gov. Sebelius, who has already rejected two bills authorizing the proposed plants in southwest Kansas, citing concerns about the environmental effects of the project’s carbon dioxide emissions. To that she can now add concerns about constitutionality of the latest bill. Another Sebelius veto would then mean another override attempt could be tried on May 29, the official last day of the session, referred to as sine die. Historically, sine die is not attended by all legislators because they are back at their regular jobs or have other commitments, like graduations and such.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and its two out-of-state partners have been unable to get the two-thirds majorities needed in the House to override Sebelius’ vetoes. So on Coal 3, plant backers married the project to several other economic development initiatives, including tax credits and bonding backing, in one piece of legislation in hopes of gaining more support. House Bill 2412 includes a measure where the state would back $41 million in bonds for the intermodal freight hub — a giant shipping and distribution center near Gardner — and several other business tax cuts and incentives.
The “bundling” strategy was blasted by the Governor and several senators. State Sen. Vratil has supported the coal-burning plants throughout the session, but said the new bill violated the Kansas Constitution prohibition against having more than one subject matter in a single bill. “I cannot vote for a bill that I believe violates the constitution,” Vratil said. But Sen. Nick Jordan, R-Shawnee, said all the provisions are appropriately placed in one bill because they were “extremely important economic development issues.” Vratil shot back that under that definition, just about anything the Legislature worked on could be called economic development and placed in the bill.
Several Democrat Senators filed an official protest over the legislation. The Kansas constitution allows legislators to file such a protest. This strategy was used in the fight over school finance to inform the Supreme Court about the inadequacies in the first bill passed, prior to the special session. “This clearly contains multiple unrelated subjects and therefore is unconstitutional,” said Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka. Both Sen. Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, and Senator Mark Gilstrap, D-Kansas City, who represent parts of Leavenworth County, voted for the bill. The Kansas constitution, Article 2, Section 16, provides that: Subject and title of bills; amendment or revival of statutes. No bill shall contain more than one subject, except appropriation bills and bills for revision or codification of statutes. The subject of each bill shall be expressed in its title. In a statement, Gov. Sebelius said “serious questions have been raised about the constitutionality of this bill.” She said she supported the provisions in the legislation unrelated to the coal plants. “It is unfortunate that the Legislature refused to send the other important issues separately to me so that I could sign them into law in 2008.”
HB 2412 passed the House 76 to 48, one absent. That’s about the same vote that was cast on “Coal 1″ many moons ago.

It was one of the situation where I either was not paying close attention or only caught the tail end of a report. But I think the report was saying something about the bill would restrict the powers of the DHE?

Follow the (coal) money trail, it leads to the Ks. Repub. Legislature!

Phantom- You are right. I wonder if Colorado has to build their own damn plant , will they cut back on the water that flows into Kansas to use for it?I.E., bill us via the back door.