Editorial: Don't make Holcomb another crime scene
The proposed coal-fired power plants in Holcomb would contribute 11 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year.
By Lauren Keith (Contact)
Thursday, May 8th, 2008
This tiny town in western Kansas is known by the crimes that have been committed there. It was the location of the Clutter family murders in 1959 that Truman Capote popularized in his work “In Cold Blood.”
Since the book’s 1964 publication, those crimes in the town of Holcomb have mostly faded from the public’s mind. But a new crime is on the verge of being committed, this time by Sunflower Electric, a Hays-based power company that is trying to build two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants in Holcomb.
Carbon dioxide is one of the main culprits of global warming, and electricity generation from the proposed coal-fired generators in Holcomb would emit 11 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. This much carbon dioxide would negate green initiatives taken by the New England states and make Kansas home to the one of the largest single sources of carbon dioxide west of the Mississippi River.
Despite its crimes, Sunflower Electric hasn’t been stopped dead in its tracks.
Opponents of the plant thought their battle was over when Roderick Bremby, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, rejected Sunflower’s application for air quality permits. He cited concerns about carbon dioxide emissions and relied on the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling that declared carbon dioxide a pollutant.
But supporters of the plant are ready to fight to the death, and they have a nice helping hand from the leaders of the Kansas House and Senate, who are both from Western Kansas. After Bremby rejected the permits, the debate moved to the Legislature, which passed two different bills stripping Bremby of his regulatory authority and allowing the plants to be built.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed both bills, but last week the Senate was able to gather enough votes to override the first veto. Since then, the action has been like watching the most time-consuming game of tennis: The complete override of the first veto failed in the House. The Senate overrode the second veto, which the House is scheduled to vote on Friday. Just this past Tuesday, the Senate passed yet another version of the bill, this time tacking a few more “economic development initiatives” onto it.
Although Western Kansas needs an economic boost, a coal-fired power plant is not the way to bring in money. Instead, the Legislature should be sponsoring initiatives to promote energy conservation or for funding for green energy projects like solar panels or wind turbines. These projects look progressively into the future, instead of forcing Holcomb residents to live in the shadows of an outdated coal plant.
In addition, most of the plant’s electricity would be sent out of state, leaving only 15 percent for Kansas, but the state gets to keep 100 percent of the pollution.
Some argue that if the plant isn’t built here, the project will be moved to a neighboring state. But in the wake of Bremby’s decision, other states and energy companies have been paying close attention to the debate. Bremby said 20 projects to build coal-fired power plants have been canceled, three have been delayed and others have been denied at the state level.
It is horrifying that so many members of the Legislature have supported these bills and are neglecting the long-term needs of the state in terms of environmental protection and economic prosperity, which are not mutually exclusive.
The Kansan editorial board supports Marci Francisco, the state senator from Lawrence, and Barbara Ballard, the area’s state representative, who both voted to uphold Sebelius’ veto and protect the environment and the health of all Kansans.
—Lauren Keith for the editorial board
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
The term for adding the coal plant bill to "economic development initiatives" is called "bundling" and is against the state Constitution. The other development initiatives are popular would present economic growth like the proposed rail hub in Gardner. Of course it makes sense to the Senate to sneak in their unpopular bill. If other states wanted this coal plant they would be lining up at the door of Sunflower Electric.
Why do we continue to demonize energy companies that are trying to supply us? In the end, it’s going to be companies like BP, ConocoPhillips, and Texaco that are going to be developing and providing these new sources of energy. What they are REALLY doing is making sure that we aren't living back in the 1800s tomorrow when the electricity is shut off. How many of you could barely function the other night without electricity for 3 hours? The cold, hard fact is that coal works...right now, today. Wind turbines are great, and I'm all for them, once the technology is worth installing. Does anyone in western Kansas have 47,000 square acres of land to spare? That’s how much land it’s going to take right now to put in a wind farm that even approaches the MW capacity of just ONE of these coal plants.
Instead, what does the author propose? Let the government (we all know how effective they are) help subsidize some un-profitable, green "initiatives" in Kansas to give struggling Kansans an alternative source of revenue and jobs to that which these plants would certainly provide. I mean, that worked last time, right? Ethanol is great! Very efficient.
While the sensible people are building coal plants, let’s start building nuclear ones too. Then we'll have real sources of energy to last while we develop alternative sources.
It'd be a different matter if those plants WERE supplying us. The plants Sunflower wants to build are primarily for generating electricity for Colorado.
Scrap the coal plants. We should be building another nuclear power plant in western Kansas.
Nuclear energy is the way of the future. No carbon emissions, small amounts of radioactive waste. Very Safe.
This coal plant should not be constructed. If I were Sunflower Electric, I would be researching alternatives. If they want to be really forward thinking, build a nuclear power plant.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.