|
Go to Original
By Carey Gillam
Reuters
Thursday 29 November 2007
Overland
Park, Kansas - If there is one lesson Kansas officials have learned by
rejecting a proposed expansion of a coal-fired power plant last month,
it is this: Hell hath no fury like business interests scorned.
Six
weeks ago Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Rod Bremby made
Kansas the first U.S. state to reject a coal-fired power plant solely
because of health risks associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Since
then, the state has become ground zero for a nationwide battle pitting
environmental concerns against powerful economic and political
interests.
Kansas
is now facing lawsuits from Sunflower Electric Power Corp and industry
groups while angry state lawmakers are determined to overturn the
denial of the $3.6 billion power plant project, with some even
threatening to dismantle the state department of health and
environment.
The
energy industry also is pouring money into the state to try to overturn
the October 18 ruling, which killed Sunflower's plan to add two
700-megawatt units to its operations in western Kansas, a cash-strapped
rural area.
"Everybody
agrees that motherhood, apple pie and caring about the environment are
fantastic," said Bob Kreutzer, head of the newly formed Kansans for
Affordable Energy. "But we've got to make sure we always have
electricity and that is why we need big power plants."
Coal-fired
power plants make roughly half the electricity generated in the United
States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But in
the past 18 months, about a dozen states including Texas, Florida and
Oklahoma also have rejected plans for 22 new coal-fired power plants.
Unlike
Kansas' health and emissions concerns, those states cited mainly
technical reasons for the rejections as officials increasingly
acknowledge growing public concerns about climate change.
Environment
groups seized on the Kansas decision as a potent precedent they hope
will influence more states to reject new coal-fired power plants, whose
emissions globally are among the biggest man-made sources of greenhouse
gases.
Sunflower Goes to Court
Business
groups and a Republican-led contingent of state legislators are working
to nullify the decision, saying the Sunflower project would create
jobs, provide badly needed energy for the area, and keep electricity
rates in check.
Sunflower
filed lawsuits on November 16 in both state and county courts seeking
to overturn the decision. Sunflower's supporters, which include
business, political and industry leaders, say neither the federal
Environmental Protection Agency nor state statutes consider CO2 a
pollutant. They also say neither the state, Bremby nor the governor has
the authority under state law to limit an unregulated emission.
Similar lawsuits were filed by at least two business groups and a Colorado wholesale electricity supplier.
The
debate also has played out in television and newspapers ads around the
state - with one series claiming leaders in Iran, Russia, and elsewhere
will benefit from the ruling because the state will have to import more
natural gas. Opposing ads rejected the claims as unfounded.
Sen.
Sam Brownback, a Republican who dropped out of the race for president
in October, has weighed in, calling the Kansas decision part of a
"partisan political agenda."
Others
echoed the charge, saying Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, is
using the climate change issue to angle for higher political office.
Sebelius
has defended the decision and said instead of building the new
coal-fired facilities, which would produce 11 million tons of carbon
dioxide a year, she supports alternative sources, such as wind energy.
"Carbon has a huge impact on the atmosphere and global warming is very real," Sebelius said in an "open letter to Kansans."
Regardless
of what happens in Kansas, the tide is shifting away from traditional
coal-based power despite the fact coal is cheap and plentiful, said
Dietrich Earnhart, director of the Center for Environmental Policy at
the University of Kansas.
"People are concerned about global warming," Earnhart said.
"At
the state and regional level leaders are feeling if the federal
government is not going to do something then they will do something,"
Earnhart said. "There is a reason that Al Gore won a Nobel Prize."
Editing by Bill Trott.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. h o t g l o b e has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is h o t g l o b e endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|