Sure a lot of readers responding today on this issue. Seems it doesn't matter what one thinks (there are mixed thoughts on this) what is sure is how the parties will go on till they win. It is mor efor big busines sthan the people of Kansas IMHO!
House assembling for coal override vote:
CJOnline - House assembling for coal override vote
By Tim Carpenter
The Capital-Journal
Published Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. CDT
The Republican-controlled House is gearing up this afternoon to attempt an override of a coal power plant bill vetoed by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
Earlier today, the Senate passed an override of Sebelius’ veto of a bill opening the door to the proposed utility plant expansion in Holcomb.
On a 32-7 vote, senators shifted to the House the burden of sidestepping the governor’s rejection of legislation designed to advance a controversial electric plant project costing at least $3.6 billion.
The Senate previously obtained sufficient votes to override Sebelius on a similar coal-plant bill for the Holcomb project, but House leadership has struggled for weeks to gather necessary support to complete the legislative maneuver.
House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, said while meeting with GOP members in the Statehouse that the full House would attempt an override of a coal bill this afternoon.
Meanwhile, Sebelius today denounced a proposal from legislative leaders for construction of the coal-fired units in southwest Kansas. They had urged the governor to accept development of two 600 megawatt units at Holcomb, a reduction from the original 1,400 megawatt facility contemplated by developers.
"It is my duty to protect the interests of Kansas citizens in every corner of this great state," she said. "Kansans count on me to look at each decision carefully, weighing not only the immediate benefits of today, but the costs and impacts for tomorrow."
Sebelius said her offer of a single 660 megawatt coal unit was still on the table.
"I believe the middle ground may be a single power plant, which emits less pollution and whose priority customers are -- and would always be -- Kansans," Sebelius said.
Utility cooperatives had originally sought two 700 megawatt coal-burning units. More than 85 percent of that new electricity would go to customers in Texas and Colorado.
Sebelius informed leaders of the House and Senate of her decision prior to a news conference in her Statehouse office.
During the 2008 session, the governor has vetoed two bills that would have permitted the coal project to move forward. House and Senate leaders have made advancement of the development a top priority.
Neufeld said he wasn’t surprised by the governor’s rejection of the energy compromise. Sebelius’ idea of a single unit at Holcomb is unacceptable, he said.
"The governor must recognize the plan she offers is essentially a fool’s errand as the economic feasibility of her compromise was simply not a realistic option," Neufeld said.
Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, said too much was at stake for Kansas to miss an opportunity to welcome the project.
"We can either have them located here in Kansas, where we will benefit directly from the jobs, expanded baseload power capacity and the integrated industry associated with the plants, or we can watch the jobs, the revenue and the cleaner coal power go to a neighboring state," Morris said.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Kansas and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado wants to build the plants in Finney County, but the project was stalled by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the govenor's blessing, over the increase in carbon-dioxide emissions.
Reader comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Click here for our full user agreement.
You can rate each comment by clicking the or buttons.
To report an inappropriate comment, click the .
Reader Comments
-1 Rating Posted by: butthead at Apr 30, 2008 at 10:36:16 AM
Such a surprise.
Posted by: BAB at Apr 30, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM
No real compromise was offered. Only a fool would believe that the attempt was real.
-2 Rating Posted by: jdubyaks at Apr 30, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM
I love the way Sebelius compromises. It's her way or no way. Hopefully the legislature can override the veto and allow the $4 Billion dollars in investment that western Kansas truly needs.
-2 Rating Posted by: BAB at Apr 30, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM
The compromise was offered to make folks like jdubyaks think exactly the way his post reads. It was a bluff. It worked. I figured some fool would bite on my post.
Posted by: cabocrazed at Apr 30, 2008 at 11:28:57 AM
Absolutely jdub. Her way or no way - whatever she can do to make herself look good and to h**l with the rest of the State.
-2 Rating Posted by: T-TownTracker at Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58:04 AM
One instead of none is the compromise. Did y'all read the story? The honorable Governor doesn't need to look good. She has done a better job of running this state than anyone in recent memory. The coal plant, being in SW KS, would be spewing pollution over kansas so TX and CO can have electricity. And the $4 billion? how much of that would go to out-of-state contractors? Finally, I've been to SW KS and they don't need the money.
Posted by: 65impala at Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58:10 AM
I think a good compromise would be a 1200 megawatt neuclear plant at that location.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: T-TownTracker at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM
to those that may not be aware, Coal fired power plants are the amoung the worst poluters on earth.
Posted by: kssooner at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:03:20 PM
Sounds like a certain Governor is posturing herself for a possible Vice Presidency or Cabinet position. We all know the talk is out there and a Governor who would allow a coal fired plant in their state would never receive a position like that a Democratically controlled White House.
Posted by: kssooner at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:04:54 PM
T-TownTracker - I thought that was my SUV and the all cattle out in western Kansas.
Posted by: 65impala at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM
T-TownTracker How do you justify yourself by saying some one else does not need the money? Who or what do you base that on? There are souls that live and work there. All you see is sage brush.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: jdubyaks at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM
T-town...your posts just go to show your ignorance of western Kansas. They DO need the economic development. They are losing population to places with better paying jobs. And quite frankly I think western Kansans would be perfectly fine with a nuclear power plant. Only no one has proposed building one, like the proposal for a coal fired plant. But I'm sure if they did, the looney environmental left with Sebelius and her political hack at KDHE leading the charge, would be against that too.
-1 Rating Posted by: blyden at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:34:49 PM
I work at a coal fired energy center and you need to look into all of the pollution control measures that are available to protect the environment that most likely would be in place upon completion of these two units. We our all foolish if you think that wind power is the answer to all of are energy concerns in this country. As we all know you can not predict when the wind is going to blow and at what speed to rely upon that for a source of base load power. We as a country really need to look at nuclear energy for the power of the future because it is clean and a safe alternative to coal. The biggest problem with nuclear is that it is expensive to build.
+ 2 Rating Posted by: kdj699 at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:37:47 PM
The $4 Billion is the cost to build the plant. Only a fraction of that will be in Labor costs which MIGHT stay in Kansas. If Texas and Colorado need the electricity so bad, build their own plants. I have no problem building a plant to power Kansas customers, but not the other states. Typical of Colorado, first they steal our water, now they want to pollute our air!
+ 1 Rating Posted by: jdubyaks at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM
Like I've posted before...the argument about out of state entities buying the electricity is stupid. If that is the standard, we need to shut down the GM plant in KC....virtually all those cars are sold out of state. And you can't tell me that plant doesn't have any pollution. We need to shut down all the aircraft plants in Wichita...because all of those planes are sold out of state and those plants certainly pollute and have polluted for years. So the red herring of selling out state needs to stop.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: Maryhawks at Apr 30, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM
When they removed the fines for pollution and removed the power from the department that they would have to answer too, it became clear that if you research it out, it is not good for the people who live in that area. This is not about economic development. This is about harming the population at the expense of their health.I am a republican who is backing the govenor on this one. It is a matter of being responsible.
Posted by: tkaberline at Apr 30, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM
Even selling power out of state would still bring money into the State and provide jobs in Western Kansas.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: dalemise at Apr 30, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM
When OPEC put its oil embargo into effect in 1973, most energy experts agreed that the best long range energy solution would be nuclear electric plants. Then came Chernobyl in 1968 and that idea quickly died.
But even the most radical evironmentalists now agree that with the new safety features, nuclear is probably our only long range option.
We should probably bite the bullet and build a second nuclear plant in Western Kansas, but the cost is four times that of a coal fired plant and would probably require a State subsidy.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: TopekaIsBoring at Apr 30, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM
Good for the Governor. She proved once again that she's looking out for average Kansans. The Holcomb pollution factory wouldn't add anything to Kansas but dirty air. The contractors to build it would all be from out of state and once it's finished it'll probably take less than a dozen employees to run it. This would be bad for Kansas, and anyone who's honest will agree.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: taylorparton at Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:51 PM
I SUPPORT Our Govenor... WHY? hasnt anyone Looked at the Wind Power that is Running thru Kansas Northern Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, all the way up thru Canada. Kansas is one of the Windiest States in the United States. WIND TURBINES would Generate Lots of Jobs in Western and Southern Kansas they would be Providing Energy to Kansans and be able to be Built right thru Agricultural Fields and Cattle Ranches providing a continous Tax Right off for Property Owners without affecting the People or Animals or Landscape anywhere around them. Coal is Dirty. Try Burning a Coal Stove this Winter and let the Exaust leak into your Home and Inhale, and run your finger acrossed the Wall in the Spring Time...Thats Our Lungs,our Farm Animals Lungs, The Beef and Pork and Poultry and Eggs and Produce We Eat and Feed to the Country for a Profit, and Everyone around a Coal Fire Energy Plant would be breathing this Exhaust... Is GREED Running through Someones Veins? Is That worth the Revenue that would be there til the Coal Ran Out? We Are Kansans, and We have the Best Air in the Country, because the Wind thru the Central United States Continously Circulates, providing us a Fresh Clean Environment where we can Be Proud of Our Yellow Brick Road Story and the Blowing Cottonwood Seeds... WOuldnt it Be worth a Couple Dollars and your Grandchildrens less fortune to have a Filthy Environment...Why dont we if we need a Cola Plant just Pour Concrete thru Our Wheat Fields? Cmon, Our Govenor is an Elected Official. These People comming ointo Kansas with their Granidious Ideals are comming for a Profit. Cmon KANSAS- THINK long and Hard before you Act.
Thanks for Allowing me to Post.
Posted by: topekaray at Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM
Why can't Tri-State build these facilities on the Western Slope?
-1 Rating Posted by: newkyqt at Apr 30, 2008 at 02:33:29 PM
Wailers get the facts and don't swallow all the green tea flying around for solving the worlds energy problems. And I bet my carbon footprint is the smallest in the blog, walk and public transit each day by choice. These plants need built.
Learn about the plant!
Holcomb Station Expansion Project
Jobs would be HUGE....
The $3.6 billion Holcomb Station expansion would create over 2,000 jobs during the six-year construction period and over 200 permanent jobs, including 100 at the power plant. An integrated bioenergy center could create an additional 400 “green” jobs.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: kdj699 at Apr 30, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM
There is a HUGE difference between a General Motors plant making cars and a Coal plant releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. You are using Very flawed logic if you believe that argument. You have committed the fallacy of the undistributed middle. So until you can come back with a better argument then that, I don't want to hear it.
-1 Rating Posted by: kansasman101 at Apr 30, 2008 at 03:00:49 PM
For all you who are against coal fired plants eastern Kansas has many, many more and are among the WORST in the nation.
Why are you not up in arms about these which are in closer proximity to where you live instead of being loud and boisterous about what is going on in western Kansas?
Posted by: TopekaIsBoring at Apr 30, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM
"Why are you not up in arms about these which are in closer proximity?"
Because they're already here, and they're providing power for Kansans. The Holcomb pollution factory hasn't been built and it won't provide very many Kansans with power.
-1 Rating Posted by: jdubyaks at Apr 30, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM
boring...it just goes to show you still don't know what is going on. There is a coal plant already out in Holcomb. This would add to the generation capacity already out there.
-1 Rating Posted by: 65impala at Apr 30, 2008 at 03:58:08 PM
The plants already in use in eastern Kansas have been producing energy for more years than most of you have been living here. Before this political exercise started with Sebelius, I would be sure that most of you wouldn't know a power plant from a hole in the wall. Face it, the plants are aging fast and will need to be replaced with modern facilities. The Tecumseh plant has been in operation since the 20's. The new plant, by design, will be much more efficent and cleaner that you would care to know. kdj699 I love your quote, "So until you can come back with a better argument then that, I don't want to hear it." Nothing like being honest... with your head in a hole.
+ 1 Rating Posted by: kdj699 at Apr 30, 2008 at 04:14:11 PM
I am just saying that the argument that we should should also shut down the GM Plant and the Airplane factories because the products they produce go out of state is flowed logic. If you look at a ratio of Production dollars to tons of pollution released, I am sure all the Airplane factors in Wichita and the GM Plant in KCK don't even come close to that of the proposed Holcomb facility. If the best argument for building a plant in Kansas is, "Well they do it too" (more flawed logic), then I don't want to hear it. Show me how the benefits (Dollars spent in Kansas) out weight the risks (Additional Pollution) and I will buy in to it whole-heartedly. I don't see how 200 permanent full time jobs and MAYBE 2000 temporary construction jobs, out weighs the risk of additional pollutants in the atmosphere.
Additionally, There are a ton of aging power plants in Kansas, they will have to be replaced. Not an issue by me, I am sure they will have greener technology by then to help with that, but it isn't at an additional cost to the environment as the Holcomb Plants are.
-1 Rating Posted by: kansasman101 at Apr 30, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM
KDJ........how the hell you know "they will have greener technology by then?"
What a preposterous statement with NO facts. If you think for a minute a few hundred wind turbines are going to power your home and city you are nuts. These are all well and good and are NOW in use but they will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER churn out enough power for Kansas. EVER
+ 1 Rating Posted by: kdj699 at Apr 30, 2008 at 04:36:06 PM
Have I ever suggested Wind Turbines? I personally am in favor of Nuclear Energy. And I assume that there will be greener tech in the future considering the millions of dollars companies and the government are pouring into research to make them. So maybe there won't be greener tech in the future, but one could only hope so.
Posted by: TopekaIsBoring at Apr 30, 2008 at 04:43:34 PM
jdubyaks said...
"it just goes to show you still don't know what is going on."
You're an idiot. Of course I know that the Holcomb plant would be an expansion. If you were a regular reader of CJonline you'd know that I know what I'm talking about, and I'm correct.
Posted by: mlurp at Apr 30, 2008 at 05:10:10 PM
I only see that the party and big business will go the extra mile to get what they want. From Washington to Topeka.
The GOP rules. And again look at what was done to the Immigration bill. I post some of this from the local news online to try to get others to do the same so we can really see what is going on. Like a big picture not just one issue. If any would like to read from the last several months:
Lets share local news from the editorial/opinion page - Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums