The reaction of Sunflower Electric and some western Kansas legislators to state denial of an air permit for Sunflower's two new proposed coal-fired power plant units is disappointing. And it will not prove constructive for a state that should strive to be innovative with energy, environmentally conscious as well as economically growth-oriented.

Sunflower's dissatisfaction with Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Rod Bremby's denial of the permit in October is understandable. But instead of seeking a compromise, Sunflower has hired an army of lawyers and lobbyists so it can go to war with the state.

Some legislators, meanwhile, are reacting like insolent children. They don't like Bremby's decision, so they have decided they will just change some laws and strip his power. The reaction is reminiscent of legislators who recoiled at a state Supreme Court order to pump more money into the state's public school system and wanted to respond by reining in the judicial branch. They likely will go after the state justices again if they uphold Bremby's ruling.

For some legislators, separation of powers apparently is a fine ideal unless they don't agree with another branch of government's decision. Then they want to be king.

So Sunflower, instead of looking for a more environmentally friendly energy project - one that includes more wind energy development - for its western Kansas base, is exploring purchase of power from a new proposed, and also controversial, coal plant 60 miles into Missouri.

A Sunflower spokesman said the company remains "firmly entrenched in our belief that coal is the right thing to do for baseload power."

Yep, Sunflower certainly has not shown an environmental good side in all this. Sunflower hasn't been serious about developing wind energy; it refuses to allocate more than a measly 50 megawatts of wind alongside 1,400 megawatts of coal-generated power, and it isn't getting any more generous with wind exploration even in the face of environmental pressure.

And by looking to an out-of-state coal plant, it also suggests its entrenchment in coal is more important than western Kansas economic development. And/or Sunflower is just being cute in making its point.

Meanwhile, that the Sunflower brouhaha has risen to the top of the Legislature's agenda for this year's session, which starts later this month, is a little sad - at least the way it is being approached. Having a frank but constructive dialogue about energy and environmental policies is timely, but it won't be constructive if all it is about is reversing the Sunflower decision.

To be sure, Bremby may have ventured beyond the scope of his powers by denying the permits. Greenhouse gas emissions have not been specifically regulated at the federal or state levels. But his heart was in the right place. And regulation is sorely needed.

Instead of trying to "throw him out on his keister," as Lindsborg Sen. Jay Emler put it, state leaders should be rallying around Bremby.

They also ought to consider public opinion, which clearly appears to favor renewable energy endeavors - namely wind - over more coal-burning. A poll released last week found that 62 percent of Kansas voters agree with the denial of the Sunflower permit; even 51 percent of western Kansans supported the decision.

Predictably, Sunflower and the usual legislators dismissed the survey, probably without even reading the questions that were asked, saying its results were suspect because the survey was commissioned by the Land Institute, an organization that promotes wind energy.

Wind is not reliable enough to replace coal for all the growth of the state's energy industry. But we do need to strike a balance.

Whether it is environmentalists or Sunflower and its supporters, taking the extremes is not healthy. Coal and wind should not be an either-or proposition. We should do both. The Sunflower proposal had some good elements, but its heavy reliance on burning more coal deserves public scrutiny.

Sunflower executives should concede and legislators recognize that more coal-fired units should not go forward until considered in the broader context of state energy and environmental policies.

Printer-friendly version