Several months have passed since a state regulator's decision pushed a massive utility expansion plan under a cloud of uncertainty.

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby in October 2007 rejected the request for an air quality permit needed for the planned $3.6 billion expansion of the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. plant at Holcomb.

In his controversial ruling, Bremby cited carbon dioxide emissions from the bigger facility, and their impact on the environment. The addition of two 700-megawatt coal-fired power plants would result in annual emissions of 11 million tons of CO2, the greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

But one problem with Bremby's decision -- and there were many -- was that neither the state nor federal government regulate CO2. As a result, the fallout of Bremby's arbitrary decision dominated the legislative session as lawmakers worried about the economic impact of such a move rolled out a series of bills intended to reverse the ruling.

That's led to an ongoing exchange between Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who so far has vetoed two of those bills, and legislative leaders who continue to threaten an override. And Kansans no doubt are growing weary of the back and forth and lack of progress.

The hope all along was that Sunflower and its project partners could work with the state in finding a solution that not only satisfies the need to provide affordable electricity amid growing demand, but also addresses environmental concerns and the interest in wind energy development.

The latest legislative pitch would be a step toward that goal. The plan calls for a 200-megawatt reduction in the project size that reduces CO2 emissions by 1.5 million tons annually, and accelerated development of wind resources.

Utilities involved also have vowed to pursue innovative technologies to mitigate CO2, and to expand energy efficiency efforts to reduce system demand.

The most recent proposal shows Sunflower and its partners understand the need to give on their end to find an answer that addresses all fronts -- economic, energy and environmental.

The question is whether the governor is willing to show leadership by being open to solutions that may not cut the project in half, as she had recommended, but rather offer real compromise and an end to the impasse that's keeping Kansas from moving forward.