The Garden City Telegram
Email this story | Add Your Comment
| Read (0) Comments
Officials: Continuing opposition, permitting process not unexpected
Published 7/3/2009 in Local News
By STEPHANIE FARLEY
The 2006 public hearings in which people crowded into rooms at the University of Kansas in Lawrence to voice their opposition toward Sunflower Electric Power Corp.'s proposed building of new coal-fired power plants in Holcomb, as well as continuing opposition against the expansion, haven't been forgotten.
Click to Purchase Photo Reprints!
Courtesy photo — The EPA has told Sunflower Electric Power Corp., Hays, it will have to go through the permitting process to begin construction of an 895-megawatt coal-fired power plant at its Holcomb site, seen here. The plant is a compromise after a permit for two plants was denied.
And it's no surprise that opposition toward Sunflower's expansion — now proposed as one 895-megawatt plant instead of the two or three new plants previously discussed — is resurfacing, according to Finney County Economic Development Corp. President Eric Depperschmidt.
Public comment and consideration of possible harmful emissions from the plant expansion led to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment denying the air quality permit in October 2007 for the project the first time around.
Since the compromise allowing for the proposed 895-megawatt plant came in May through Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson brokering a deal with Sunflower, Sunflower reapplied for an air-quality permit last month. The compromise included the passage of legislation aimed at promoting renewable energy and conservation.
On Wednesday, William Rice, the Environmental Protection Agency's acting regional administrator in Kansas City, told KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby the state must treat the proposal as a "new project," meaning the state must start over in its review process of the one proposed plant.
In the letter to Bremby, Rice states that while an agreement was reached between Parkinson, Sunflower and the Legislature, "as we stated at the meeting (of EPA, counsel for Parkinson and representatives of Sunflower and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Assoc. in May), the new Sunflower project contemplated by the agreement must still meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and the Kansas State Implementation Plan approved by EPA under the Act."
The letter also states "the redesign of this new unit, as well as public input on the new project, will need to be considered in determining the form and content of any final permit...."
"Several design changes are anticipated for the larger 895-megawatt unit. Such redesign can lead to changes in emissions impacts on air quality, which could affect the public's concerns about the project. The public should have an opportunity to provide meaningful comment on any such impacts. For example, the following potential changes have been discussed: a relocated stack, which could change the location of significant emissions impacts; one or more additional scrubber modules; and redesign of the coal and other materials handling facilities, which could change the projected impacts of fugitive emissions on air quality in the area."
But Depperschmidt and Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel aren't seeing the letter as cause for much concern.
"I wouldn't see it as a big issue," Depperschmidt said, explaining Sunflower and project supporters knew the issues and opposition surrounding the plant probably wouldn't disappear.
They assumed the environmental groups would still fight. And the environmental groups are.
Earthjustice, a national group still hoping to block the coal plant, said it saw Rice's letter as a victory and believes it could delay construction 18 months.
Sunflower anticipated there could still be future road blocks, Depperschmidt said, which is why no timeline has really come forth outlining the project's schedule.
And Sunflower CEO Earl Watkins already anticipated construction might not start for up to 18 months, Depperschmidt and Hertel stated. A lot of these steps are ones Watkins anticipated and provided a time frame for when going through the permitting process again, Hertel said, adding the meeting with EPA in late May also went through most of what was in the letter.
There's nothing surprising in the letter, Hertel said, and that the utility has been working closely with KDHE on the permit process. She foresees Sunflower having updated information for the permit to the state by early to mid-fall. After that, the process is in KDHE's hands," she said, explaining there's no idea of a timeline at this point.
Depperschmidt also feels there are some big differences this permit process vs. the last public hearing and review process.
The legislation passed as part of the compromise holds that the state can't overstep its bounds in making decisions based on standards that aren't currently in place. Sunflower feels it can meet the current standards, Depperschmidt said.
Another difference is that last time, everyone went into the process feeling they had the support of former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on the plants, he said, but that wasn't the case. This time, Parkinson has signed off on the project, he said, explaining he feels that puts Sunflower "quite a few steps higher on the ladder" than last time.
He also expects the opposition to be in full force once again, saying no one expected "the opposition to go quietly in the night."
"We met the rules and regulations last time," Hertel said of Sunflower, adding the utility feels the agreement with Parkinson and legislation will allow for the permit to eventually be issued.
If KDHE calls for public hearings, Sunflower will abide by that, Hertel said. Hertel also said she hopes those who didn't support the project before will see this time that it will provide jobs, ensure affordable, reliable energy and is environmentally sound.
On the Web:
EPA regional office: http://www.epa.gov/region7/
Kansas Department of Health and Environment: http://www.kdheks.gov/
Sunflower Electric Power Corp.: http://www.sunflower.net
Earthjustice: http://www.earthjustice.org/
Download a copy of EPA's letter to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
What do you think EPA's letter means for Sunflower and the state? Talk about it at SWKTalk.com.
Found 0 comment(s)!
Twitter Updates
