Share this Post:

unEARTHED. The Earthjustice Blog

Taking Big Coal to Court in Kansas

    SIGN-UP for our latest news and action alerts:
   Please leave this field empty

Facebook Fans

Related Blog Entries

by Brian Smith:

While much has been made of the $535 million loan guarantee made to the failed Solyndra Corporation in 2009 to encourage alternative energy, you may h...

by Brian Smith:
Collusion in Kansas Force-Feeds Coal Power

Americans are worried about their government. We imagine backroom deals are cut, fates are foretold and the little guy always gets shafted because pow...

by Brian Smith:
Will Sunflower Be Cleanest Coal-Fired Power Plant?

A study released today by MSB Energy Associates calls into question claims that the new Sunflower coal-fired power plant expansion near Holcomb, Kansa...

Earthjustice on Twitter

View Brian Smith's blog posts
14 January 2011, 5:19 PM
Controversial proposal back in the news

The proposed expansion of a coal-fired power plant near Holcomb, Kansas has been the center of controversy for several years. And now the issue is back in the news.

On Friday, Earthjustice attorney Amanda Goodin went to state court to challenge the recently granted air permit allowing the facility.

Our client, Kansas Sierra Club, believes the permit issued last month by the Kansas Department and Health and Environment did not do enough to regulate air pollution and that the process for approval was suspect, considering all the political influence well-documented by Kansas media.

Back in 2007, Roderick Bremby, then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ head of the Health Department, rejected a permit for the plant on public health grounds. When Sebelius left to join the Obama Administration in Washington, the new governor brokered a back-room deal with the coal company to get the plant a new permit. Bremby was vilified by coal supporters for promising to do his job by reviewing the new permit application, and was shown the door late in 2010.

A temporary department head rushed through the permit before new federal pollution standards kicked in on Jan. 2, 2011. This despite 6,000 public comments and packed hearings over this controversial project—and despite the fact that predictions by the coal company and the Colorado utility that will own most of the power from the new plant show that most of the power won’t ever be needed in either state.

What most galls opponents of the plant is that 75 percent of the power would go to Colorado while Kansans would receive all the new pollution. Meanwhile, Colorado has committed to shutting down a number of its coal-fired power plants to clean up air pollution in the upwind state.

No irony-deficiency there.

Why not invest in wind power?---there will be jobs there also--seems like the smart thing to do.

Big Enviro spending their donors' money to deny Kansans jobs and tax revenues to pay for schools. Have you seen the price of arugula at Whole Foods?

Coal jobs for mercury poisoning, air pollution and climate change. Yah, that sounds like a fair trade. Jobs trump everything right?

This wasn't even about jobs, just corporate greed. It cost a lot less to construct a pollution filled plant!

Kansas is a pretty flat state which means there is plenty of wind there. Rather than sacrifice your neighbor's health for a few jobs, why not create even more CLEAN jobs by investing in wind power. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

absolutely! kansas is perfect for wind energy, as well as solar. why we keep seeing this stubborn clinging to outdated technology is not a mystery, though. it's not the most enlightened state in the country, by a wide margin.......

It's rather ironic you should mention "Big Enviro," and "Whole Foods" in the same context; Whole Foods is owned by a corporatist which throws his big money around, sometimes in support of the likes of Monsanto which is at work 24/7 seeing to the destruction of our food chain.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <p> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.