As the saying goes, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. We strongly believe the real importance lies in not confusing the two.

'Rational Environmentalist' (who presumes to be from Kansas) makes some good points and adds to the dialogue, even while condescending to Mr. Smith for being from California and presumably driving a Prius. That said, RI sure is excruciatingly selective with the facts on the ground regarding the proposed Holcomb Station expansion in Kansas.

So perhaps it is worth noting a few facts that are ignored in RI's rebuttal to Mr. Smith's blog entry:

The proposed plant/permit will mean the Holcomb expansion is actually dirtier - measuring mercury, ozone, particulate matter, and NOx pollution - than hundreds of existing coal plants, including several in Kansas (http://www.gpace.org/blog/the-cleanest-coal-plant-in-the-country-not/).

Baseload power as defined by past grid and fuel realities is not the undisputed understanding of the reality of baseload power on the grid, per FERC Chair Wellinghoff - and others (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/27/27greenwire-ferc-chairman-sees-h...).

All of the activity in Kansas related to the project (including political and regulatory corruption, public misinformation, etc.) is likely being funded by Tri-State, the huge Colorado-based Rural Electric Coop that has pumped a reported $70 million into the Kansas coal plant fight to date, while Sunflower hasn’t even made a dent in its multi-hundred-million dollar debt to American taxpayers for the first coal plant it over-built (a project undertaken using the same justifications as the current project).

Tri-State’s recent 20-year resource plan filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (http://www.tristategt.org/ResourcePlanning/) clearly shows (a) no need for coal baseload capacity until 2027 at the earliest and (b) no plans for transmission from Holcomb (Sunflower also reports no need for near-term coal baseload capacity).

Tri-State is on record (Fitch Ratings & Forbes Magazine) stating it won’t begin construction of the project until 2016 at the earliest (and the project will take approximately four years to build) - so it will provide no jobs prior to 2016 at the earliest, and no "needed" electricity to prevent "rolling brownouts" (as project supporters claim will occur) until 2020 at the earliest.

The Holcomb Expansion coal unit will be phased for the western grid (CO), not the eastern grid (KS), making the electricity it produces unusable by Kansas utilities unless very expensive phase conversion technology is part of the build.

Tri-State retains control over all 895MW of the proposed project’s capacity – the 200MW presumably reserved for Kansas is a verbal agreement only – there is no obligation under the statute created by the Parkinson settlement agreement to keep any electricity for Kansas. Tri-State is the sole equity and power owner of the project and its power (confirmed in sworn testimony by former Sunflower CEO Earl Watkins as part of the federal court review, and available as a public document).

Tri-State and Sunflower are Class A members of the Western Fuels Association (WFA) , meaning both have a significant interest in the specific Powder River Basin (PRB) coal mines in Wyoming that will supply coal to this project, as well as some short-line rail interests related to coal transport.

Kansas has significant, unused, existing natural gas electrical generation capacity (cheaper, cleaner, jobs, in-state fuel source, etc.), and Kansas has significant natural gas reserves - in fact we are a major exporter natural gas (same as above).

Natural gas prices have fallen and in fact there are utilities that have entered into long-term purchase contracts for natural gas at prices comparable to coal fuel purchase agreements, and others that are retiring coal plants to be replaced by natural gas and renewable generation (cheaper, if you count the increased expenses to build and operate coal plants and protect public health from coal-fired emissions).

According to wind developers, the coal plant will almost certainly retard wind development (and jobs, revenue, investment, etc.) in Western Kansas, since its purpose (and that of any related transmission) will be to flood the lines with as much coal-generated electricity as possible.

There are almost certain to be adverse rate impacts if Holcomb 2 comes online (look no further than KCPL's 14% rate increase to cover mismanagement and cost overruns on the Iatan 2 build - almost exact same size as proposed for Holcomb).

And, let's not forget the outright deception of the public and elected officials by project proponents and the resulting corruption of the rule of law, legal and regulatory processes meant to serve the Kansas public as whole, and state elected offices (to the highest level) - all so a Colorado utility can build an unneeded coal plant in Kansas, that Coloradans don't want or need, using the water, air, tax dollars, and lungs in Kansas to support the project.
If you're so inclined, throw in concerns about the global warming impacts exacerbated by this unneeded polluter. If not, forget that, and keep all the above.

It seems pretty clear that the fundamental priority of this project is to burn Wyoming coal for the next 50 years, rather than produce needed electricity or jobs, since the electricity isn’t needed in the near or mid-term future, the jobs aren’t coming any time prior to 2016 (if even then), and the project owners have long-term financial self-interest in burning coal for its own sake. That's our opinion, to be clear, but it's based upon the factual information about the project and the permitting process that is available to the public.

Brian Smith,
Have you ever visited Holcomb KS? Do you have any real understanding of the electric grid? My guess is no to both. You are invited to fly from California any time, sit down with fixed income seniors in Kansas and tell them why you have the right to double or triple their electric rates.

These folks probably have a higher proportion of their electricity coming from wind than you do. Brian, it is possible to strongly support renewable energy, but also understand the basics of baseload stability and economics.

I am an environmentalist and deeply care about new energy technologies. The logic flaw with people like you – is that you confuse being an obstructionist for someone that actually changes the world through solutions. Any idiot can try to block advancement. It is a shame these efforts are not channeled into positive forward progress.

If you keep following the fundamentally flawed logic of an energy obstructionist you will get:

• Older baseload plants will stay in service longer, because cleaner, more efficient plants cannot be built.

• Spend some time researching grid capacity and electricity demand growth and you will see greater instability is coming to the electric grid – base load power is required (even while adding renewables).

• When the power goes out in areas around the country, there will be a race to build baseload power plants. When people see their TV, work computer, and hospital room go dark – people won’t care where the power comes from.

Have you visited a modern coal baseload plant with modern control technologies?

Burning coal is not going to stop anytime soon. It is needed to power your Prius (cleaner than gas). Why not develop technologies that make it even cleaner and then export these technologies to developing countries? Otherwise places like India and China will just buy US coal and burn it anyway. More progress is possible through global technology development/deployment than blocking one plant at a time.

The quickest way for an environmentalist to lose influence with the average consumer or politician is to radically increase energy costs. We are headed in that direction. We need entrepreneurs not obstructionists.

The existing grid and the new grid cannot be developed in isolation. It is not solar vs. coal winner take all. We do that and solar loses. I would encourage you to find solutions that integrate with existing infrastructure. You will get more accomplished environmentally and have more creditability.