She said that she would support a much smaller expansion of the Holcomb coal plant.

However, throwing all caution and concern for the earth to the wind, the dogmatic Kansan lawmakers (who are for the most part receive huge campaign contributions from Sunflower Electric, the largest owner of the Holcomb coal plant) have tried twice to ram through new pieces of legislation that would overturn the permit denials and allow the original coal expansion to go forward. The lawmakers even tried, through language in the same proposed legislation, to reduce the reach of the Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment. Both bills would have stripped some power from Rod Bremby and Kathleen Sebelius.

In fact, it seems that Kansas lawmakers have done nothing else this spring. They haven't concerned themselves with our economic woes, our unaffordable healthcare or the uninsured or hungry children in Kansas. No, lawmakers in this state seem to have cared only about one thing - the approval of coal plant expansion.

Twice, our brave Governor vetoed those coal expansion bills.

(And, I, for one, a western Kansan, couldn't be prouder of my governor. I've even asked myself why my elected legislators are spending all their time looking for ways to increase profits for a private corporation, like Sunflower Electric? Weird huh?)

Throughout these arduous months of constant attack by the pro-coal groups, Governor Sebelius has remained firm in her desire to limit greenhouse gases produced in Kansas - and, she's continued to state her desire for compromise.

To date, state lawmakers have not been willing to compromise.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' top energy adviser said today that her administration is considering steps to block two coal-fired power plants even if legislators insist on allowing them. Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson promised the dispute over the two plants won't end even if legislators override Sebelius' veto of a bill authorizing their construction.

"We're certainly going to evaluate all of our options," Parkinson said. "I assure you, there are multiple options, and if Sunflower's out there telling people that all they need to do is get this veto overridden and the plants will be built, and if they believe that, they're sadly mistaken."

Sunflower (the Hays, Kansas, company wanting to build the plants) spokesman Steve Miller said Parkinson's comments were regrettable but declined to criticize him. Miller said the utility will continue working through whatever legislative and court challenges are necessary to see that the plants get built.

Opponents of Governor Sebelius' vetoes claim that her blocking of the coal permits is costing the state jobs and economic investment and they keep warning of higher electric bills for Western Kansas, unless the plants are built. Yet, there's no proof that the coal plants will keep our electric costs down.

And, a landmark report released last month by an esteemed financial research firm finds that, in fact, Sebelius has been acting in her state’s best economic interests. Innovest Strategic Value Advisors finds that Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, the company whose proposal was denied, failed to account for the effects of the likely regulation of carbon dioxide on the cost of coal-fired electricity when it sought to build two 700 MW coal plants in Holcomb, Kansas:

Innovest examined the economics of the transaction and determined that under the most plausible regulatory scenarios the decision to build new coal generating capacity will put Sunflower Electric’s ratepayers – who in this particular case are the actual owners – at significant risk. The report concludes that Sunflower’s management has not adequately addressed the competitive and financial risks associated with climate change in deciding to pursue the expansion of its Holcomb Station power plant.

Sunflower was remiss in not considering that federal legislation that places a price on carbon emissions is extremely likely, considering the bipartisan support and strong international pressure for such action.

The report compares the economics of coal plants versus natural gas plants, which have a considerably smaller carbon footprint, and concludes:

In general, this analysis demonstrate that gas is the more financially sound choice for the construction of baseload generating capacity in all scenarios except 100% free allocation [to power companies] of carbon allowances.

In her official veto message, Governor Sebelius said,

“Of all the duties and responsibilities entrusted to me as Governor, none is greater than my obligation to protect the health and well-being of the people of Kansas. And that is why I supported the decision of the Secretary of Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding Kansas’ energy future. For that reason, I must veto House Substitute for SB 327.

“This decision not only preserves Kansans’ health and upholds our moral obligation to be good stewards of this beautiful land, but will also enhance our prospects for strong and sustainable economic growth throughout our state. Instead of building two new coal plants, which would produce 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year, I support pursuing other, more promising energy and economic development alternatives.

“With the increasing pressure for the federal government to develop national standards for carbon emissions, there is a high probability coal will become a lot more expensive in the next several years. Countries throughout Europe and South America already have standards in place and states are following suit.

“Federal legislation has been introduced that would have the net impact of taxing carbon. If any of the proposals are adopted, utility companies and their customers will pay far more for energy which produces carbon. It will also require spending billions on equipment to clean the atmosphere as thoroughly as possible. Building additional coal plants now is likely to create a significant economic liability for Kansas in the future...

“This bill goes well beyond this specific project by stripping emergency powers from the KDHE Secretary and prohibiting the consideration of any standards beyond the Clean Air Act.

“It not only mandates 11 million tons of new carbon for power we don’t need, but invites other coal plants to be sited in Kansas while eliminating any requirements to mitigate their environmental and health risks for our citizens...

“My offer of a compromise energy proposal, with additional base load power for Western Kansas, combined with mitigation strategies and additional wind power is once again extended, and I am hopeful that some serious consideration can now occur...."

Coal-fired power plants are one of our nation's largest - and dirtiest - sources of energy. Although these plants already produce about half of our electricity, there are plans on the drawing board to build over 150 new plants in the next few years all over the U.S.

With new laws to fight global warming expected on the horizon (but not here yet), the coal industry is in a big rush to build as many new plants as possible before pollution safeguards are in place. In an industry motivated by the bottom line, it's not surprising that 85% of this "new generation" of proposed plants would use the same old technology that creates the global warming pollution.

Coal has been a mainstay for utilities. But it's also one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. At least 16 coal-fired power plant proposals nationwide have been scrapped in recent months and more than three dozen have been delayed as utilities face increasing pressure due to concerns over global warming.

Kansas already relies more heavily on coal-fired plants than the nation as a whole, receiving 75 percent of its electricity from them, according to Department of Energy statistics.

Together the Holcomb plants would have produced 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, nearly as much as a group of eight Northeastern states hope to save by 2020 through a mandatory cap-and-trade program they plan to impose. The attorneys general from those states had written a letter opposing the permit. The attorneys general of California, New York and six other states had said approving the plants would undercut their states' efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions.

No one can blame the private for-profit energy companies for ardently defending their company's desire to grow industry locally.

No one can blame the unions for advocating for the permit so that jobs would be created, and no one can lay blame on the local residents in southwest Kansas for wanting to have industry growth in their region.

Even so, their support of big coal despite the ill effects it will have on our water, atmosphere and soil seems selfish, environmentally careless, and opposed to the overall common good.

You see, those coal plants won't only impact Finney County, Kansas - those coal plants would negatively effect our entire region, and, ultimately our entire planet.

Fortunately for all of us, the governor of Kansas and her cabinet care about the future quality of our air, soil, water and public health.

My view is that the cost to the environment outweighs any economic benefit that would be gained by building these plants. (Mark Parkinson, Kansas Lt. Governor, co-chairman of a Kansas state energy council, Dodge City Globe)

Forty percent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year comes from coal-fired power plants, and pollution from these plants has killed more than half a million Americans in the last two decades.

Additionally, coal-fired power plants emit large quantities of toxic air pollutants such as chromium, lead, arsenic, hydrogen chloride, and mercury. In fact, they are one of the largest sources of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S.

After mercury is released in the exhaust, it enters the air and then rains down into our streams, lakes, and other waters where it poisons the fish and seafood that eventually make their way to our dinner tables. The mercury problem in the U.S. is so widespread that every year one in six women of childbearing age has mercury levels in her blood high enough to put her baby at risk.

The same air pollution that causes smog, soot and climate change also causes acid rain. Acid rain occurs when power plant emissions like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with water and oxygen in the air to form acidic compounds that fall to the ground. Acid rain falls onto plants and trees and eventually ends up in lakes, streams, and the soil. Once in the environment, the acidic compounds cause different kinds of environmental damage, including damage to trees, loss of aquatic life, and detrimental changes to the soil.

Here in my state of Kansas, the growth of coal plants in the Holcomb not only would threaten the health of all citizens living near atmospheric drift, but, these plants directly poison and deplete our ground waters. Water is too scarce and too precious to risk simply for the sake of short-term profit or the illusion of some sort of industrial or economic growth.

The proposed growth of the Holcomb coal plant would emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, including mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recognized the need for public health agencies to take the lead on educating the public about the health impacts of climate change and has adopted priority health actions to prepare for, respond to and manage the associated health risks of climate change.

In the past, air permits, which are required before construction of combustion facilities, have been denied over emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. Now, carbon dioxide is also an air pollutant - not just because Bremby or Sebelius said so - but because the Supreme Court has also recently said it's so.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that carbon dioxide was a pollutant regulated by the federal Clean Air Act. In its ruling, our nation's highest court found EPA's refusal to regulate CO2 had caused both "actual" and "imminent" harm to Massachusetts, primarily in the form of rising sea levels on the coast. The court's majority also noted that "harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized."

Kansas state officials have taken into account the Supreme Court ruling, the directive from EPA, the science regarding CO2 emissions and other factors. Recent decisions by the the EPA and the Supreme Court also signal the importance and legality of states such actions to protect health.

"I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing." (Rodney L. Bremby, Secretary, Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment)

Hooray. KDHE rightly says that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment. Other states are likely to follow suit. Why? Common good trumps individual greed. Environmental justice trumps corporate size.

These pollutants would poison our air, our atmosphere, our water and our soil!

In the midst of this rush to build, we owe it to ourselves and our children to slow down and to consider the truth behind coal before we lock ourselves into a new generation of polluting plants that will be with us for the next 50 years.

What pleases me the most is that in our red state of Kansas, our leaders are showing some additional colors. Today, we are proudly wearing green - might Kansas be blue tomorrow? The horizon is looking better and healthier and more colorful all of the time.

I believe that by addressing the energy challenges we face, Kansas will be a leader in energy policy while protecting our environment and growing the economy. I hope the House and Senate are able to work together on this important issue to find a well balanced approach. (Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas)

Leaders in our state government have demonstrated the will and the courage to stop the increase of these threats to our health despite the constant onslaught from pro-coal legislators in the Kansas House and the Kansas Senate.

Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet?

(Ezekiel 34:18-19, New International Edition)

Thank you, Secretary Bremby and, especially, Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

This Earth Day belongs to you.

We are so proud of you.

You make us proud to be Kansans!

Thank you.