Sunflower decision a foregone conclusion


Protective Relay Training - Basic

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 12 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$699
Coupon Price:
$599
Reserve Your Seat Today
The rush job on a permit for a coal-fired power plant by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. could be bad news for Kansas, well beyond the southwestern corner where the facility would be built.

While a previous review of 800 comments on the plant took 16 months, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment now appears to be hurrying through 6,000 comments in six months, with state employees working unpaid into the night to get the job done. Critics believe the rush is to help Sunflower get a permit before the year ends, meaning the power company could avoid installing greenhouse gas controls that could cost tens of millions of dollars.

Coupled with lame-duck Gov. Mark ParkinsonÂ’s abrupt dismissal of former health and environment director Roderick Bremby, a voice of caution on the plant, the speeded-up process indeed looks suspiciously like a rush for a foregone conclusion.

Helping a power company avoid eco-friendly updates, however, is not in the best interests of the state or its citizens.

A new coal-fired plant is not a small matter and must be taken very seriously. The power produced, after all, would largely travel west into Colorado. To reduce its emissions, Colorado is considering shutting down about the same amount of power production that the proposed plant in Holcomb, Kan., would produce.

We hope that while state employees donate their time to a project that has little projected impact on KansasÂ’ energy needs, theyÂ’ll keep the best interests of Kansas citizens in mind. But the rush job makes it even more essential that the federal Environmental Protection Agency take a careful look at the permit process and whether it is being handled correctly. Regional Administrator Karl Brooks has publicly said the EPA would do just that. ItÂ’s good to see someone emphasizing due diligence.

Related News

Maritime Link sends first electricity between Newfoundland, Nova Scotia

Maritime Link HVDC Transmission connects Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to the North American grid, enabling…
View more

SaskPower reports $205M income in 2019-20, tables annual report

SaskPower 2019-20 Annual Report highlights $205M net income, grid capacity upgrades, emissions reduction progress, Chinook…
View more

Energy UK - Switching surge continues

UK Energy Switching Surge sees 600,000 customers change suppliers in October, driven by competition, the…
View more

Warren Buffett-linked company to build $200M wind power farm in Alberta

Rattlesnake Ridge Wind Project delivers 117.6 MW in southeast Alberta for BHE Canada, a Berkshire…
View more

Power customers in British Columbia, Quebec have faced fees for refusing the installation of smart meters

NB Power Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees reflect cost causation principles set before the Energy and…
View more

Germany's Energy Crisis Deepens as Local Utilities Cry for Help

Germany energy liquidity crisis is straining municipal utilities as gas and power prices surge, margin…
View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2026 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified