January, 14 2011, 03:29pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Stephanie Cole, Sierra Club, 402.984.1122
Amanda Goodin, Earthjustice attorney, 206.343.7340 ext 20
Bob Eye, Sierra Club attorney, 785.234.4040 work
Sunflower Coal-Fired Power Plant Expansion Faces Legal Challenge
Lawsuit cites failure to meet Clean Air Act standards, improper permitting process
TOPEKA, KS
Today,
Earthjustice, representing the Sierra Club of Kansas, filed an appeal
to a permit the Kansas Department of Health and Environment issued to
Sunflower Electric in December 2010. The permit is for the
controversial 895 megawatt coal-fired power plant near Holcomb.
Read the petition filed today, here:
"As the mother of two sons with
asthma, I am aware of the correlation between respiratory health and
air quality. Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates and other
hazardous pollutants threaten the health of those
with respiratory illness, children and the elderly in particular," said
concerned Kansan, Jennifer Byer. "When the debate centers on the quality
of the air our children breathe, how clean is clean enough?"
asthma, I am aware of the correlation between respiratory health and
air quality. Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates and other
hazardous pollutants threaten the health of those
with respiratory illness, children and the elderly in particular," said
concerned Kansan, Jennifer Byer. "When the debate centers on the quality
of the air our children breathe, how clean is clean enough?"
The proposed coal plant was the
most intensely contested coal plant in Kansas history, as well as one
of the most debated permits KDHE has ever considered. The permit was
rushed through and undermined by outside influences,
which was well-documented by Kansas media.
most intensely contested coal plant in Kansas history, as well as one
of the most debated permits KDHE has ever considered. The permit was
rushed through and undermined by outside influences,
which was well-documented by Kansas media.
"Kansans who expected to
receive a fair and objective review of this permit will take the issue
to court," said Stephanie Cole of the Kansas Sierra Club.
receive a fair and objective review of this permit will take the issue
to court," said Stephanie Cole of the Kansas Sierra Club.
The appeal challenges
deficiencies in the permit that could expose Kansans to unnecessary
levels of harmful air pollutants including mercury, acid gases, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, volatile organic
compounds, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. For instance, the
permit fails to set appropriate limits on Hazardous Air Pollutants, such
as mercury, which are the most harmful to human health - even in small
amounts.
deficiencies in the permit that could expose Kansans to unnecessary
levels of harmful air pollutants including mercury, acid gases, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, volatile organic
compounds, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. For instance, the
permit fails to set appropriate limits on Hazardous Air Pollutants, such
as mercury, which are the most harmful to human health - even in small
amounts.
"KDHE let Sunflower take
shortcuts and ignore available pollution control technology; as a
result, this is one of the dirtiest plants that has been permitted in
recent years. Public health and pollution controls cannot
be brushed aside under federal law, the Clean Air Act is quite clear on
this," said Amanda Goodin, an attorney with Earthjustice.
shortcuts and ignore available pollution control technology; as a
result, this is one of the dirtiest plants that has been permitted in
recent years. Public health and pollution controls cannot
be brushed aside under federal law, the Clean Air Act is quite clear on
this," said Amanda Goodin, an attorney with Earthjustice.
"When it comes to millions of
tons of pollution for a coal plant that is not needed for Kansas, there
is no place for mistakes or misconduct," said Cole. "The weak emissions
standards in the permit mean that Kansans
will be exposed to unnecessarily high levels of pollutants that we know
cause serious health problems."
tons of pollution for a coal plant that is not needed for Kansas, there
is no place for mistakes or misconduct," said Cole. "The weak emissions
standards in the permit mean that Kansans
will be exposed to unnecessarily high levels of pollutants that we know
cause serious health problems."
Coal Plant is for Colorado, Other States Planning to Shut Down Coal Plants
The majority of the power from
the Holcomb II expansion would serve Colorado, a state that committed
last month to retiring 902 megawatts of existing coal capacity. It is
highly unlikely a new coal plant would ever
get built in Colorado, and by agreeing to do Colorado's dirty work,
Kansas will be using billions of gallons of our water annually to
operate the coal plant - despite having fought Colorado for water for
over two decades.
the Holcomb II expansion would serve Colorado, a state that committed
last month to retiring 902 megawatts of existing coal capacity. It is
highly unlikely a new coal plant would ever
get built in Colorado, and by agreeing to do Colorado's dirty work,
Kansas will be using billions of gallons of our water annually to
operate the coal plant - despite having fought Colorado for water for
over two decades.
While Kansas rushed to permit a
new coal plant for Colorado before the year's end, the rest of the
country spent 2010 planning to retire existing coal plants.
new coal plant for Colorado before the year's end, the rest of the
country spent 2010 planning to retire existing coal plants.
- For the second straight year, not a single new coal plant broke ground for construction in 2010.
- A
total of 48 existing coal plants were announced for retirement in 2010,
which is likely the most coal plant retirements announced in a single
year. They will be replaced with cleaner burning fuels, renewable
energy, and energy efficiency. - Colorado, where most of the
electricity from the Holcomb II coal plant will go, established a plan
to shut down 902 megawatts of existing coal capacity. - Announced
coal plant retirements in 2010 in Colorado, Arizona, Utah and Oregon
will result in the retirement of nearly 10% of the entire Western coal
fleet. - The Energy Information Agency now projects that no new coal plants will be built in 2011 without significant incentives.
- The
University of North Carolina, University of Illinois, Western Kentucky
University, Cornell and University of Louisville all made coal-free
commitments.
Kansans Agree: Coal Plant Not Needed, Lawsuit is Necessary to Protect Public Health
"Jobs for a few years,
pollution forever. As someone who lives near the site of the new coal
plant, I am not willing to sacrifice my family's health and welfare so a
Colorado company can build a coal plant in Kansas
they are not willing to build in their own backyard," said Barb
Percival, who lives only a few miles from the Holcomb coal plant site.
pollution forever. As someone who lives near the site of the new coal
plant, I am not willing to sacrifice my family's health and welfare so a
Colorado company can build a coal plant in Kansas
they are not willing to build in their own backyard," said Barb
Percival, who lives only a few miles from the Holcomb coal plant site.
"Sunflower is so far in debt, I
question who is going to pay for this project. If Tri-State wants the
electricity, let them build the coal plant in Colorado," said Lee
Messenger of Garden City.
question who is going to pay for this project. If Tri-State wants the
electricity, let them build the coal plant in Colorado," said Lee
Messenger of Garden City.
"Claims by project supporters
that this will be the 'cleanest coal plant in the nation' are simply not
true. According to 2010 EPA data, there are many other coal plants in
the country that have lower sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide emissions than the proposed Holcomb plant.
Similarly, particulate matter and mercury emissions from this plant will
exceed what many other coal plants are emitting. Under the KDHE
permit, the Holcomb unit will not be using state of the
art processes that are already in place at dozens of existing coal
plants," said Scott Allegrucci of GPACE.
that this will be the 'cleanest coal plant in the nation' are simply not
true. According to 2010 EPA data, there are many other coal plants in
the country that have lower sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide emissions than the proposed Holcomb plant.
Similarly, particulate matter and mercury emissions from this plant will
exceed what many other coal plants are emitting. Under the KDHE
permit, the Holcomb unit will not be using state of the
art processes that are already in place at dozens of existing coal
plants," said Scott Allegrucci of GPACE.
"I worked hard to participate
in the process, and I expected KDHE would consider my input. I was
disappointed with the outcome. While organizing citizens to attend
hearings, I saw first-hand strong opposition to this
coal plant," said Stephen Collins, a University of Missouri- Kansas City
student.
in the process, and I expected KDHE would consider my input. I was
disappointed with the outcome. While organizing citizens to attend
hearings, I saw first-hand strong opposition to this
coal plant," said Stephen Collins, a University of Missouri- Kansas City
student.
Chuck Gillam, chairman of the
Advocacy Committee of the theological based Sustainable Sanctuary
Coalition, said "The state has sold out the health of Kansans, and those
who were interested in protecting public health,
like Secretary Bremby, have been quietly eliminated."
Advocacy Committee of the theological based Sustainable Sanctuary
Coalition, said "The state has sold out the health of Kansans, and those
who were interested in protecting public health,
like Secretary Bremby, have been quietly eliminated."
"Former Secretary Bremby's
decision to reject this permit set Kansas apart as a national leader in
addressing climate change, said Margaret Tran, a recent Kansas
University graduate. "I cannot see how my generation and
generations to follow will be encouraged to stay and work in Kansas with
a coal plant that does not create long-term jobs but instead, creates
unhealthy pollution."
decision to reject this permit set Kansas apart as a national leader in
addressing climate change, said Margaret Tran, a recent Kansas
University graduate. "I cannot see how my generation and
generations to follow will be encouraged to stay and work in Kansas with
a coal plant that does not create long-term jobs but instead, creates
unhealthy pollution."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
House Dems Voice 'Deep Concern' Over Biden Claim That Israel Is Legally Using US Arms
A letter from 26 lawmakers notes the "stark differences and gaps" between what Biden administration officials say and the opinions of "prominent experts and global institutions" accusing Israel of genocide.
Apr 16, 2024
More than two dozen House Democrats on Tuesday challenged the Biden administration's claim that Israel is using U.S.-supplied weapons in compliance with domestic and international law—an assertion made amid an ongoing World Court probe of "plausibly" genocidal Israeli policies and practices in Gaza.
Citing "mounting credible and deeply troubling reports and allegations" of human rights crimes committed by Israeli troops in Gaza and soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank, 26 congressional Democrats led by Texas Reps. Veronica Escobar—who co-chairs President Joe Biden's reelection campaign—and Joaquin Castro asked U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines "whether and how" their agencies determined Israel is lawfully using arms provided by Washington.
"We write to express our deep concern regarding the U.S. Department of State's recent comments regarding assurances from the Israeli government, under National Security Memorandum (NSM) 20, that the Israeli government is using U.S.-origin weapons in full compliance with relevant U.S. and international law and is not restricting the delivery of humanitarian assistance," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the Cabinet members.
The letter acknowledges the "grave concerns" of institutions and experts around the world regarding Israel's "conduct throughout the war in Gaza, its policies regarding civilian harm and military targeting, unauthorized expansion of settlements and settler violence in the West Bank, and potential use of U.S. arms by settlers, in additional to limitations on humanitarian aid supported by the U.S."
The legislators noted Israeli attacks on aid convoys, workers, and recipients—like the February 29 "
Flour Massacre" in which nearly 900 starving Palestinians were killed or wounded at a food distribution site—and "the closure of vital border crossings" as Gazan children starve to death as causes for serious concern.
While the lawmakers didn't mention the International Court of Justice's January 26
preliminary finding that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza, their letter highlights the "stark differences and gaps in the statements" made by Biden administration officials and "those made by prominent experts and global institutions"—many of whom accuse Israel of genocide.
The lawmakers' letter came amid reports of fresh Israeli atrocities, including a drone strike on a playground in the Maghazi refugee camp in northern Gaza that killed at least 11 children. Eyewitnesses described a "horrific scene of children torn apart."
While Biden has called out Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" in Gaza—much of it carried out using U.S.-supplied warplanes and munitions including 2,000-pound bombs that can level whole city blocks—his administration has approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel, has repeatedly sidestepped Congress to fast-track emergency armed aid, and is seeking to provide the key ally with billions of dollars in addition weaponry atop the nearly $4 billion it gets annually from Washington.
This, despite multiple federal laws—and the administration's own rules— prohibiting U.S. arms transfers to human rights violators.
According to Palestinian and international officials, more than 110,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 7. Most of the dead are women and children. At least 7,000 Palestinians are also missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of hundreds of thousands of bombed-out homes and other buildings.
Around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people have been forcibly displaced in what many Palestinians are calling a second Nakba, a reference to the ethnic cleansing of over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
A growing number of not only progressive lawmakers but also mainstream Democrats are calling for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel.
On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who was criticized earlier in the war for not calling for a cease-fire—stood beside a photo of a starving Gazan girl while declaring "no more money for" the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his "war machine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Weasel Words': Julian Assange's Wife Slams US Assurances to UK
"The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism."
Apr 16, 2024
The wife of jailed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sharply criticized "assurances" the U.S. government made as the U.K. High Court considers allowing the 52-year-old Australian's extradition to the United States, where he faces 175 years in prison.
The U.S. document states that if extradited, "Assange will have the ability to raise and seek to rely upon at trial (which includes any sentencing hearing) the rights and protections given under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," though it points out that "a decision as to the applicability of the First Amendment is exclusively within the purview of the U.S. courts."
"A sentence of death will neither be sought nor imposed on Assange," the document adds, noting that he has not been charged with any offense for which that is a possible punishment. It comes after the U.K. court ruled last month that the Biden administration had until Tuesday to confirm that he wouldn't face the death penalty and if it did not, he could continue appealing his extradition.
Responding on social media, his wife, Stella Assange—who is an attorney—blasted the U.S. assurances as "weasel words."
"The United States has issued a nonassurance in relation to the First Amendment, and a standard assurance in relation to the death penalty," she said. "It makes no undertaking to withdraw the prosecution's previous assertion that Julian has no First Amendment rights because he is not a U.S citizen."
"The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
"Instead, the U.S. has limited itself to blatant weasel words claiming that Julian can 'seek to raise' the First Amendment if extradited," she added. "The diplomatic note does nothing to relieve our family's extreme distress about his future—his grim expectation of spending the rest of his life in isolation in U.S. prison for publishing award-winning journalism. The Biden administration must drop this dangerous prosecution before it is too late."
The U.K. court's next hearing is scheduled for May 20. Last week, reporters asked U.S. President Joe Biden about requests from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and members of the country's Parliament to drop the extradition effort and charges. He said that "we're considering it."
So far, the Biden administration has ignored significant pressure from Australian and U.S. politicians as well as human rights and press freedom groups, and continued to pursue the extradition of Julian Assange, who was charged under former President Donald Trump—the Republican expected to face the Democratic president in the November election.
Assange was charged under the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for publishing classified documents including the "Collateral Murder" video and the Afghan and Iraq war logs. Since British authorities dragged Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London—where he lived with political asylum for seven years—he has been jailed in the city's Belmarsh Prison.
The WikiLeaks founder's wife, with whom he has two children, was not alone in condemning the U.S. assurances on Tuesday.
"This 'assurance' should make journalists even more worried about how the Assange prosecution could impact press freedom in the U.S. and globally. The U.K. should grant Assange's appeal and refuse to extradite him," said the Freedom of the Press Foundation. "The U.S. doesn't disclaim the ability to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Assange because of his nationality or other reasons, or for a court to rule against a First Amendment challenge to his prosecution."
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, similarly said that "no one who cares about press freedom should take any comfort at all from the United States' assurance that Assange will be permitted to 'rely upon' the First Amendment."
"If the prosecution goes forward, the U.S. government will be trying to persuade American courts that the First Amendment poses no bar to the prosecution of a publisher under the Espionage Act," Jaffer warned. "And if the government is successful, no journalist will ever again be able to publish U.S. government secrets without risking her liberty."
"So the government's First Amendment assurances aren't responsive at all to the concerns that press freedom advocates have been raising," he concluded. "This case poses essentially the same threat to press freedom today as it did yesterday."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Stage Sit-Ins to Demand Google End Israeli Cloud Contract
"Just as people of conscience demanded institutions cut ties with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, the time is now to rise up in support of Palestinian human rights," said Google employees in an open letter.
Apr 16, 2024
Following recent reports that Google may soon expand its tech collaboration with the Israeli government, dozens of the company's employees on Tuesday entered its offices in New York City and Sunnyvale, California and announced that they wouldn't leave until executives pull out of its $1.2 billion cloud services and data contract with the country.
The No Tech for Apartheid coalition—including the Muslim-led MPower Change and the Jewish-led Jewish Voice for Peace—organized the sit-in, which marks an escalation in Google workers' protests against Project Nimbus, the 2021 contract under which Google and Amazon provide cloud infrastructure across Israel's government.
The deal includes a stipulation that the companies cannot prevent Israel from using Project Nimbus for any government agency, including the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—which means Google employees' work may be directly supporting the country's assault on the Gaza and its killing of at least 33,843 Palestinians since October.
"Workers will NOT allow business as usual while Google continues to profit from the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza," said MPower Change.
In Sunnyvale, workers began occupying the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian, while employees in the company's New York office began a sit-in in a common space.
Outdoor rallies were also scheduled to take place in San Francisco and Seattle, with both Amazon and Google employees attending.
Former Google cloud software engineer Eddie Hatfield, who was fired last month for disrupting a Google Israel event, was among those who protested in New York.
The sit-ins came a week after Time magazine reported that Google has entered further negotiations with the Israeli government in recent weeks, even as international human rights experts raise alarm that Israeli officials have directly caused famine to take hold in parts of Gaza by blocking humanitarian aid.
No Tech for Apartheid released an open letter addressed to Kurian and other Google and Amazon executives, saying that as long as the companies' "tech continues to power the Israeli military and government, [they] are actively complicit in this genocide."
"Your workers do not want to be complicit in genocide," reads the letter, which has been signed by 93,000 supporters. "Just as people of conscience demanded institutions cut ties with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, the time is now to rise up in support of Palestinian human rights, to end the Project Nimbus contract, and join calls to end the Israeli occupation and siege of Gaza. This has never been more urgent. We hope that you will take this opportunity to be on the right side of history. End the Project Nimbus contract and reestablish your companies' commitments to human rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular