WESTMINSTER, Colo. – A new coal-fired power plant could be a byproduct of the Farm Bill.

A provision in the bill would eliminate a court-ordered environmental review of the Sunflower Electric Plant located in Holcomb, Kansas, 50 miles southeast of Colorado's border.

It could supply 400,000 Coloradans with electricity that some say the state doesn't need, along with the toxins that coal plants generate.

Although it has a Kansas address, Sarah Saylor, senior legislative representative with the environmental law firm Earthjustice, says wind-born pollution will affect Colorado's air and water.

"If you're going to be benefiting from the power that's produced,” she says, “you need to be sure that these facilities are as clean as they can be."

Supporters of the power plant say it will bring $2 billion in economic activity to the region and reduce the danger of brownouts.

In Sunflower's permit application, the company says it would offer most of the energy generated to Tri-State Energy based in Westminster, a Denver suburb.

According to its current Electric Resource Plan filed with the state, Tri-State says it doesn't need additional power generated from coal.

The Kansas plant is overseen by the Rural Utilities Service that falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Saylor says this issue is one example of why Coloradans and the rest of the country need to pay close attention to what's happening in Washington.

"Even with a bill so big as the Farm Bill,” she says, “it still makes sense for the public to try and stay on top of what our elected officials are doing."

In addition to concerns over environmental oversight of the proposed plant, Saylor points out that Sunflower Electric owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government.

Eleven years ago, the taxpayer-funded Rural Utilities Service agreed to forgive a portion of Sunflower's debt to help it secure funding to build this additional facility.





get more stories like this via email

Bloomington and Indianapolis are getting some international recognition for the work they're doing to help the environment. The two have been named "A List Cities" by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

Only 119 cities and counties worldwide got A List designation this year, for "bold leadership on environmental action" and transparency about their plans. The cities are on what's known as the Carbon Disclosure Project Track, making progress to curb carbon emissions.

Director of the Office of Sustainability for the City of Indianapolis, Morgan Mickelson, said one reason for the Indianapolis ranking is its efforts in tree planting.

"Trees are really important to help us lower surface temperature in our neighborhoods, also to help purify air," she explained. "We have a large effort with Keep Indianapolis Beautiful to plant trees, and we work really intentionally with KIB to ensure that we're planting trees in areas that historically have not seen as much investment in terms of tree planting."

Nonprofit Keep Indianapolis Beautiful runs programs that encourage teen and adult involvement, and partners with the city on multiple conservation projects.

Bloomington's Climate Action Plan features many carbon-cutting objectives, including boosting food markets to help grow that city's local food economy and reduce waste.

The Office of Sustainability also administers Thrive Indianapolis, the city's first sustainability and resiliency action plan.

Mickelson said since 2018, more than 31,000 trees have been planted in public spaces -- and that's just a start.

"I also want to caution everyone that the work is not done," she warned. "We're in the climate crisis. I would just encourage everyone to take the time to reflect on all the hard work that is being done, but to also not forget that we have a lot more work ahead."

This is the sixth time Indianapolis has received an 'A' rating.



get more stories like this via email

A Virginia group is working out ways to reforest former mines across Appalachia.

The state has several hundred thousand acres of mine land, which was being handled under the Virginia Department of Energy's Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program. But other groups feel reforesting mine lands can play a role in reducing global carbon levels.

Diana Dombrowski, carbon research fellow at Appalachian Voices, said this is the kind of project the carbon-offset market can invest in.

"They're interested in projects that not only are maybe more local, to where they're based, but also have an environmental justice perspective," Dombrowski explained. "When it comes to the work of reforesting mine land, we're aware of a need in central Appalachia."

The process begins with reclaiming the mine land, which could cost from $7.5 billion to almost $10 billion. But the carbon offset market made $277 billion last year, so it sounds possible. There also are other options available. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides almost $113 billion, appropriated for Virginia's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.

Reforesting former mining areas can help Virginia achieve its climate goals. The projects can add to resilience against storms for communities, and help keep air and soil healthy.

Dombrowski noted other challenges could come up, such as how to identify the best sites for reforesting projects.

"Designing a project that can plan for the most carbon sequestration," Dombrowski suggested. "Where you pick the best land versus a project where you are maybe running over an average, that maybe people will see in the public at large."

Since the work is in the earliest phases, other challenges could arise. Dombrowski pointed out one priority is to focus on environmental justice. She added if any projects turn a profit, the funds will be reinvested into the workforce or materials to keep the work going.

Wildlife advocates are pushing back on a bill in Congress which would remove federal wilderness protections from some Montana land.

There are currently 44 Wilderness Study Areas, making up a million acres of Montana's wildest prairies, river breaks, deep forests and mountain peaks in all corners of the state. Experts agreed they provide unparalleled wildlife habitat, clean air and water.

But Senate Bill 2216, sponsored by Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., would remove 100,000 acres from the study areas, including Hoodoo Mountain, Wales Creek and the Middle Fork of the Judith River.

Gayle Joslin, a retired wildlife biologist for the state of Montana, called it a move in the wrong direction.

"These areas would be released to mining, to timber harvest, to recreational development," Joslin pointed out.

A 2022 voter survey found only 6% of Montanans support eliminating protections from the study areas. Daines and other supporters of what's been dubbed the "Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act" countered the study areas are "restrictive" and could be better managed to mitigate wildfire risk and increase public access.

The wilderness areas are open to recreational users but not to motorized vehicles, which the bill would change. It is a slimmed-down version of a measure Daines introduced in 2017, which would have removed protections from 500,000 acres but was defeated.

Joslin argued Montana residents are unanimous in their support for public lands and for many reasons, not the least of which is they are disappearing.

"They are simply not making wild country anymore," Joslin stressed. "Every acre we lose is a loss for wildlife and for, really, wildland scenic and spiritual opportunities for people."

Polls also show close to three-quarters of Montanans want to maintain or increase environmental protections and see development as a 'serious threat.' Critics of the bill said Daines sidestepped input from the public and from federal environmental officials. The measure awaits action in the full Senate.


get more stories like this via email