Lawmakers Won't Override Coal Plant Veto

Station Info · Stay Connected · Online Extras

Home · News · Weather · Sports · Lottery · Health Info TV · Recipes · A Greener KAKEland · Blogs

Save

Posted: 1:19 PM May 21, 2008
Last Updated: 2:11 PM May 21, 2008
Reporter: KAKE News
Email Address: news@kake.com

8 comments

A | A | A

Kansas legislative leaders will not try to override the Governor's veto of a bill that would have allowed construction of coal fired power plants.

In a statement, House Speaker Melvin Neufeld sais scheduling conflicts of a number of legislators make an override attempt "impossible".

Governor Sebelius has three times vetoed measures that would have allowed the plants to be built in Southwest Kansas. She is concerned about potential carbon dioxide emissions from the plants.

Neufeld said the decision to block the plants will cost the state billions in business development.

More Stories
Man Rushed To Hospital After West Side Bar Fight

Local Raceway Reopens

Hundreds View Traveling Vietnam Exhibit

Teen Dies In Marion Co. Crash

Kansas Employment Rates Remain Steady

FEMA Awards $52 Million For Winter Storm Damage

Missing 9-Year-Old Girl Located

Accident Victim Saved By Witnesses

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: wichita on May 23, 2008 at 03:39 AM
How is this going to bring so much business to Kanssa if most of the electricity is going to other states. In all likely hood penalties for pollution is coming and Kansas will have to pay. If it is such a great deal you'd think that Co. would jump on having it in their state.

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on May 22, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Ikeep hearing about a toxic waste dump coming to kansas, it is not in the news. however if you check into the wyoming coal they propose to use in the plants, it contains uranium according to the usgs. and the uranium is soluable in groundwater. several towns have started having uranium show up in groundwater near coal purning plants.

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on May 22, 2008 at 08:55 AM
Yesterday in the news, it cameout that colorado is supplying missouri with natural gas. why cant colorado supply natural gas to generate electricity? the coal plants are to supply colorado with power from coal burnt in kansas without adding to their own polution, why not natural gas?

Posted by: AJ Location: Wichita on May 21, 2008 at 03:02 PM
No hope it comes back. I rather have a coal plant than a dump for toxic waste in my state of Kansas.

Posted by: TB Location: Wichita on May 21, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Still think Gov vetos according to liberals not for the good of Kansas. Veto this but looking at Kansas for a toxic waste dump come on. The green is being past on this.

Posted by: Tim Location: Wichita on May 21, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Yay! I will breath easier knowing this issue is [hopefully] finally decided and has burned itself out! Maybe now we can spur some business by luring companies who do sustainable energy research to Kansas!

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on May 21, 2008 at 01:41 PM
that are the "billions in buisness development"? if there were that much profit in the plants, why dont Colorado build them there? cant they get their legislature to overide their environmental department? or is ours "the best legislature money can buy"

Posted by: cliff Location: wichita on May 21, 2008 at 01:36 PM
is the upcoming holiday slowing down the contributions? why spend taxpayers money on this coal fired plant? Is colorado so rich that they can try to affect laws in kansas?