Carbon footprints placed in the pathway of the Kansas Legislature dominated the debate about coal-fired power plants in western Kansas.

Considered an economic boost to rural communities when first proposed in 2006 by the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, the construction and operation of the power plants were to incorporate the most advanced technology in capturing CO2 emissions. However, a funny thing happened on the way to obtaining a permit.

An emergency declaration by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment stopped the plant dead in its tracks. Company officials stunned by the denial began to consider their options, but here is my question: Why did Sunflower and its friends fail to look across the Missouri River for an example of how the Show-Me State handled a similar proposal from Great Plains Energy doing business for Kansas City Power and Light?

Living in the shadows of the Iatan Coal-Fired Power Plant just upstream from my home in Leavenworth, I watched how Great Plains/KCP&L handled its plan to increase electrical generation. A proposal for new construction alongside its existing plant met with initial opposition, but in this instance the power company tried a different approach.

Taking a leaf from “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” the Kansas City-based company reached out to environmental groups, explaining its commitment to use the latest in CO2 emission technology. Fearful of the impact to local governments, company representatives held meetings with city officials and county commissioners. When local school boards panicked at the loss of property tax revenue, the company offered cash donations as an offset. When the environmentalists squawked, all parties sat down to discuss their fears. And wouldn’t you know it didn’t take long for KCP&L to become the new best friend of the regulators in Missouri government.

That was not to be the case in Kansas. Sunflower balked at KDHE’s denial. Instead of following Dale Carnegie's less combative approach, the Kansas-based company took a leaf from Karl Rove’s book on political confrontation. Tapping into their friendships with leaders in the Republican Party, Sunflower executives began calling on legislative leaders. They would take their chances under the Capital Dome.

And the fight was on. Sunflower rallied business and agriculture interests. Environmentalists jumped into bed with the natural gas industry. Governor Kathleen Sebelius stood by state regulators. For a while both sides talked off and on until Sunflower’s legislative supporters filed a bill that reflected none of the elements insisted upon by Sebelius. With their noses out of joint, the governor’s negotiator told Sunflower’s lawyer in an email that no reason existed to meet.

Now two months, two bills and two vetoes later, nothing is resolved in Kansas. But House Minority Leader, Rep. Dennis McKinney, who supports the plant, has devised a compromise which makes sense. Seeing the possibility of giving both sides some of what they want and some of what they don’t want, McKinney suggests this: Where Sunflower wants two plants built now, he says let one plant go up for now. Have the company prove its technology for capturing CO2 emissions is successful and then in three years allow the second plant’s construction.

Where the wind enthusiasts insist that no coal plants should ever come online in Kansas, McKinney offers a more realistic approach. Coal will remain this state’s essential source of power for years to come, but those companies building and operating coal plants must make a genuine commitment to wind energy. The Minority Leader wants to strengthen the current offers being made by Sunflower to represent a genuine financial obligation to invest in wind farms by increasing the percentages of its electrical generation from wind sources.

Bowing to the governor’s insistence that Sunflower serve Kansans first, McKinney says that companies like Weststar and BPU should be compelled to meet their future energy needs from the Holcomb plants instead of expanding their older plants or building new ones. With the Jeffrey Energy Center in Lawrence tagged for emitting the most CO2 carbon of all the state’s coal-fired energy plants, McKinney’s idea makes sense. And finally, the man from Greensburg says that Sunflower’s people must back off the regulatory witch hunt against KDHE. State regulation must be an intricate part of all energy plant construction and operation.

Because hindsight is 20/20, I admit that Sunflower’s political pathway rubbed some of the legislators the wrong way. And using Missouri as an example for anything is dangerous. But considering how carbon footprints left their marks all over the 2008 Legislative Session, the choice to modify, compromise and become regulators’ new best friend instead of sworn enemy could have helped lawmakers avoid a lot of messy squabbling.