By CHRIS GREEN

Harris News Service

TOPEKA -- A familiar debate over building two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas ignited again Wednesday, even as the dispute remained the subject of two pending legal cases.

The House Energy and Utilities Committees heard testimony on a bill that would take away the authority of the state's top environmental regulator to go beyond federal limits when enforcing air quality standards.

The proposal would also allow Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to resubmit its request for the air-quality permits it was denied for its Holcomb expansion in October 2007.

Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby wouldn't be allowed to block permits for the Hays-based utility plants again over concerns about their carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming. That's because CO2 isn't currently regulated under either state or federal laws.

Discussion about the legislation came on the eve of hearing in a federal lawsuit that Sunflower filed late last year that claims state officials blocking the $3.6 billion plants violated the utility's right to fair and equal treatment under the law.

Judge Eric Melgren is scheduled to arguments on the state's motion to dismiss Sunflower's case at 1:30 p.m. Thursday at U.S. District Court in Wichita.

Attorneys for the state contend that Sunflower's federal suit interferes with Kansas law and the company's appeal unfolding at the state level.

In addition, another Sunflower lawsuit that's been stalled in the state court system could soon be making its way before the Kansas Supreme Court.

Court spokesman Ron Keefover said that justices could rule on a motion by Sunflower to restart its case at the state level as it conferences over the next few weeks.

"In any event, the court is going to have to sort through this motion," Keefover said.

The Republican-led Legislature passed three bills last year permitting the plants, but Gov. Kathleen Sebelius rejected them and lawmakers failed to override her vetoes.

With the debate set to resurface in court, the House panel revisited arguments that became familiar during last year's debate over the coal plants.

Mark Calcara, Sunflower Electric's vice president and general counsel, said that passage of the bill was important for preserving the rule of law in Kansas.

His company contends that Bremby lacked the authority to make the decision and that Sunflower met all existing guidelines to be able to receive its permits.

"We can't regulate on the basis of whim," Calcara said.

A coalition of business groups, including the Kansas Chamber, support the bill as well, saying the state needs to ensure business know with certainty the air-quality regulations they'll be operating under.

In making his decision, Bremby relied on a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court deeming CO2 a pollutant and an state attorney general's opinion giving him broad authority to protect the environment and human health.

Bremby's decision once again received support from a representative of the Kansas Sierra Club, which opposes Sunflower's coal-plant project because it would emit 11 millions tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Tom Thompson, the group's lobbyist, said that passing the bill would increase the amount of CO2 being produced in Kansas and unnecessarily handcuff the ability of regulators to protect the health and environment of Kansans.

"The Sierra Club believes that requiring state laws not to be stricter than federal (laws) is a serious issue that can have unforeseen consequences," Thompson said. "It is important to allow laws to be able to react to the needs for environmental protection in unforeseen situations."

The committee's chairman, Rep. Carl Holmes, R-Liberal, said he plans to allow committee members to ask more questions Thursday to those testifying on the bill. The panel has been discussing a variety of energy-related bills, which will likely have to pass the full House over the next two weeks to receive further consideration this session. The air-quality regulations bill is HB 2182.