The Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. — Pigs became a favorite metaphor as legislators debated proposals clearing the way for two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas and restricting the power of the regulator who’s blocked them.

For critics, the coal plants were the pigs. Extra provisions attached to each of three bills, “green” or otherwise, were described alternatively as lipstick, dresses and, finally, a tiara.

Supporters called the final bill the “Economic Stimulus Act of 2008” and tied the plants to economic development projects in other parts of the state in hopes of luring enough votes to override the expected veto.

The tactic probably will fail. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has all but promised to veto the measure, just as she rejected the two previous ones, and supporters still don’t appear to have enough votes to override her in the House.

“It’s one more bad choice that was made to sacrifice legitimate economic proposals and try once again to, you know, drive a policy that I was not going to sign in the first place,” Sebelius said during a Thursday news conference.

Sunflower Electric Power Corp. wants to build the two plants outside Holcomb, in Finney County. Each plant would be 700 megawatts, and the 1,400 megawatts of generating capacity would be enough to meet the peak needs of 700,000 households, according to one state estimate.

Sunflower, based in Hays, plans to sell 86 percent of the new power to two out-of-state partners who are crucial to financing the project.

In October, Rod Bremby, Sebelius’ secretary of health and environment, denied an air-quality permit to Sunflower, citing the plants’ potential carbon dioxide emissions of up to 11 million tons a year. Many scientists link such man-made greenhouse gases to global warming.

Many legislators believe Bremby exceeded his authority and, because the state still has no standards on CO2, created regulatory uncertainty that damaged the state’s business climate. Internal government e-mails show his decision is an issue for Hyperion Resources Inc., of Dallas, as it considers where to build a $10 billion oil refinery.

And so Sunflower’s allies referred to the final measure as the “stimulus bill.” Legislative aides even, annoyingly, insisted on correcting reporters who didn’t use the term in asking when debates and votes would occur.

“It’s not about not energy. It’s not about CO2. It’s about economic development,” said House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, an Ingalls Republican who strongly supports the plants. “You’re either for economic development, or you’re against it. And we’ll find out.”

All three bills allowed Sunflower to reapply for its air-quality permit under rules designed to force Bremby to approve it.

All three prohibited Bremby from using the secretary’s emergency power to protect public health and the environment — which he cited in his decision on Sunflower’s project — to reject an air-quality permit. Finally, they limited his ability to set new air-quality standards without legislative approval.

Given the bipartisan support for Sunflower’s project, its allies might have been able to push those provisions through the Legislature on their own, especially given the backing of Neufeld and Senate President Steve Morris, a Hugoton Republican.

But simple majorities wouldn’t have done them any good with a Sebelius veto. They need two-thirds majorities — 27 of 40 votes in the Senate and 84 of 125 in the House — to override a veto. Supporters have always had more than enough votes for such a margin in the Senate but have remained short in the House.

That led Sunflower’s supporters to make concessions, with the list growing as the debate continued. The strategy came close — the second bill passed with 83 votes — but hasn’t succeeded yet in the House.

All three bills contained new energy efficiency standards for state buildings, provisions designed to encourage Kansans to use their own, small solar-powered systems to supplement their power and tax credits for landlords that improved the insulation of their apartments and rental homes.

They also included a requirement that renewable resources, such as wind, account for at least 20 percent of most utilities’ generating capacity by 2020. In the last bill, Sunflower would have to meet that mandate by 2016 and join a climate registry to have its CO2 emissions tracked.

The third bill contained a provision requiring the secretary of health and environment to draft proposals rules on CO2 for legislators to consider. It also said the limits on his authority to impose new air-quality rules would last only two years.

But Sunflower’s supporters never compromised — and said they couldn’t — on their two most important issues. Those were ensuring that it can build both plants as planned outside Holcomb and preventing the secretary from using his emergency power to deny future air-quality permits.

Thus, especially to critics, everything Sunflower’s allies attached to those proposals seemed to be merely bait to attract reluctant legislators’ votes. That included proposals for encouraging economic development proposals elsewhere.

“I told you earlier that the lipstick is on the pig,” said Rep. Annie Kuether, a Topeka Democrat who opposed the three bills. “Now the tiara — the crown — is on the pig.”

The debate is far from over, of course.

Bremby’s decision already has inspired six separate legal challenges, three of which are before the Kansas Supreme Court. And undoubtedly, it will be a significant issue in this year’s elections, when all House and Senate seats are on the ballot.