Comments (12) | Add a comment
Panel lets power plants proceed
-
Photo by Cathleen Allison/Special to the Review-Journal
Western Resource Advocates director Charles Benjamin testifies Friday before the Nevada Environmental Commission. On behalf of seven environmental groups, he sought to delay construction of coal plants in Northern Nevada and Lincoln County.
Tools
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
Updated: Sep. 26, 2008 | 4:40 p.m.
CARSON CITY -- A petition from seven environmental organizations that sought to stop three companies from constructing coal-fired power plants unless they control carbon dioxide emissions was rejected Friday by the Nevada Environmental Commission.
But commissioners then quickly voted 7-0 to require the state Division of Environmental Protection to draw up "memorandums of understanding" requiring the companies to capture carbon dioxide once the technology becomes commercially available.
Earlier in the hearing, representatives from Sierra Pacific Resources, LS Power Associates and Sithe Global Power testified that the technology to capture carbon dioxide won't be available at a reasonable price until at least 2017.
Carbon dioxide emissions are produced when power plants burn coal to generate electricity. Some scientists contend it is the key greenhouse gas emission that causes global warming.
"It is our desire to add this technology once it is economically feasible," said Tony Sanchez, a Sierra Pacific Resources vice president.
Sanchez and representatives for the other companies said they are setting aside land next to their power plants for equipment to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions when the technology is developed.
But he was not entirely pleased when the commission decided to force the companies to eventually contain greenhouse gas emissions.
"If it costs $10 billion (for the new technology), does that mean it is commercially available?" he asked.
Lew Dodgion, the Environmental Commission chairman, asked Division of Environmental Protection staff to work on the language in the memorandums. The commission might review the language and adopt it at a future meeting. Dodgion is the former director of the division.
Charles Benjamin, director of Western Resource Advocates, filed the petition on behalf of seven environmental groups that want to delay the power plant construction. He was critical of the decision.
Lawyers like memorandums of understanding because they usually contain "weasel words" to allow companies to get around rules, he said.
Earlier Benjamin testified the three power plants would send 48 million tons of carbon dioxide into the sky during their expected 75-year lifetimes.
"Look at the impacts if you do nothing," Benjamin said. "We are urging you to take action today."
Because Nevada has no regulation controlling greenhouse gas emissions, Benjamin said, out-of-state companies are being enticed to construct pollution-spewing power plants that will generate electricity for residents elsewhere.
Global warming has contributed to the extended drought and wildfires that plague the state and probably will get worse in coming years, he said.
But representatives from the attorney general's office said the Environmental Commission lacked the legal authority to suspend the issuing of permits to allow the companies to construct the power plants. The companies have been given permits to begin work on initial stages of the plants.
Sierra Pacific Resources, the parent company of Nevada Power Co. and Sierra Pacific Power Co., wants to construct two 750-megawatt coal-fired electrical generating plants in the White Pine County town of McGill. The first plants might be completed by 2012.
LS Power Associates wants to construct three 530-megawatt plants near McGill, the first of which might open in 2011. Sithe Global Power wants to construct a 750 megawatt plant in southern Lincoln County, near Mesquite.
Gov. Jim Gibbons expressed opposition to the move by the environmental groups.
Gibbons in a letter wrote that it was not fair to stop the plants when they already "have invested years and millions of dollars in facility design and the permitting process."
He expressed concern about climate change and noted he has appointed committees to investigate developing renewable resources and to look at how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced in Nevada.
Gibbons signed a legislative bill in June that requires the state to track and inventory the amount of greenhouse gases released in the state.
But he said adopting "non-science based emission limits" would be a mistake.
AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Danny Thompson testified that the commission should not be dictating how much pollution is permitted from power plants. Instead he said the Legislature should make that decision.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I'll take a healthy dose of that economical, reliable coal power please!!!
Thank you very much!
Poor uninformed Democrates --- While you defile little girls in the oval office and pat each other on the back every chance you get (for nothing), the fact is, we need power. Democrates can only bitch and whine but will never propose a worthy alternative.
Solar and Wind -- too costly and ineffective for the amount of power needed. Democrates (John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy don't want this in their back yards).
Geothermal -- not effective and just as environmental unfriendly as coal.
Natural gas -- very expensive.
Nuclear -- the democrates have proven with Yucca where they stand on this reliable energy source.
Coal -- least expensive of the bunch.
So while you're all sitting in your AC reading this, instead of bitching, come up with a solution, OR JUST SHUT THE F UP!!!
for some reason, those who would oppose harvesting whatever energy assets we have, continue to use electricity. worse, like oaf gore they continue to live in large houses. coolest this week is gore using a private jet while the let them eat cake supporters are encouraged to hoof it to work.
so far the environmentalist agenda has driven up all petroleum based fuel costs. each time some refinery is closed/restricted, some pipeline is denied, some land or offshore oil reserves "preserved", some nuclear generating plant opposed, the various [not all u.s. owned] oil companies must buy more on the international auctions. since the consumer energy demand continues to increase, it doesn't take much of an arithmetician to understand that crude oil prices will continue upward.
add to that politically controlled opec and others' production, the exploding demand from newly industrialized countries. thus energy cost to u.s. consumers must substantially increase. the efficiency of the so far proposed alternative sources are even more costly than the present crude oil auction numbers. bottom line is that pump gas and home heating fuel costs must increase. denying the exploration and harvesting of whatever energy sources we have only accelerates that cost increase.
those who oppose harvesting our nuclear and coal produced electricity logically lose the ability to ever complain about energy costs.