Utility regulators to consider revised Moapa River solar facility

CARSON CITY — The state Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday will decide whether to authorize construction of a revised solar facility on the Moapa River Paiute Indian Reservation as part of a plan by Nevada Power to retire its coal-fired electricity generation within the next five years.

The commission rejected the project in October, and the utility, operating as part of NV Energy, has asked the panel to reconsider.

In the utility’s request for rehearing, the cost of the Moapa project was reduced from from $438.1 million to $358.2 million, a reduction of just over 18 percent. The newly designed 175-megawatt facility “provides substantial value to customers in the form of a much lower levelized cost of energy,” the utility said.

A draft order prepared by Commissioner Rebecca Wagner for the meeting recommends that the project as revised by Nevada Power be allowed to go forward.

It will be discussed by the commission, including Chairwoman Alaina Burtenshaw and Commissioner David Noble, at the meeting. Burtenshaw and Noble in October rejected the solar project as originally submitted.

The plant is part of Nevada Power’s overall plan to shut down the Reid Gardner coal-fired plant in Moapa and end its reliance on coal-fired electrical generation by Dec. 31, 2019.

But concerns about the cost of the project, and the potential excess electricity generated from the facility, led the commission to delete it from the overall plan, which was mandated by Senate Bill 123 from the 2013 legislative session. The measure directed the utility to move away from coal-fired electrical generation to alternative forms of energy.

The Nevada Sierra Club filed testimony in support of the revised project, saying it will create more than 1,000 new jobs in 2015.

But the Bureau of Consumer Protection continues to oppose the project, citing the potential costs to rate payers.

“The original filing showed the claimed economic benefits of $65 million were far outweighed by the cost of $223 million,” the bureau said. “Such an amendment, even with a modified price, may not be able to show such a vast improvement in cost versus benefits.”