Groups line up against coal plants

The agreements are “at best meaningless,” Nevadans for Clean and Affordable Energy concluded in written comments filed late Friday. “And, at worst, they act as a misleading evasion of the enormous pollution anticipated from the plants and the state’s responsibility to safeguard Nevadans from the effects of that pollution.”

Dante Pistone, a spokesman for the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, on Monday said: “It would be premature for us to comment until we’ve had a chance to look at (the environmental group’s statements).”

Nevadans for Clean and Affordable Energy filed the comments at the deadline 5 p.m. Friday, said Charles Benjamin, president of the environmental organization and Nevada office director of Western Resource Advocates.

Benjamin previously asked the state Environmental Commission to suspend the processing of air permits for coal-fired power plants. The commission in September refused but directed the division to follow a process suggested by Gov. Jim Gibbons.

Gibbons suggested the division ask the coal-fired power plant developers to enter into memorandums of agreement calling for capturing carbon dioxide from the plants when the technology is feasible. The power plant developers are Sierra Pacific Resources, which is developing a coal plant at Ely; LS Power Group, which plans another coal plant at Ely; and Sithe Global Power, which proposes a plant near Mesquite.

The environmental groups say they fear carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants would lead to global warming. The groups argue that Nevada can reduce power consumption through energy efficiency and obtain additional power from renewable resources, such as solar, wind and geothermal energy.

Advocates of the coal plants reject those arguments and contend the state needs to reduce its reliance on natural gas, which is subject to price spikes, with the addition of coal-fired power plants.

Thomas Johns, senior vice president of Sithe Global Power, commended Nevada for trying a new way to address the carbon dioxide issue.

“While the (memorandums of understanding) may not be perfect,” Johns said, “they are a great step forward.”

The environmental group criticize the memorandums for failing to provide any way of enforcing carbon capture requirements and for being negotiated in private.

The power plant developers agreed to designate seven acres of land that could be used for holding carbon emissions at some future date.

“Just setting aside land for possible carbon sequestration in the future is not enough,” Benjamin said.

The environmental group faults the division for failing to require the power plant developers to design power plants for carbon capture technology, as the division promised in a statement and document.

The agreements don’t give regulators a way to force the plants to use carbon capture technology, the environmental group said. The division did not determine whether areas around the plants could be used to hold carbon emissions underground, Benjamin said.

“Moreover, it is a near certainty that these allegedly substantive requirements will come into force, because the (memorandums of understanding) go out of existence if the federal or Nevada government undertakes carbon regulation at all,” NCARE said in comments. “Second, they are the product of a hurried, back-room negotiation between the coal plant companies and your agency, without any significant public participation, and they set up an unlawful regulatory-like process without any legal authorization.”

After the environmental group complained, the division allowed the group to file comments, but Benjamin said the division should also permit other Nevadans to comment. Benjamin said it’s not clear where or how the division may modify, reject or approve draft agreements. He suggested the matter be brought before the state Environmental Commission to hear public comment.

Contact reporter John G. Edwards at jedwards@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0420.