The Diné Power Authority (DPA) told the Navajo Nation Resource Committee last week that it is in the process of reapplying for the air permit, The Navajo Times reported. What is unclear is whether DPA’s private development partner, Houston-based Sithe Global Power, will continue to pursue coal as an energy source for the plant.

“Desert Rock isn’t dead, it’s still a good project,” DPA General Manager Steven Begay told the Resource Committee. The use of Navajo Nation coal will generate royalties for the Nation, Begay said. Plus, a substantial investment in the project has already been made:

“We have to remember that there’s a tangible value there and we want to hold onto it and the way to do it is to support our coal development,” he said. “If we don’t stick up for coal development and let the opposition win, we’ll never get to develop our coal the way we want to and we lose a lot of royalties.”

After Begay’s report, Vice Chair Curran Hannon (Oak Springs/St. Michaels) read a comment from LoRenzo Bates (Upper Fruitland) reassuring the council’s support but also questioning if the project is worth continuing after facing many challenges.

Before answering the question, Begay said that at this point, the tribe has invested $20 million in Desert Rock, along with $20 million by Sithe, $20 million by the federal government and $10 million by BHP.

“There’s a lot of money that has been put into it, do we want to let it go,” he said. “I don’t think so.”

BHP refers to BHP Billiton, the company that mines coal from the Navajo mine.

In 2003, when it was launched, coal’s star was rising: The Bush White House refused to acknowledge the existence of climate change, and regulatory agencies were generally more permissive.

Seven years later, though, Desert Rock looks all but dead. The economy is flailing, and investors worry how future climate change legislation will affect energy development. Meanwhile, electricity demand in the Southwest is declining, and with public utilities scrambling to keep up with statewide mandates to generate more power from renewable energy sources, nobody is currently seeking new sources of coal power.

The piece by Paskus gives some interesting tidbits.  For instance, early on the company cited growing demand for electricity, but these days not one of six Southwestern public utilities listed in Desert Rock’s environmental impact statement are planning to add new power from coal.

Sithe Global just recently showed it is willing to shift gears, announcing plans to develop a natural-gas/solar power combo project in Nevada rather than a coal plant it had planned.

Navajo generating station, photo by Cisco/Flickr

The developers of the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant in northwest New Mexico have switched tracks on another coal-fired plant they planned for southeastern Nevada, announcing this week they instead plan to build a natural gas plant at the Toquop site that includes a 50- 100 megawatt photovoltaic solar plant.

The shift away from coal in Nevada, along with the company’s near abandonment of a waste coal-fired project in Pennsylvania, raises questions about the future of the Desert Rock project, which had its air quality permit pulled by the Environmental Protection Agency last year.

A representative for Sithe Global Power’s parent group, Blackstone Group, said the Toquop plant’s environmental impact was “probably the single most important factor” in the decision to shift from coal to natural gas and solar at the Nevada location, reported the New York Times. The natural gas and solar plants are estimated to emit 60 percent less carbon dioxide and consume 60 percent less water than the coal-fired plant. Environmental groups lauded the decision.

“It is fantastic news that people in Nevada and Utah will not suffer the serious health problems a Toquop coal plant would have caused,” the Sierra Club said in a statement. “The mining, burning, and disposing of coal causes tens of thousands of hospitalizations and deaths across the country each year.”

“With its vast wind, solar and geothermal resources and potential for meeting demand with energy efficiency programs, the decision to move away from coal really does bode well for Nevada,” said Charles Benjamin, the state director of Western Resource Advocates, said in another statement. “It opens doors to an even swifter transition to 21st century energy technologies that will create jobs and revitalize Nevada’s economy.”

Sithe still plans coal-fired plants for New Mexico, Pennsylvania, but projects are stalled

Sithe Global’s Pennsylvania project stalled when the federal government refused to give guarantees on loans if the company defaults on them. Another stumbling block may be that the federal government wants the company to install carbon capture and sequestration technology on the Pennsylvania plant, according to a press account of a local county commission meeting in the area. The CCS technology would inject carbon dioxide, which is the main greenhouse gas that causes global warming, into the ground rather into the atmosphere. But the technology is largely untested on large power plants.

The use of cutting edge technology is also a factor in Sithe Global’s stalled New Mexico project. The Desert Rock plant, located on the Navajo Nation about 30 miles southwest of Farmington, hit a major snag last year when the Environmental Protection Agency pulled its air quality permit.

A joint project of the Navajo Nation and the company, the plans for the facility are widely acknowledged to be state of the art, minimizing emissions of various toxic pollutants to a much greater degree than older coal-fired power plants.

But while the Navajo Nation is a strong backer of the project, a coalition that includes Navajo and other local citizen groups, larger environmental organizations—and the State of New Mexico opposes the project.

Farmington is already home to three coal-fired power plants

If Sithe continues with plans at Desert Rock, it would be the third plant in a rural region that already rivals dense urban areas for deteriorated air quality. Plus, the plant would emit 10-12 million tons of the main greenhouse gas that causes global warming, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

The EPA found that the air quality permit was issued prematurely, before complete analysis could be conducted of hazardous air emissions or the impact of the facility on the surrounding eco-system.

Also, in their review of “best available technologies” for the plant, developers of the project didn’t include a process called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), the EPA said. Using IGCC technology–which turns the coal into gas before burning it–would make Desert Rock better able to control air pollution.

It’s unclear what will now happen regarding the Desert Rock project. Last December the company didn’t receive federal stimulus funds it sought to make the plant a carbon capture and sequestration technology demonstration project.

A spokesperson for the Desert Rock project hasn’t returned The Independent’s inquiry this week into whether the company has plans to switch from the use of coal at Desert Rock to natural gas or solar, as it is doing in Nevada.

Elouise Brown, president of a Navajo opposition group called Dooda Desert Rock, told The Independent her group isn’t against economic development in the form of energy projects as long as they’re not destructive to the environment or human health.

“We’re all for renewable energy as long as it’s healthy for the environment,” she said. “As long as they’re not trying to kill the people and the environment, we’re all for economic development on the Navajo Nation. But we’ll oppose any coal fired power plant.”

Total coal use is down in 2009 according to the Energy Information Agency , as the Obama administration is considering new regulations for the safe disposal of coal ash, and limiting emissions of mercury, soot, smog and global warming pollution from coal plants.

“2009 has been a remarkable year in our fight for clean energy,” said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, in the statement. “Although there are still about 90 remaining proposals, the landscape has shifted 180-degrees. …”

The Sierra Club has put together a chart on proposed coal-fired power plants, which is interesting regardless of where you fall in the coal for energy debate. Clicking on the name of each project leads to a pop-up window that gives the status of each.

In an interview earlier this month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department’s Wally Murphy told the Independent that both of the two metals pose serious problems for the San Juan River.

“Selenium in the San Juan River is at the point where reproduction and nervous system function in the fish are impaired,” Murphy said at the time. Additionally, he said, mercury levels in the San Juan are much higher than are healthy for fish.

The biological assessment was issued in December 2008, and the Endangered Species Act requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department have time to review and make recommendations about the assessment before an air quality permit is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the EPA issued an air permit for the proposed Desert Rock power plant in 2008 before the Service could complete it’s study of the biological impacts of the plant on endangered species in the four corners region near Farmington. This is one of the primary reasons the EPA cited for pulling back the air permit in September.

“It doesn’t look good for the Desert Rock project. I don’t see how they could possibly find more funds or expect the Navajo Nation to pay the remaining (expense),” Dáilan Long, of the anti-Desert Rock group Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, told the Daily Times. “It should be a signal for them (Navajo Tribal Council) to pull out and dump the whole project.”

The $450 million grant was seen as a way to green-light the project, according to Frank Maisano, spokesperson for Sithe Global, the parent company for Desert Rock.

“I would suspect that if the stimulus money came through, it would be a strong reason for the project to move forward,” Maisano told the Independent last week.

A representative of the Navajo Nation and the Desert Rock development, Doug MacCourt, told the Daily Times that the project was denied due to paperwork, and was not an indication that the project wasn’t viable.

But Nathan Plagens, vice president of the Desert Rock Energy Company, acknowledged to the Daily Times that increased government regulation of fossil-fuel power posed hurdles to the project without the incorporation of the carbon capture technology, and that the company would see how “the politics” play out before moving forward:

Given the ongoing restrictions being added to emissions standards nationwide, Desert Rock likely will wait to see how the politics play out before continuing the permitting process, he said.

“By no means is the project dead,” Plagens said. “There’s still some basis of this project being technically sound, but going forward, you’ve got to figure out and muddle through … the politics and potential regulations.”

That study has been underway and will be completed and turned over to the Bureau of Indian Affairs this month, Wally Murphy, supervisor of the Albuquerque office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, told the Independent in an interview. Species potentially impacted by the proposed Desert Rock project — which would be the third coal-fired power plant located within 16 miles of each other — are the southwestern willow flycatcher, the Colorado pikeminnow, the razorback sucker, the silvery minnow, the Mancos milk-vetch and the Mesa Verde cactus.

While the data isn’t publicly available yet, Murphy said there are serious problems posed by high levels of mercury and selenium both in the air and in the San Juan River. Both elements are naturally occurring, but in large concentrations pose a significant health hazard to humans and the environment. According to the New Mexico Environment Department, coal-fired power plants account for more than 50 percent of the mercury found in New Mexico; they are also a significant source of selenium.

“Selenium in the San Juan River is at the point where reproduction and nervous system function in the fish are impaired,” Murphy said.

While selenium is a by-product of power plants, the high levels in the San Juan are in large part due to agriculture. Water used for agriculture leaches the selenium out of a geological formation called Mancos Shale. The addition of more selenium from another power plant would make this problem worse.

Mercury levels in the San Juan are also much higher than are healthy for fish, Murphy explained. While the two existing power plants in the four corner region share much of the blame for the high levels of mercury, we can also point the finger at China, he said.

“Mercury precipitates over water bodies, that’s why we see mercury warnings in the Gulf of Mexico for shrimp,” he said. “A lot of the mercury in the San Juan River actually comes from China — most of their power is from coal-powered plants.”

It’s rare for an endangered species consultation to shut down a project, Murphy said. In most cases, a “reasonable and prudent” alternative can be found. But still, the study will show there are significant threats already posed to the vulnerable wildlife and plant species in the area.

“The San Juan River has some problems,” Murphy said with understated candor.

The endangered species review was one of the major reasons EPA gave for officially pulling the air permit in September, but Desert Rock Energy Company spokesman Frank Maisano told The Independent that the move was “nothing more than politics at play.”

Maisano said EPA officials have told him air permits are issued all the time without first having official results in from ESA studies, and that the argument otherwise is being made by “activists or people opposed to the project.”

“The new administration isn’t interested in moving forward with the project,” he said. “Desert Rock isn’t alone, it’s other projects also.”

But Murphy said the EPA is supposed to wait for information about endangered species before issuing the permit.

“The EPA regulations require that they consult with us prior to releasing the air quality permit,” he said.

A project like the proposed Desert Rock plant is subject to several federal studies, including a comprehensive study under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a look at the impact on endangered species. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared through the NEPA process that assesses the project from multiple angles.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement for Desert Rock was completed in 2007. That report pointed out that the plant would be a state of the art facility that would emit pollutants — but at levels below what would prohibit the project. The company has also agreed to fund the installation of technology on the two older power plants in the vicinity that would reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions of the region by 110 percent of current levels.

Still, even small amounts of new emissions in an area already overloaded with pollutants is too much, activists and New Mexico officials have said. The Desert Rock plant would be the third coal-fired plant within an area that also has a large oil and gas industry, and agricultural activity. It’s a rural area that has had periodic ozone pollution problems equivalent to a densely populated urban area.

“If you have two Hummers running in your garage, and you add a hybrid — it may not add a Hummer’s worth of emissions, but it still worsens an already pretty bad situation,” Dailon Long, an organizer for Diné Care, a Navajo environmental organization, told The Independent in September.

Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr. is at odds with those opposed to the plant, which include some Navajo families who would be displaced by the project, as well as environmental organizations and the state of New Mexico.

In a statement reacting to the remand of the air permit in September, Shirley said the project is the most important economic development project in Navajo history, and he insisted that it will eventually be completed. The Endangered Species Act consultation and the final Environmental Impact Statement will be completed soon, he said. The company applied in August for a stimulus grant to install experimental technology that would capture carbon dioxide emitted by the plant and inject it into the ground.

Carbon dioxide is the primary industrial emission pinpointed by scientists as the primary culprit causing global warming, and coal-fired power plants are a major source of it. The Desert Rock project would emit approximately 12 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The installation of carbon capture and sequestration technology, however, would reduce that by about 25 percent. And the company thinks that a selection of the Desert Rock project by the federal government as a pilot project would green-light Desert Rock once more.

“I would suspect that if the stimulus money came through, it would be a strong reason for the project to move forward,” Maisano said.

Also coming to New Mexico beside space travel: massive droughts. After thirteen government science agencies have issued “the most definitive scientific assessment to date of the impacts of global warming,” the Local Dialogue blog writes all about the future of climate change here in New Mexico.

Among other environmnetal issues, Desert Rock Blog discusses the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency’s move to withdraw a very important air quality permit. This blog discusses federal jurisdiction, the future of Desert Rock, and how the blogger’s “tribal nation can be a leader in renewable energy technology.”

And the final blog takes up  just what to do with Mother Earth. Blogger Peter St. Cyr writes on Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s support of opening the Gulf of Mexico for drilling. He hopes to “shift our country to cleaner sources of energy, and more secure sources, as well.”  St. Cyr has all the details on the plan.

The action drew praise from critics of the plant and blistering commentary from its proponents.

Assistant New Mexico Attorney General Seth Cohen, who has been one of the primary litigators working on the state’s appeal of the original permit, said the decision by the new administration at the EPA marked “a huge victory.”

“The EPA was supposed to file their final brief today in opposition to our arguments, but had asked for an extension, so we were hopeful,” Cohen told NMI. “Today, in effect, they agreed with us that EPA had cut corners in issuing the permit last summer. It’s a huge victory for public health and the environment in New Mexico.”

But Jeff Holmstead, former head of the air program at EPA and now head of the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell & Giuliani, the law firm representing the plant’s developer, Sithe Global, said in a statement that he has “never seen anything like it.”

“I don’t think anyone ever imagined that the new team at EPA would seem to have such little regard for due process or basic notions of fairness,” Holmstead said. “Everyone understands that a new Administration has discretion to change rules and policies prospectively. But I’ve never seen any Administration try to change policies and rules retroactively.”

While a lot of attention has been paid in the last week to the EPA’s recent finding that carbon dioxide–the greenhouse gas that is belched from coal-burning power plants–poses a danger to human health and the environment, the decision to withdraw the Desert Rock permit yesterday rested on other issues put forward by the state of New Mexico.

The EPA found that the permitting process was issued prematurely, before complete analysis could be conducted of hazardous air emissions like mercury, or the impact of the facility on endangered species, or the impact on soil, vegetation, and visibility in the region. The permit also didn’t adequately examine particulate matter.

Also, in the review of “best available technologies,” developers of the project didn’t include a process called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), the EPA said. Using IGCC technology–which turns the coal into gas before burning it–would make Desert Rock better able to control air pollution.

While many consider IGCC to be an experimental technology, it’s currently being used in at least two other coal-burning power plants, and the state argued in its appeal that it should have at least been studied as an option.

Yesterday’s decision effectively sends the entire permit back to the drawing board.

Holmstead argued that the permit was the most stringent of any such permit issued in the country. The application was submitted five years ago, he said, and dragged on for several years while the company and the Navajo Nation — a strong supporter of the project — tried to “address everybody’s concerns.”

Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley said in a statement the decision was further proof that the U.S. government isn’t “honest and truthful in its dealings with Native America.” Shirley said that the EPA withdrawal of the permit will harm the Navajo people.

“I have people dying every day because of poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, gangs, and the U.S. Government is not there to adequately fund the direct service programs that cater to these needs,” he said.

Shirley concluded by saying that the message from the EPA is that it will hold projects “on Navajo land to standards that may well be impossible to meet — and that wouldn’t be applicable elsewhere.”

Cohen, however, said New Mexico respects the right of the Navajo Nation to develop its land, but it needs to be done in a way that protects air quality in New Mexico.

“There needs to be a substantial re-analysis, but we’ll work with the applicant to re-think the permit,” he said.

New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry made similar remarks in a statement issued by Gov. Bill Richardson’s office that noted concerns related to carbon dioxide and climate change.

“Air emissions from Desert Rock would have singlehandedly undone our state’s climate change initiatives,” Curry said. “We stand ready to assist EPA Region 9 and the Navajo Nation to make significant improvements to the design of this facility including technologies that will address greenhouse gas emissions.”

The press release said the EPA has “effectively” withdrawn the permit by filing a motion for voluntary remand, and that more details will be forthcoming.

The state of New Mexico appealed the air quality permit as soon as it was issued last year, and its been tied up in that legal process since. The appeal was based on a wide variety of issues, ranging from the high amount of localized air pollution in the four corners region, which the plant would exacerbate, to the carbon dioxide the plant would release into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the biggest culprit in the climate change causing global warming.