For the past two years Nevadans have been debating proposals to build three large coal-fired power plants within the state. That debate has fostered critical thinking on the economic and environmental consequences of these proposals and on the appropriate role for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Another opportunity for public involvement is the March 10 Nevada Public Utility Commission's public hearing in Carson City for the White Pine Energy Station (WPES), a 1,600-megawatt coal-fired power plant proposed near Ely. After public comment and hearings, the PUC may issue or deny a permit under Nevada's Utility Environmental Protection Act, in which the PUC is given authority to assess the impacts from the WPES.
The construction and operation of the proposed WPES would not be regulated by our PUC, unlike the recently delayed NV Energy plant. WPES would be allowed to sell its power anywhere and its price would not be regulated by the state. However, its location within Nevada's borders allows PUC oversight on the facility's environmental footprint.
As Nevada's former attorney general I have serious concerns over the environmental impact of the WPES that the PUC should carefully consider.
The WPES is estimated to use about 5,000 of acre feet of water per year " 1.6 billion gallons " enough for a city of nearly 50,000 people. As the driest state in the U.S., Nevadans should be concerned if this is the best use of our precious water resources.
The WPES will emit over 13,000 tons of toxic air pollutants annually, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulates and more than 12 million tons of CO2.
Apart from the obvious impacts on residents and visitors, the plant also will significantly affect one of Nevada's crown jewels, Great Basin National Park, offering some of the cleanest air and darkest night skies in the lower 48 states. Having the vistas from Wheeler Peak degraded for the next 50 years and beyond because of a bad energy choice would be a real tragedy. The impact on White Pine County's air resources also could limit potential industrial and mining activity in the future.
An honest discussion of any coal-fired power plant should include coal waste. The WPES could generate 500,000 tons of coal waste annually, the majority remaining on site as a landfill " 50 million tons or more over the life of the plant. The recent tragedy in Tennessee in which the containment walls failed, dumping more than a billion gallons of toxic ash into surrounding waterways and private homes, is the latest warning.
Besides the destructions itself, the cleanup is estimated to cost the area's ratepayers nearly $1 billion. The implications of coal waste toxicity are substantial and the EPA should consider that in future proceedings under the new administration.
The broader debate focuses on coal as a fuel vs. increased energy efficiency and renewables. Because either could serve many short-term electricity needs, the long term consequences are the real issue.
Some believe coal-fired electricity will remain economically and publicly acceptable. Others believe coal's environmental consequences will make future coal plants too expensive. The WPES will impose extremely intensive uses on Nevada's very limited resources while delivering power outside of Nevada and creating a limited number of permanent jobs.
On the other hand, developing renewable energy and efficiency options will create more Nevada jobs and protect our environment. The latter is the better choice for all Nevadans.
Please consider attending the public hearings. If you cannot participate, consider sending written comments to the PUC by March 10. Specific information is posted at www.nevada
cleanenergy.com.
- Frankie Sue Del Papa is the former Nevada attorney general.