Senate passes bill on power plants

Cy Ryan and Launce Rake

Monday, April 23, 2001 | 11:32 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A bill that could speed up the approval of permits for construction of power plants was approved by the Senate and sent to the Assembly, but power industry officials say the bill will do little to solve the state's looming power crisis.

Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said Senate Bill 362 was another piece in the "energy solution puzzle" and will "expedite the licensing" of generating plants. It requires those who want to build power plants to apply for permits simultaneously to federal, state and local governments.

Under the bill, an application would have to be approved or rejected within 150 days by the state environmental division. If there are environmental impact studies for other government agencies, the state agency must accept them.

Nevada Power President Steve Rigazio said the bill could help speed approval of power plants, but bigger issues remain to delivering power. While other companies will build and operate the plants, Rigazio's company will have to get that power to consumers in Southern Nevada.

He said legislative action may be necessary to get equally quick approval for the transmission lines, which also require environmental clearance, to carry that energy.

Rigazio said 11 to 15 power plants -- from small stations designed for operating only at peak consumption periods to large, full-time plants -- are slated for construction in Southern Nevada. Each of those will need transmission lines to connect them to the power grid.

For Nevada Power, "the key issues are federal," because so much land in the state is controlled by federal agencies, he said.

The proposed power plants could come on line by summer 2003, easing power shortages in Nevada, California and the West.

The bill, Titus said, does not shorten the notice of public comment and does not lessen environmental standards.

Jim Deacon, a UNLV professor of environmental studies, noted that putting the different processes on a parallel track wouldn't necessarily water down environmental protections.

"If the environmental impact statement is done honestly, it does provide a forum for public input," Deacon said. "It shouldn't theoretically require three separate public hearings (on the environmental impact)."