Editorial: Hydro plant idea a lesson in futility

Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2004 | 9:24 a.m.

The federal law that expanded Red Rock National Conservation Area 10 years ago also included the conditional grant of an adjacent 175 acres to a business partnership that proposed building a hydroelectric generating plant on the site. The conditions included the requirement that all necessary federal and local approvals, licenses and permits be received by 1999.

This week, with all of the conditions still unmet, the partnership's majority investors, including Mitsubishi Corp., pronounced the project dead. Paul Larsen, the attorney representing Diamond Generating, the Mitsubishi subsidiary behind the hydroelectric plant proposal, said Tuesday that the company had turned its lease on the 175 acres back to the federal government. Because the project presented environmental and other problems, Larsen's announcement is welcome.

A minority investor, however, apparently is trying to keep the project alive. Wayne Rogers, president of Maryland-based Synergics Inc., an energy company, on his own wrote to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, imploring that the application for the project be kept open. He said he expects congressional legislation this spring to be favorable to such a venture. He might have been referring to an amendment in the energy bill, sponsored by Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., that would allocate $20 million for a demonstration project mirroring the proposal for Blue Diamond. The energy bill was passed last year by the House but Congress adjourned without the Senate's approval of it.

Fortunately, Larsen was strong in criticizing Rogers' action. "As far as we're concerned, this project is dead and we're just shoveling dirt on the grave. We're not pleased with Mr. Rogers," Larsen told the Sun.

Aside from the issues involving the project's timetable, there were other compelling reasons to reject any reconsideration of the proposal. It's perfectly logical to question the whole idea of a hydro project in the desert. The project was based on the concept that power rates are lower at night, when demand for power is low. Two gigantic reservoirs would be built, one atop a hill and one at the base. In the evening, when rates are low, water would be pumped to the upper reservoir. During the day, when demand for power is high, water in the upper reservoir would be released to the lower one, powering turbines along the way that would generate electricity to augment available power during times of peak usage. The theory was that more power would be available during the day when it's needed, and profits would arise from selling power at its high rate while u sing it at its low rate.

One problem was that in terms of actual energy, the project would have used more than it would have delivered, according to the Sierra Club. Only the times of availability would have been an advantage and even that is dubious, as other sources of power for peak periods are available with far fewer negative impacts. Additionally, the project would have needed more than 1,500 acre feet of water at a time when the Las Vegas Valley is in the worst drought in memory. Should the Las Vegas Valley Water District be approving that amount of water for a profit-seeking venture while telling residents they can't wash their cars at home?

Another problem was the location. This is a sensitive area of Blue Diamond, as past disputes over housing development there have proven. The power plant itself would have been a huge development, with the reservoirs occupying about 60 acres apiece. And if the plant were built, other large-scale development projects would surely be proposed. This area, so close to the priceless Red Rock National Conservation Area, does not need this kind of pressure. We also see major environmental problems if the reservoirs burst or leak.

In our view, any project requiring the use of federal land and federal and local-government approvals should have a discernible public benefit. We see where there could have been a long-term benefit -- the plant would have operated for at least 50 years -- for the investors. But for local residents, a project of that nature presents little of value and a lot of potential negatives.