Gibbons stokes coal-fired plants

Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007 | 7:25 a.m.

The state's Environmental Protection Division has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but environmentalists say pressure from Gov. Jim Gibbons to permit three coal-fired power plants before year-end will preempt it from weighing in.

In fact, the governor could have pushed for delays in the permitting process to buy the state time to draw up guidelines that would apply to the coal plants, said Kyle Davis, policy director for Nevada Conservation League.

Seven Nevada environmental groups had filed a petition asking the Nevada Environmental Commission to stall state approval of air quality permits for the power plants until the state enacts limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Gibbons opposed the petition in a letter to the commission, even while touting his environmental record, which includes creating a 12-member Climate Change Advisory Committee to recommend by June how to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions.

Other states, including six members of the Western State Climate Initiative, are considering greenhouse gas emissions regulations. Gibbons assigned Nevada officials to observe but not participate in the group's efforts to fight global warming through emissions reductions.

Environmentalists say it's senseless to permit three coal plants that would emit a combined 31 million tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide each year for 50 to 75 years while the state is considering regulating those emissions.

"If the governor wanted to regulate greenhouse gas emissions he would tell his department of environmental protection to do so," said Scot Rutledge, executive director of the Nevada Conservation League.

The governor's press secretary did not return a call seeking comment Monday.

Although no one questioned the science behind global warming during Friday's four-hour hearing on the petition, or even whether greenhouse gas emissions from power plants contribute to the problem, developers argued that technology that would capture and store carbon emissions isn't available for commercial-scale use.

Tony Sanchez, senior corporate vice president at Sierra Pacific Resources, said the technology likely won't be commercially viable - that is, reliable, proven and affordable - until at least 2017 and possibly not until 2020. Sierra Pacific Resources is the Nevada utility proposing one of the three plants, a 1,500-megawatt plant outside Ely in White Pine County

All three developers have pledged to install that technology once it's commercially available, although it's unclear exactly what commercially available means. Charles Benjamin, director of the Nevada office of Western Resource Advocates, which filed the petition for a moratorium, said it would be easy for developers to wiggle out of those agreements.

And in the meantime, the three plants would emit an estimated 250 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Environmental groups say they will challenge the permits in court once they're issued.

Gibbons said in his letter to the commission that power developers had spent too much time and money on their proposals to derail them now.

Environmentalists say the coal plants should be able to wait for their air quality permits until the Nevada Environmental Commission crafts regulations limiting emissions. The state already regulates emissions of other pollutants from power plants, such as sulfur, nitrogen and particulates.

The Environmental Protection Division's administrator, Leo Drozdoff, said it would take up to 18 months to put those regulations in place.

"It would not be possible to develop a consensus on an issue like this in three months," he told the commission at Friday's hearing in Carson City.

He said workshops on the new regulations would have to be scheduled for this week if the division were to bring a proposal to the Environmental Commission by its December meeting.

Roberto Dennis, corporate senior vice president of energy supply at Sierra Pacific Resources, said that if the state enacts any regulations proposed by the Climate Change Advisory Committee next year or develops its own regulations, the company will comply with the law.

He said the state's Public Utilities Commission, which has ruled that Sierra Pacific Resources' plans for coal-fired generation are in the best financial interest of rate payers, would likely rule that the cost of efforts to comply with those laws be passed on to consumers.