Nevada doesn’t need coal-fired plants, ‘green’ report says

Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Are EPA coal emission standards strict enough?

Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player

Hundreds of citizens from Nevada and Utah came to Mesquite City Hall to appeal to the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and speak out against a proposed coal plant.

Coal plant debate intensifies (1-23-08)
Editorial: Easing away from coal (1-25-2008)
Another foe of coal (1-17-2008)
Blog: Cost, not coal, may be plant's main issue (1-11-08)
Ralston: Why Sierra Power's head honcho is taking on Reid over renewables (9-26-07)

Nevada’s largest utility could meet the state’s growing energy demand without coal-fired power plants, according to a California environmental group.

Sierra Pacific Resources, parent company of Nevada Power, could keep the lights on with energy efficiency improvements and by developing renewable energy, long-distance transmission lines and natural gas plants, according to a report released Wednesday by The Energy Foundation in San Francisco.

The report was completed by Aspen Environmental Group’s Carl Linvill, who was energy adviser to then-Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and a member of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission from 2003 until May 2006.

Linvill said the state’s need to develop alternatives to large, centralized fossil fuel plants was highlighted by the November announcement that Sierra Pacific Resources would accelerate plans to develop a 500-megawatt, natural gas-fired generating station 25 miles north of Las Vegas because of delays in permitting for a coal-fired power plant near Ely.

The report says the utility by 2013 could develop 1,442 to 2,337 megawatts — enough power for 1 million to 1.75 million homes — by building a transmission line to tie the Northern and Southern Nevada power grids together for the first time; developing geothermal, wind and solar power; increasing efficiency measures; and creating 300 to 500 megawatts of natural gas-fired power, enough for 225,000 to 375,000 homes.

Sierra Pacific Resources has said transmission between the two regions of the state is too expensive to be feasible without a large coal plant. The company plans to build a 250-mile power line from eastern Nevada to Las Vegas in conjunction with its 1,500-megawatt Ely Energy Center, but delays to the Ely plant are also holding up the transmission line.

Linvill said there are enough benefits to building the $600 million line that it should be proposed separately and constructed as soon as possible. Those benefits include access to Northern Nevada and out-of-state power resources and the ability to more easily develop the most inexpensive renewable energy resources.

Dan Geary, a representative of the Pew Environment Group, said growing popular and congressional support for legislation limiting carbon emissions, especially from coal-fired power plants, will make developing plants such as the one proposed in Ely more difficult.

“There will be strong incentives for the development of resources being talked about in the (Energy Foundation) report and disincentives for those that Nevada Power is talking about,” Geary said Wednesday.

Mario Villar, Sierra Pacific Resources transmission executive, said the company has not reviewed the entire report, but that “initially it doesn’t appear to be inconsistent with our company’s diversification strategy.”

Sierra Pacific Resources President and CEO Michael Yackira has described that strategy as a three-pronged approach of efficiency measures, renewable energy development and traditional fossil fuel plants such as the Ely Energy Center.

Discussion: 2 comments so far…

By Socrates

2/15/08 at 2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

The report discussed in this article is an extremely important document that should be read by every citizen and decision maker in Nevada.

Entitled "Laying a Foundation for Nevada’s Electricity Future: Generation Facility Uncertainties and the Need for a Flexible Infrastructure," the document outlines a clear and achievable energy path for Nevada that leads to economic success for the utility companies, will keep rates reasonable for us, their customers, and provides for the long term preservation of our natural resources including the clean air we all like so much.

Rather than dig up someone else's state and send them our money (making only the coal companies rich in the process), this report shows how we can harvest our own abundant, truly clean, renewable energy.

It's clear that toxic coal is not needed at all and based on recent economic developments, coal will be by far the most expensive option. In fact, our nation's leading scientists say that we'll be bulldozing coal plants in a few years as the damage they create becomes more obvious.

Due to the credibility of the report's author and the conservative logic upon which the findings are based, Sierra Pacific, Nevada Power, the PUC and the governor now have a tangible, realistic road map for energy success. Let's encourage them to follow it!

The report can be found at www.ef.org or use this link to directly download the 3MB PDF file:
http://tinyurl.com/38r939

Please read it and share it with others. Our economic and environmental future depends on making the right choice. Let the utility and your elected officials know that we have viable alternatives to the dead end of dirty coal.

Shall we send billions of dollars out of the state to weaken our economy and spoil our environment, only to possibly be forced to bulldoze the pollution-belching, fossil-consuming beast; or do we turn toward a clean, innovative and vibrant energy future that will allow Nevada to prosper as a leader in sustainability?

Darkness or light. It's up to us to decide.
By Synergy

2/16/08 at 7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

'Socrates' is absolutely right!! (Thank you for an intelligent comment.) The time to ACT is NOW. I'm going to send this article to people I know in many other states, who are facing the same assault by BIG COAL. The coal industry is spending mountains of money for commercials saying they provide "green energy". People are smarter than that - we're not buying their attempts at "green washing" - and as more people choose to ACT - one step at time by many - brings all of us one step closer to reclaiming our country "of the people, by the people, for the people". What step will we take today?