Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterNV Energy delays coal plant, hastens transmission line project
Published Monday, Feb. 9, 2009 | 11:15 a.m.
Updated Monday, Feb. 9, 2009 | 1:15 p.m.
NV Energy announced today that it has postponed plans to build a coal-fired power plant near Ely, but it will continue to build a 500-megawatt transmission line to connect Northern and Southern Nevada.
Michael Yackira, president and chief executive, said the decision to postpone the Ely Energy Center came because of the possibility that Congress will consider carbon emission legislation that would increase the cost of the project.
The project is estimated to cost $5 billion, but the application of carbon emission taxes would likely make the project not feasible, he said.
"We will not move forward until carbon capture and sequestration technologies are commercially viable," Yackira said, adding that the technology is still likely a decade away.
The 250-mile transmission line, which will run from a substation near Ely to the Mead Substation in the Eldorado Valley, is expected to be in operation by the end of 2012, Yackira said. The transmission line was part of the plan for the Ely Energy Center and will be built as proposed, except for a spur that would have connected it with the energy center.
The transmission line, combined with newly built and acquired natural gas generating plants in Southern Nevada, will allow the utility to move the state closer to being self-sufficient in meeting its energy needs, Yackira said.
In 2009, he said, NV Energy expects to meet 70 percent of the state's energy needs with in-state generating sources, and the transmission line will allow for more efficient distribution of in-state sources.
Yackira said he doesn't yet have a cost estimate for the transmission line or what its effect will be on rates, but he anticipates that in the long run, the transmission line will help keep rates down, because NV Energy will be better able to expand its renewable energy portfolio and less reliant on volatile energy markets.
"This is the quickest and best way to make sure that the renewable energy we generate stays in the state and that we make the best use of all our resources," Yackira said.
The utility chief said he expected to see legislation that would establish some form of carbon emission regulations this year. The possibility of such legislation was the reason for the decision, not the economy, he said.
"I don't think it has anything to do with the economic realities of our situation," he said. "It's about the economic realities of building a coal plant. … We looked at it and said, 'Now is not the time to take an economic risk for either our rate payers or our shareholders.'"
Yackira said the utility is looking forward to the existence of carbon capture technology, but that in the meantime, it will focus on natural gas and renewable forms of energy.
"The objective will be to get to a point where carbon capture technology will be viable so that we can improve the environment by limiting the amount of carbon that is released rather than just taxing it," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) issued a statement applauding NV Energy's decision.
"This decision, as well as its recent efforts to add highly efficient natural gas units to its generation fleet, will help facilitate the development of even more renewable energy resources in Nevada and move our state more quickly toward a clean energy future," he said.
NV Energy's announcement was warmly greeted by the Nevada Conservation League.
"NV Energy has made the best possible decision to help create green jobs in Nevada and protect our children from the mercury, arsenic and lead produced by coal plants," Scot Rutledge, executive director of the Nevada Conservation League, said in a statement. "By speeding up construction of a transmission line that can carry electricity from Northern to Southern Nevada, NV Energy is showing its commitment to pursuing a clean energy economy that will help put thousands of Nevadans back to work."
Discussion: 25 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Las Vegas condo hotels remain a tough sell — just ask Trump
- LV companies in denial about problem gambling
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Where to watch UFC 106
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- Fontainebleau contractors say sales process is flawed
- SEC sues former gaming exec for alleged insider trading
- Station Casinos, lenders agree to rent decrease at 4 properties
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (1 Comment)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (2 Comments)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
UFC 106 at Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Julio Iglesias at the Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Natasha Wicks hosts at Hawaiian Tropic Zone
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Tito Ortiz hosts at Tao
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hiroshima at Santa Fe Station
Santa Fe Station
-
Frank Mir hosts at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Amir Sadollah hosts at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
They hear about Stimulus II money for 500-megawatt transmission lines.
Not hard to figure why the change.
We not to stop all gas-fired units that also will be subject to carbon emission legislation.
If NV Energy is smart they will not buy or build anything until the new carbon emission legislation is in place.
"The project is estimated to cost $5 billion, but the addition of carbon emission taxes would have made it not viable."
Is Obama already going to break his pledge not to tax people under $100,000?
All those realtors that bought up all the houses in Ely are gonna be pissed. They are trying to sell them at 4 and 5 times what they paid looks like the prices are going down in Ely. Once again the realtors get caught up in their own game.
"Is Obama already going to break his pledge not to tax people under $100,000?"
Breaking a pledge? What pledge? Sounds like an RNC talking point to me.
I guess you were asleep during the election. In TV commericals, his campaign and himself often promised not to raise taxes on the non-rich sector of Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVMWjTQh...
Not only will he break that promise with coal power taxes.
He also broke it by signing a law that increased by 156% the federal excise tax on tobacco.
Boy......he sure does look like a regular lying politican.
Does he still walk on water?
"Boy......he sure does look like a regular lying politican."
Not exactly. Surely the Bush excels at not only lying, but also acting on non-existent mandates as well. Obama can't hold a candle to the Bush in the lying and deception department. Well, except in your mind, where Right wingers get a free pass just for declaring their political party.
Regarding your video. He made no pledge.
Weak Nance. Really weak. Why the lies? Do you hate the man so much that you need to invent lies for him?
What are you blind and deaf?
Here I hold your hand.
Obama, a regular old politican liar who can not even keep his promises past one month in office, says:
"Let be absolutely clear. If you are family make less than $250,000 a year. You will not see your taxes go up. Not your captial gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. Your taxes will not go up."
"What are you blind and deaf?"
He never pledged anything in that speech. We was explaining his plan, that's all.
Another day another massive mischaracterization, and insults. By the way, that would be an unprovoked attack on your part. Something you also lied about and said you never did.
When Asked By ABC's George Stephanopoulos If He Would Pledge Not To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class, Obama Agreed.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Would you take the same pledge [that there will be no tax increases of any kind, for anyone earning under $200,000 a year]?"
Obama: "Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes." (ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)
"the way, that would be an unprovoked attack on your part"
You even are blind about your own post. You call me a liar by posting: "Why the lies? Do you hate the man so much that you need to invent lies for him?"
Is it OK if I call you a liar , too?
"Is it OK if I call you a liar , too?"
Call me whatever you want. I put no credence in your opinions of me.
Once again, the video you posted was not proof of what you said. That doesn't make me a liar, it makes you insistent on being right all the time. Just...like...always!
So this is like Bush I, "Read my lips". Ya, exactly. But he was okay. Obama is a black terrorist America hating jew hating liar, so it's not the same thing. Right?
You do agree now in a debate Obama said, "Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their [families making less than $250,000 a year] taxes."
You do agree now that he has raise their taxes and broke that pledge within weeks of taking office.
You do agree that you called me a lair.
You do agree that I never have called Obama a black terrorist America hating jew hating liar.
Is Ok that correct? or you going back to your dream world where you make up stuff.
A tax on a business is not a tax on an individual.
If NV Energy pays more in taxes to the government, then the individual pays higher utility fees, not taxes.
I know jfNance32 is often vague with his own words (three different ways of referencing taxing on this page alone! (100k? "non-rich sector"? 250k?)), but this is such a far-flung spin it's boomeranged back and struck poor jfNance32 in the head.
ksand99....Obama just signed a law on to increase taxes on tobacco that consumers pay directly.
How are you going get that boomerang out your head?
"You do agree now that he has raise their taxes and broke that pledge within weeks of taking office."
I totally agree that he said something like Bush I, and that the situation has now changed dramatically since he said it early in the campaign last year. So, unlike your insistence on proving him (and me) a liar, I can see the entire story. Not ignore half of it to "create" a point like you do.
"You do agree that I never have called Obama a black terrorist America hating jew hating liar."
No, I do not agree. Your message has been consistent and clear. Just like you ignored my point about Bush I, you ignore your own history as well.
By the way, my dreams are going really well thanks. How about yours? Had any wishes come true lately?
All I can say is congratulations to the utility for doing the right thing and protecting Nevada's ratepayers from future carbon costs. Sure, natural gas will get hit, but not nearly as bad as coal.
As for Nance, well, he loves to pick a fight on taxes. So let me ask Nance something: Can you tell me how a local utility's decision to forecast a market force, as opposed to reacting later, is bad for ratepayers? How do you blame Obama for this? Do you have any idea how much private/public investment and how many jobs will be created by moving away from carbon intensive energy?
Before you answer, tell me this: How many tax subsidies have Big Coal and Nuclear received (at our expense) over the past 40 years? Both for electrical production and mining coal and uranium? Have you heard of the Price Anderson Act? It puts the American people on the hook for disaster insurance for nuclear power plants. Also, the cost of cleaning up the toxic coal ash in Tennessee will be born by ratepayers if TVA gets their way.
Tell me about an expensive accident or failure by a large scale renewable project? How much has that cost us?
Nance, please, in all sincerity, I would love an original and thoughtful response.
You can not find one post where I call Obama a black terrorist or a terrorist.
Clearly, you are making stuff up which is typical of the stuff you do.
At least, you now admit he actually made a promise not to raise taxes on families that make over $250,000 a year.
Yes, Obama made that promise.
In fact, his campaign in October ran commercials that said: "Barack Obama: no tax hikes on any families earning less than a quarter-million dollars." He never back off that promise even after Wall Street was going down.
So Obama is just another regular lying politican.
Geez, you're like a "running brook" that never stops.
Obama is a politician just like the Bush brothers and Daddy B, except who does things I like instead of things you like.
"Sure, natural gas will get hit, but not nearly as bad as coal."
Without the actual carbon emission legislation I would stop all building and buy of base loaded units.
You never know what some environmental lobbyist will get implement.
Really, jfNance32? Your entire line of reasoning is based on raising a sin tax?
If we started allowing and taxing prostitution, according to your logic, that would also be an increased tax on the middle class.
No, this is not raising taxes on all families, so no, it does not break his pledge. My family, with an annual income of around 90k, would not be affected in ANY WAY by an increased tax on tobacco.
If you can't comprehend that Obama was talking about INCOME TAXES, then you can't be helped.
Boomerang, comin' back atcha!
fjnance32 and I don't always agree on things, but I usually find her/his responses being fact-filled and original. Certainly not as emotionally charged as others.
Onion's challenge of identifying a large-scale renwable project accident: there are no large-scale renewable projects in operation in this country. Renewable projects so far in operation are small. But the big ones are coming, that's for sure, and with them will be disasters: earth-shifting from geothermal plants; hazardous air pollutants from solar plants (e.g., Nevada Solar One in Boulder City); heat transfer fluid (i.e., isopentane or similar fluids) leaks (stored by the millions of gallons at solar thermal plants); ice and tornados bringing down wind turbines......matter of time.
"Do you have any idea how much private/public investment and how many jobs will be created by moving away from carbon intensive energy?"
One can can create jobs by investing in any energy source platform, like nuclear for example.
The largest Solar thermal plant in world has 50 employees. So if we created 1,000 (very very doubtful) of those plants that will be 50,000 long term jobs.
Most power plants do not have that many jobs. If they were labor intenstive operations then the cost of power would be much much higher.
The construction jobs would be short term.
Also, I imagine that you want to eliminate coal based jobs. So I do not think the net new long term jobs will be that great, if any.
The same is true for construction jobs. Like instead of building a coal plant we are building a solar plant. The jobs gain are reduced by the jobs lost.
Lastly, solar and wind are more expensive providers of power. That will cause our economy to be less efficient which will have a job destruction effect.
"Tell me about an expensive accident or failure by a large scale renewable project? How much has that cost us?"
First it will cost us in damage to pristine wilderness areas that will have large spread out wind and solar farms that will require roads, high power tranmsission lines and humans to service those farms.
My guess is that in about 30 to 35 years from now there will be a big project to clean up abandon wind and solar farms many of which will be located in wilderness (once pristine but no longer because of the farms) areas.
Hopefully you agree that the current technology for solar and wind can not provide reliable 24/7 power on a cost effective basis.
Therefore those systems can only provide supplemental power to the grid and can't not be relied on to provide 24/7 on the spot reliable energy especially during weeks of cloudy days or low wind days.
We will still have a need for nuclear, coal or natural gas plants that have the capacity to run 24/7 and deliever power regardless of the weather conditions.
Harry Reid has put $2 billion dollars into the Reid --Pelosi Stimulus II package to push forward on the FutureGen initiative.
FutureGen will equip and demonstrate new clean coal power plants by using advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
So is Harry Reid is stopping coal in Nevada. Coal is our cheapest source of central generating power. With advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology there is no carbon emission cap and trade cost.
Meanwhile Harry Reid is promoting natural gas-fired unit which pollute CO2 at have the rate of a dirty coal plant and will be subject to carbon emission cap and trade costs.
Where is Harry Reid's logic.
We need to stop buying or building any fossil fuel plants including natural gas-fired power units, until Harry announces how much cap and trade will cost Nevada.
The biggest lie is the new democratic attempt to say "we are going to stop global warming". They know that the hundreds of wind farms they want will not give the power they need. So instead of one coal plant, they want many natural gas plants which will not stop carbon.
No one wants to produce enrgy on the roof. I guess the profits are not there.