Comment by Paul Sheldon

April 7, 2008 @ 9:58 am

Mr. Maisano’s comments, as usual, have the unfortunate result of diverting attention away from the real issue–mining and burning coal do not, and will not provide the same kind of sustainable economic development for the Navajos that could be provided if they invest in wind energy, solar energy, or any other kind of value-added development other than liquidating natural capital.

Paul Sheldon

Comment by Frank Maisano

April 8, 2008 @ 9:46 pm

Not true Paul. Sure, renewables must be an important part of the mix. But the the 500 MW of wind that the Navajo are considering will be difficult to build because of transmission line challenges (a big problem for my renewable projects across the country) As well, the economic return is good, but way smaller than Desert Rock. Over the life of the project, the Nation will realize about $60 -$100 million — that’s two years of guaranteed returns on Desert Rock on the top end.

As for jobs, 500 MW could produce about 15-20 permanent and a few hundred construction jobs. Again, those are important jobs and opportunities, but way less than Desert Rock.

Renewables are important, but so is Desert Rock and the two can be done together — especially with the huge power needs in the entire fast-growing Southwest. The Navajo Nation has vast natural resources — including coal — and the Nation should be able to turn those vast natural resources into tangible benefits for the Navajo people.

With 50 % unemployment and $50 million in revenue at stake, Desert Rock make economic sense. As well, with its advanced pollution controls (virtually no regional haze pollution, 90% reductions in mercury, 20% less CO2) and air-cooling system (using 85% less water) it makes environmental sense as well. This plant is the Prius of coal plants. No one would compare the environmental technology of a 1965 Mustang with today’s Prius — yet that is what opponents do when they compare Desert Rock to current coal plants — which average 43 years in age.

Comment by Frank Maisano

April 8, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

By the way, Ernie, there have been more than 450 public meetings about this project since its inception in 2003. It has pretty much always been an open book, from chapter meetings to Navajo tribal council hearings to state legislative hearings and debates to EPA (Air Permit) and BIA (Enviro Impact Statement) public hearings. Opponents of this project have attempted to create one conspiracy after another to claim they were wronged, but the claims never seem to hold water.

As to where the small amount of water the project would use will come from, that illustrates the irony. That information would have been in BIA’s Draft EIS had the opponents of the project not blocked us for more than 2 months from doing our permitted test well drilling in December of 2006. You can’t have it both ways. It is an ironic twist that opponents are suing BIA to get the very information they prevented from being in the draft EIS because of their site protest.

Comment by Paul Sheldon

April 9, 2008 @ 6:52 am

Well, hello, Frank!

I’m delighted to make your online acquaintance. In fact I’ve been looking forward to this since co-authoring the Dine’ CARE report on energy and economic alternatives to the proposed Desert Rock plant last summer. Have you read the report?

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Tom Johns and Steven Begay in Window Rock last July:

How do you plan to account for the costs of the 12,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide to be emitted by the proposed Desert Rock plant (or any of your other coal plants, for that matter)?

According to our calculations, that will cost the Navajo at least $60,000,000 per year, which pretty much negates any net revenue from the plant, right?

Last summer, Tom said you were planning to pass the carbon costs through to the rate payers of the as-yet-to-be-named clients who purchase the electricity. But if you’re following recently proposed legislation and policy, that’s not going to be allowed. So the price of Desert Rock electricity jumps from $.069 to more like $.12 or $.14 per kilowatt hour or higher, right?

Wind and solar projects along the route of the Navajo Transmission project would provide more jobs, cheaper electricity, green power benefits, and peak load power, which are what the Navajo, Arizona and Nevada need.

Grant Brummels’ work has documented ample wind locations, as you know; and concentrating solar can provide whatever additional capacity is required to fill the transmission lines.

With corresponding investments in efficiency to reduce base load demand, you and your clients could become heroes not villains, by supporting real economic development rather than neo-colonial exploitation.

I’ll be impressed if you have the courage to continue this dialogue.

Comment by Mike Sharpe

April 9, 2008 @ 8:20 am

I’m more or less instinctively inclined to be opposed to the power plant regardless of economic arguments. But Paul Sheldon’s comments are just so smarmy and smarty-pants that I almost want to support the pro-power plant folks.

Paul, can’t you develop an argument without smirking?

Comment by Paul Sheldon

April 13, 2008 @ 6:27 am

Thanks for your comment, Mike.

In person, i don’t smirk. But people occasionally respond as you have to things I write. Can you suggest how I might have re-worded my statements so that they came across as more accurately reflecting my sincere concern?

I’ve always been passionate. And when it comes to coal, I’ve never understood why we haven’t learned the lessons of the 19th century yet. From my perspective, as soon as we learned about black lung and the awful deaths of coal miners, we should have stopped, just stopped. And as soon as we learned about acid rain, we should have stopped, just stopped. Then when we learned about mercury, we should have stopped, just stopped. It didn’t take arguments about global warming for me to realize that mining and burning coal are not only unsustainable, but truly tragic for some victims. If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we find and fund benign energy sources that provide jobs and returns on investment to replace harmful, outmoded strategies? It has just never made sense to me.

But maybe that’s just me. Truly, Mike, I’m not smirking–just deeply concerned, and, after fifty years (I first spoke on this issue in opposition to Black Mesa in the late 1950’s), I’m really puzzled that we’re still arguing about something that has always seemed so obvious: if one miner dies because of a coal mine collapse, and another from black lung; if one school child has asthma because of a coal plant, and there is so much mercury in fish we can’t eat them, isn’t that enough tragedy to get us to change our priorities?

Mike, let’s take this off-line. I’d rather this discussion stay focused on the issue at hand–mining and burning coal–rather than airing personal concerns publicly.

psheldon@ecosconsulting.com

Any specific suggestions will be gratefully received.

Comment by Frank Maisano

April 29, 2008 @ 7:51 am

Paul,

As one who is working on climate legislation nearly everyday, I think you may be overly optimistic regarding what it will look like — especially any cost provisions — and how quickly it may become law, if at all. You seem to know more than even the leaders of the House and Senate Committees that cannot seem to answer these difficult and complex questions — and they are writing the legislation of which you speak so confidently. I suspect you will be asking me next year at this time the very same questions. The carbon costs will not be defined anytime soon.

As for the carbon at DR, you know the 12.7 m tons (by the way, a high number — it is likely that there will only be 10.9 m tons under normal operating conditions. The 12.7 number in the draft EIS is a maximum number if the plant operated 24 hours a day at full capacity — an unlikely scenario with any power plant) are part of the global greenhouse gas emissions profile and effect the globe the same as any emissions from Europe (who are building at least 14 coal plants), China (building a coal plant a week with older technology), India (the world Bank just funded a 3K MW coal plant) and many others who are adding emissions. Carbon emissions don’t stop at the New Mexico/Colorado or US/mexico border. The only way to conduct a rational international emissions regime that will have a meaningful impact is to engage the developing world and encourage them to use clean technologies. Overall, when we meet power needs, promote conservation, advance technology and use more efficient power generation (the truest way of reducing emissions) we will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in a way that doesn’t cause fuel switching and impose great costs — especially on fast-growing regions and those in the middle class or living in poverty who can least afford it.

Arbitrary targets that are impossible (or at least very difficult) to meet with severe economic dislocation (similar to EU’s failing Kyoto policy which has lead to higher emissions than the US policy) and creating a complex credit trading system that could be gamed seem to be the wrong approach — call it experience from watching and participating in this debate for 11 years now.

As well, it is an unjust argument to tell the Navajos that they cannot tap their all vast natural resources for the benefit of their people. It is the Navajos plan and they invited us to participate in developing the project in 2003. I hardly would suggest that is exploitation of any kind. As for your renewables arguments, I think again — at least in the short term, — your are overly optimistic. And I am an aggressive advocate for wind and solar. There is no doubt that renewable can and must play a very significant role providing power for our future. But given the short-term growth projections of the Southwest and the realities of getting projects approved and developed, we are going to have to continue to develop all forms of generation — coal included.

By the way, I’ve been on the Navajo Nation regularly over the previous 4 years and not many people have treated us like villains. In fact only the same select few, supported by some from off the Nation who claim to know better than the Navajos (those in Durango Albuquerque and Santa Fe). Every one else seems to think it would nice to have the jobs and the revenue for the Navajo people. In fact, their biggest fear is that it won’t get done for some reason. We intend to make sure that fear is not realized.