Thinking Green
Mark Pearson



Desert Rock blockbuster coming soon
June 28, 2007
A Washington, D.C., political operative, on the payroll of a New York City presidential candidate's law firm, roams the Southwest attempting to stifle opposition to a massive coal-burning energy project that would steamroll traditional ways of life.

init();
In a slick maneuver to boost profits even more, the Manhattan billionaire behind the project sells a hefty interest in the project to the Chinese government. Meanwhile, the governor in whose state the project is situated, and with aspirations himself to run for president as an anti-global-warming crusader, ducks the project at every turn for fear of antagonizing either his targeted voters or the duly elected government of an impoverished Indian tribe persuaded to sponsor the power plant.

It could be the plot of a summer blockbuster action movie. But alas, it's the true-life tale of our very own Desert Rock Energy Project, now coming to theaters (or at least public hearings) near you in July.

After a bumbling start, the Bureau of Indian Affairs finally announced a series of rescheduled public hearings that include opportunities for comment in Towaoc and in Durango on July 18. Because the BIA lacks the staff and the expertise to analyze the environmental impacts of the 1,500-megawatt coal-burning power plant proposed south of Shiprock, the project's environmental impact statement was drafted by a private consulting firm paid for by Sithe Global Energy.

And a whopper of an EIS it is - 1,600 pages. Desert Rock would spew more than 12 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. With increased carbon dioxide pollution fingered as the primary culprit for global warming, one might assume that global warming merits lengthy, serious evaluation in this document purporting to analyze environmental impacts. But no, global warming receives one entire paragraph of discussion amid the 1,600 pages, and is quickly dismissed because "global dimming" will counteract any negative effects. Global dimming is apparently the benefit of soot, particulates, and other pollutants spewed out of the smokestacks. The junk in the atmosphere then absorbs and reflects more sunlight, hence reducing the impacts of carbon-dioxide-induced global warming.

That's Sithe's solution to CO2 pollution - soot and aerosol spewed from the stacks. I don't know what Sithe paid for its EIS, but it might want to tune into "Are you smarter than a 5th grader," because it sure doesn't appear to have received much bang for the buck in the global-warming analysis.

The EIS also helpfully points out that Shiprock and surrounding environs are already disproportionately affected by environmental degradation caused by massive industrial projects - coal strip mines, power plants, gas fields and more - so another power plant and coal mine is no big deal.

Residents with concerns about these or other aspects of Desert Rock might want to offer comment: Durango's Iron Horse Inn from 5 to 8 p.m., or Towaoc Ute Mountain Casino from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., both July 18. More information about the EIS and how to comment is available at www.sanjuancitizens.org/air/desertrock.shtml.

mpearson@frontier.net. Mark Pearson is director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance.

>From: Roger Clark
>To: nonewcoalplants@energyjustice.net
>Subject: [No New Coal Plants] Coal is the Enemy
>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:35:03 -0700
>


>Coal is the enemy of the human race: Robert Murray can kiss my ass
>edition
>Posted by David Roberts
> at 12:52 PM on 28 Jun
>2007
>
>excerpt
>Look, the coal industry is still large and very influential. It's going
>to take some time to transition to clean energy, so its influence will
>be around for a while. Of course politicians have to go out of their way
>to assure everyone that coal still has a role to play. Of course
>"prominent environmentalist" David Hawkins of the NRDC has to rush
in
>and say, "We don't see a conflict between protecting the climate and
>continuing to use reasonable amounts of coal." Nobody in positions of
>power can afford to take on Big Coal directly.
>But I'm not a politician or a prominent environmentalist, so I don't
>have to bullshit. The goal is to eliminate the coal industry. Of course
>the goal is to eliminate the coal industry. Coal is filthy. It destroys
>ecosystems to dig it up. It kills the people who work around it. Coal
>plants throw particulates in the air and causes respiratory ailments.
>They throw mercury in the water and causes birth defects. They throw CO2
>into the atmosphere and causes global warming. The coal industry
>corrupts the political process. It lies to the public about global
>warming, and mine safety, and coal reserves, and everything else. It
>leeches money and opportunity out of the states where it is based.
>The only reason we think of coal as "cheap" is that we don't tally
all
>those costs in the debit column.
>We still use it because of inertia -- we have an enormous infrastructure
>built up around it; the industry has insinuated itself into our
>political system; we've never forced the industry to internalize its
>costs so the market can develop alternatives. We'll be using it one way
>or another for the foreseeable future. But long-term, 50, 75 years down
>the road, yeah, eliminating the coal industry is the only sane goal.
>Sure, the industry employs lots of people. So did lots of other
>industries that progress left behind. We'll need to put money into
>caring for the working people the industry employs, retraining them,
>finding them new jobs, bolstering the social safety net that protects
>them from falling between the cracks. But make no mistake: the concern
>for "workers" from coal executives is pure crocodile tears. Nobody
has
>done more to fight against safety regulations for workers, health
>compensation for workers, and collective bargaining rights for workers
>than coal executives. Nobody has done more to lock workers into crappy
>jobs with no futures. Coal executives treat the working class people in
>the states they inhabit like disposable trash. Big Coal has sapped
>Appalachia of money and opportunities and left behind sickness and
>despair. They don't give a shit about workers. They care about money --
>that's it.
>Read More

This photo was taken at the end of the 2 mile March. Sunburnt, tired and thirsty but still strong enough to carry on the Dooda Desert Rock Mission ! See Photo page




Elouise Brown
President, Dooda Desert Rock
505-947-6159
www.desert-rock-blog.com
thebrownmachine@hotmail.com

Subject: Proposed Revised Ozone Standards
Date: Jun 22, 2007 2:04 PM

http://epa.gov/groundlevelozone/fs20070620.html









Ground-level Ozone
Fact Sheet - Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

ACTION
OZONE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
OZONE AND THE ENVIRONMENT
DETERMINING COMPLIANCE: THE FORM OF THE STANDARDS
BENEFITS AND COSTS
ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED STANDARDS
WHAT IS OZONE?
BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE
HOW TO COMMENT
FOR MORE INFORMATION



ACTION

On June 20, 2007, EPA proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone, the primary component of smog. The proposed revisions reflect new scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and public welfare.
Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions. Ozone exposure has also been associated with increases in respiratory infection susceptibility, medicine use by asthmatics, doctors’ visits, emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Ozone exposure also may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occurs following exposure to ozone at levels below the current standard, particularly in those with respiratory illnesses.
In addition, new scientific evidence since the last review shows that repeated exposure to low levels of ozone damages vegetation, trees and crops leading to increased susceptibility to disease, damaged foliage, and reduced crop yields.
EPA’s proposal would revise both ozone standards: the primary standard, designed to protect human health; and the secondary standard, designed to protect welfare (such as vegetation and crops). The existing primary and secondary standards, set in 1997, are identical: an 8-hour standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). (In practice, because of rounding, an area meets the standard if ozone levels are 0.084 ppm or lower.)
Proposed revisions to the primary standard

EPA proposes to set the primary (health) standard to a level within the range of 0.070-0.075 ppm (70 -75 ppb) The Agency also requests comments on alternative levels of the 8-hour primary ozone standard, within a range from 0.060 ppm up to and including retention of the current standard (0.084 ppm). (EPA also proposes to specify the level of the primary standard to the third decimal place, because today’s monitors can detect ozone that accurately.
Proposed revisions to the secondary standard

EPA is proposing two options for the secondary standard:
One option would establish a new form of standard designed specifically to protect sensitive plants from damage caused by repeated ozone exposure throughout the growing season. This cumulative standard would add daily ozone concentrations across a three-month period. EPA is proposing to set the level of the cumulative standard within the range of 7 to 21 ppm-hours.
The other option would follow the current practice of making the secondary standard identical to the proposed primary 8-hour standard.
EPA will take public comment for 90 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. The agency also will hold four public hearings on the proposal in: Los Angeles and Philadelphia on Aug. 30, and Chicago and Houston on Sept. 5.
EPA will issue final standards by March 12, 2008.
OZONE AND PUBLIC HEALTH

Exposures to ozone can:
Reduce lung function, making it more difficult for people to breathe as deeply and vigorously as normal,
Irritate the airways, causing coughing, sore or scratchy throat, pain when taking a deep breath and shortness of breath,
Increase frequency of asthma attacks,
Inflame and damage the lining of the lung,
Increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and
Aggravate chronic lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema and bronchitis.
In some people, these effects can lead to:
Increased medicine use among asthmatics,
More frequent doctors visits,
School absences, and
Increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions.
Ozone may continue to cause lung damage even when the symptoms have disappeared.
Breathing ozone may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
OZONE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Ground-level ozone can have harmful effects on plants and ecosystems. When sufficient ozone enters the leaves of a plant, it can:
Interfere with the ability of sensitive plants to produce and store food, making them more susceptible to certain diseases, insects, other pollutants, competition and harsh weather.
Visibly damage the leaves of trees and other plants, harming the appearance of urban vegetation, national parks, and recreation areas.
Reduce forest growth and crop yields.
DETERMINING COMPLIANCE: THE FORM OF THE STANDARDS

When EPA sets air quality standards, it also must specify the measurement unit, or “form” of each standard, that the Agency will use to determine whether an area is meeting the standards.
For the primary ozone standard, an area meets the standard if the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest reading at a particular monitor is less than or equal to the level of the standard.
EPA is proposing a new and distinct form for the secondary standard. The form, called W126, is designed to account for the cumulative effects of ozone on vegetation during the three months of the year when ozone concentrations are highest. The form focuses on the highest exposure during the growing season.
If EPA finalizes the W126 option, an area would meet the secondary standard if the W126 value is less than or equal to the level of the standard. If the agency finalizes the section option proposed, compliance with the secondary standard would be based on compliance with the primary 8-hour standard.
BENEFITS AND COSTS

While the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from considering costs in setting or revising National Ambient Air Quality Standards, the Agency analyzes the benefits and costs of meeting the standards in order to provide states and other stakeholders with the information necessary to assess the implications of meeting alternative standards. The analysis, which is required by Executive Order 12866, is based on guidance from the White House Office of Management and Budget. These analyses of benefits and costs will be detailed in a Regulatory Impact Analysis to be released in the next few weeks.
To estimate the benefits of meeting a standard, EPA utilizes a sophisticated peer-reviewed approach to modeling the relationship between air quality and health and welfare effects, the air quality impacts of implementing future control technologies, and the dollar values of public health improvements.
To estimate the costs of meeting a standard, EPA uses several peer-reviewed approaches for modeling the cost of using both existing controls and controls that may be developed in the future for reducing NOx and VOCs .
ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED STANDARDS

EPA will issue final standards by March 12, 2008. Based on that date, EPA estimates the following implementation schedule:
By June 2009: States make recommendations for areas to be designated attainment and nonattainment.
By June 2010: EPA makes final designations of attainment and nonattainment areas. Those designations would become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
2013: State Implementation Plans, outlining how states will reduce pollution to meet the standards, are due to EPA (three years after designations).
2013 to 2030: States are required to meet the standard, with deadlines depending on the severity of the problem.
WHAT IS OZONE?

Ozone is found in two regions of the Earth’s atmosphere – at ground level and in the upper regions of the atmosphere. Both types of ozone have the same chemical composition (O3). While upper atmospheric ozone forms a protective layer from the sun’s harmful rays, ground level ozone is the primary component of smog.
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but forms through a reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight.
Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of NOx and VOCs.
Because sunlight and hot weather accelerate its formation, ozone is mainly a summertime air pollutant. Both urban and rural areas can have high ozone levels, often due to transport of ozone or its precursors (NOx and VOCs) from hundreds of miles away.
BACKGROUND ON THE NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR OZONE

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. National standards exist for six pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead.
The law also requires EPA to periodically review the standards and their scientific basis to determine whether revisions are appropriate.
EPA last updated the ozone standards in 1997. The decision to revise the standards was challenged in court by a number of parties and ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the 1970 Clean Air Act provision that authorizes EPA to set NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The Court also affirmed that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set ambient air quality standards, at levels necessary to protect the public health and welfare, without considering the economic costs of implementing the standards.
HOW TO COMMENT

EPA will accept public comments for 90 days after the proposed revisions to the ozone standards are published in the Federal Register.
Comments should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005 -0172 and submitted by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov),
e-mail (a-and-r-docket@epa.gov),
Mail (EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460), or
Hand delivery (EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC).
FOR MORE INFORMATION

To download the Federal Register notice about the proposed revisions to the ozone standards, visit www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone.
Today’s proposal and other background information are also available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system, or in hardcopy at the EPA Docket Center’s Public Reading Room.
The Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. Hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern standard time, Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.
Visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor materials will be processed through an X-ray machine as well. Visitors will be provided a badge that must be visible at all times.
Materials for this action can be accessed using Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2005- 0172.






Stronger Standards for Smog Proposed




Release date: 06/21/2007

Contact Information: Jennifer Wood, (202) 564-4355 / wood.jennifer@epa.gov or John Millett, (202) 564-4355 / millett.john@epa.gov

(Washington, D.C. - June 21, 2007) EPA is proposing to strengthen the nation's air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the standards for the first time since 1997. The proposal is based on the most recent scientific evidence about the health effects of ozone -- the primary component of smog.

"Advances in science are leading to cleaner skies and healthier lives," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "America's science is progressing and our air quality is improving. By strengthening the ozone standard, EPA is keeping our clean air momentum moving into the future."

The proposal recommends an ozone standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). EPA also is taking comments on alternative standards within a range from 0.060 ppm up to the level of the current 8-hour ozone standard, which is 0.08 ppm.

Ozone can harm people's lungs and EPA is particularly concerned about individuals with asthma or other lung diseases, as well as those who spend a lot of time outside, such as children. Ozone exposure can aggravate asthma, resulting in increased medication use and emergency room visits, and it can increase susceptibility to respiratory infections.

The United States has made significant progress reducing ground-level ozone in the past quarter century. Since 1980, ozone levels have dropped 21 percent nationwide as EPA, states and local governments have worked together to continue to improve the nation's air.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created through a reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compound emissions in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of these ozone precursors.

EPA also is proposing to revise the "secondary" standard for ozone to improve protection for plants, trees and crops during the growing season. The secondary standard is based on scientific evidence indicating that exposure to even low levels of ozone can damage vegetation. EPA is proposing two alternatives for this standard: a standard that would be identical to the "primary" standard to protect public health; and a cumulative standard aimed at protecting vegetation during the growing season.

EPA is estimating the health benefits of meeting a range of alternative ozone standards based on published scientific studies and the opinion of outside experts. These findings will be detailed in a Regulatory Impact Analysis to be released in the next few weeks, which will include both the estimated costs and benefits. EPA projects that health benefits of the proposed standard could be in the billions of dollars. However, EPA does not consider costs in setting ozone standards.

The agency will take public comment for 90 days following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register and will hold four public hearings. The hearings will be held in Los Angeles and Philadelphia on Aug. 30, and in Chicago and Houston on Sept. 5.

Learn more about EPA's proposal to strengthen standards for ground-level ozone: http://epa.gov/groundlevelozone/

To: jsefick@earthlink.net
Subject: DR
Date: Jun 21, 2007 8:42 PM


Residents burned by BIA no-show at Desert Rock hearing

By Jason Begay
Navajo Times



WINDOW ROCK, June 21, 2007
Depending on whom you ask, the delay of federally mandated public hearings on Desert Rock Power Plant and its draft environmental impact statement was either a curse or blessing.
Desert Rock opponents - who said they showed up to the first scheduled meeting Monday to find it was canceled - say the cancellation was another sneaky move from a shady project that will corrupt Navajoland, its people and the air above.

Ask Desert Rock backers, and they say the postponement gives the public more time to find and review copies of the lengthy document and submit more informed comments.

In any case, the hearings, originally scheduled to begin June 18 at locations throughout the Four Corners, were postponed until July 17. A Desert Rock spokesman said the delay was caused by governmental red tape.

Specifically, the BIA failed to publish the required Federal Register notice in time, said Frank Maisano, spokesman for Sithe Global Power, the Texas-based energy development company behind Desert Rock. The necessary forms reportedly sat for a week on the desk of a BIA employee who was on vacation, he said.

"There's not a conspiracy here," Maisano said. "The fact of the matter is, this is a bureaucratic process and it took longer than we planned."

However, the delay also has given Desert Rock planners time to schedule two additional meetings, as was requested by environmental groups and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Maisano said.

Still, that provided no comfort to the 15 or so people, mostly protestors, who showed up Monday morning at the Navajo Nation Museum, expecting to vent their concerns about the mammoth project. Many came from the Burnham, N.M., area, where the 1500-megawatt generating station would be located.

Among them was Faith Gilmore, who said she left Burnham at 6:30 that morning to make the 9 a.m. starting time.

Dooda Desert Rock President Elouise Brown, a leading opponent of the project, said she arrived early and took a seat in the auditorium. When nothing happened, she sought out museum staff, only to learn the meeting had been canceled.

"They said it was canceled since June 1, but we were never told," Brown said. "There's a lot of people who think there is a hearing today. Now we don't know what to do."

Environmental groups have filed a complaint with the BIA, which is coordinating the environmental study, saying both the agency and Sithe Global "have negligently misled the public regarding the timing of the public hearings and the opportunities for public comment."

Omar Bradley, director of the BIA Navajo Region office, said Sithe Global published the hearing schedule before getting the OK from his office, and that it appeared on the Desert Rock Web site prematurely.

The Web site, www.desertrockenergy.com, is owned and maintained by Desert Rock Energy, the Sithe subsidiary set up to develop and run the power plant.

The hearings are meant to give the public a chance to voice opinions, challenge the draft findings, and introduce new information about expected impacts from the plant, which will burn coal from the adjacent Navajo Mine.

The draft environmental impact statement, a document about the size of the Phoenix phonebook, analyzes how the power plant would affect the surrounding environment and people under various development scenarios. A technical consultant funded by Sithe Global and the DinŽ Power Authority prepared the EIS, which is required under federal law.

It concludes that there will be adverse impacts but that these would be outweighed by the benefits of job creation and revenue for the tribal government.

Opponents fault the study for inadequate research and misleading conclusions, and say it dodges the most significant question of this era - how the power plant would contribute to global warming.

In addition to the hearings, comments are also being collected on the Desert Rock Web site. Following the public comment period, the BIA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will review the comments before deciding whether to approve the EIS, giving one of many required go-aheads for the project.

Maisano said Sithe Global did not learn the new meeting dates from the BIA until late last week. The company issued a press release Friday - a day after the June 14 issue of the Navajo Times came out - three days before the first two hearings were scheduled.

According to the complaint, filed on behalf of the San Juan Citizens Alliance, the only other clue to the cancellations was when the original meeting schedule disappeared from the Desert Rock Web site in early June.

"The Alliance is highly concerned about the confusion now generated by the BIA's public hearing announcements," the complaint states. "Hundreds of individuals are expected to turn out to these now canceled meetings."

Such confusion could lead some people to give up on the process altogether, the complaint states.

Maisano said Sithe announced the new meeting schedule almost immediately upon learning of it, he said. New hearing dates were posted June 15.

"I think we've been pretty open and upfront about this process," he said.

However, Lucy Willie, who came from the Northern Agency to Monday's canceled meeting in Window Rock, said she has yet to find a usable copy of the EIS. She requested a copy from DPA, asking specifically for a paper copy. Instead, Willie said, she was mailed an envelope containing computer discs.

"What an I supposed to do with this?" she asked. "I don't have a computer."

According to the Web site, paper copies of the draft Desert Rock Energy Project Environmental Impact Statement are available for viewing at public libraries in Farmington, Flagstaff, Gallup and other towns, and at chapter houses in Shiprock, Burnham, Nenahnezad, San Juan, Sanostee, Upper Fruitland, Teec Nos Pos, and Toadlena/Two Grey Hills chapters.

The new schedule for public hearings is as follows:

• July 17, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Farmington Civic Center.
• July 18, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., Ute Mountain Casino, Towaoc, Colo.
• July 10, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Iron Horse Inn, Durango, Colo.
• July 19, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Albuquerque.
• July 20, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Runnels Building (Larrazolo Auditorium), Santa Fe.
• July 23, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., Shiprock Chapter House.
• July 23, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Nenahnezad Chapter House.
• July 24, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., Burnham Chapter House.
• July 24, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., Veterans Memorial Center, Sanostee, N.M.
• July 25, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., Navajo Nation Museum, Window Rock.

The closing date for comments is Aug. 20.

Subject: 3 cheers for capitalism
Date: Jun 21, 2007 4:10 PM
Blackstone prices IPO at $31 a share
One of the biggest players in the recent boom of taking companies
private is set to begin trading Friday, in an offering that values
chairman Stephen Schwartzman's stake at $7.7 billion.
June 21 2007: 5:58 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Blackstone Group, one of the world's
largest private equity investment firms, is set to begin trading
Friday on the New York Stock Exchange.

Blackstone said it has priced 133.3 million common units at $31 to
raise $4.13 billion, according to the company. That is the high end
of the $29 to $31 target range for the offering.

Blackstone will let underwriters, led by Morgan Stanley and Citigroup
Inc., sell an additional 20 million shares to meet any excess demand.

That would boost the total offering to $4.75 billion, making it the
largest U.S. IPO of the year and the sixth largest ever.

The IPO valued Chief Executive Stephen Schwarzman's stake at $7.74
billion, according to Reuters.

Schwarzman, who co-founded the firm 22 years ago, will also get a one-
time payout of up to $677.2 million. Senior Chairman and co-founder
Peter Peterson's stake was valued at $1.35 billion, Reuters said.

Blackstone (Charts) intends to list its shares under the symbol "BX."

When Blackstone shares start trading, retail investors will have a
chance to buy into the management company of Blackstone, which has
raked in massive fees and profits by engineering some of the biggest
deals in the buyout boom. It made headlines when it paid $38.9
billion for Equity Office Partners in February - at the time the
largest private equity buyout ever.

But Blackstone is going public at the same time that lawmakers are
taking an unprecedented interest in private equity firms, and big
players such as New York-based Blackstone could feel the brunt of the
crackdown.

Loose lending conditions and the wide availability of cheap debt have
created some of the most favorable conditions for buyout firms in
years - helping spur an explosion in deals.

Private equity firms buy companies with mostly borrowed money and
restructure or overhaul them. Then they take the businesses public or
sell them to other buyers, often raking in big profits. 
Buying into Blackstone

Blackstone IPO sees high worldwide demand

Desert Rock
One more chance to comment



June 19, 2007


init();
The U.S. Department of Interior will hold another series of public hearings about the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant south of Shiprock.

In other words, area residents have one more chance to make their wishes known to the federal government. This round of hearings follows the release of the draft environmental impact last month. The public demanded more hearings than were originally scheduled. The comment period will close Aug. 20.

Those who comment will not be telling Interior anything its staff does not already know, but the concerns about Desert Rock are worth repeating. The draft EIS appeared to say that the proposed plant would have no "significant" effect on air quality in Montezuma County.

Frankly, that's hard to believe. Pollution from the two existing coal-fired power plants in that region is often visible from many parts of Southwest Colorado.

Current plans are to make Desert Rock "one of the cleanest coal-burning plants in the country," but is that good enough? Why not the very cleanest? Surely it is easier to build a clean-burning plant than to retrofit an older one, as should be done with the two existing plants and others in the region.

Another question that must be answered is whether "one of the cleanest" is clean enough. There are communities much closer to the proposed plant than Cortez and Durango; even if there's no significant pollution in Southwest Colorado, what will the air be like nearer the plant? The draft EIS does mention small increases in mercury and selenium to areas south of here. Is any amount of mercury safe for the people who spend their lives downwind of the plants?

The 1,500 megawatts of electricity generated by the plant will not be used on the Navajo Nation. Instead, power will be exported to the south and the west, but the pollution will stay in the Four Corners. So will the jobs, but how much economic growth can be bought at the expense of health?

It is difficult to imagine that the plant will not go forward. The demand for electrical energy is growing rapidly, and economic development is hard to come by in that area. Holding that idea realistically in mind while continuing to protest, there are three ideas upon which interested locals must insist:

• Desert Rock needs to have the absolute best technology to limit emissions. It needs to be not "one of the safest" but the safest with no exceptions, and it needs to remain so by adopting new technology as it becomes available.

• More and better monitoring equipment needs to be placed around the area so that residents breathing that brown air will have factual data. If there indeed are detrimental effects not in line with the promises currently being made, affected citizens must have recourse to demand the air be made cleaner.

• The jobs and economic growth - the reasons the power-plant proposal is attractive to some of the Navajo who live near there - must be guaranteed during the long term. Construction jobs are short-lived, and the operation of a power plant does not take a huge number of people during the long term, but the effects of the pollution emitted by the plant are permanent. There is good reason to doubt that the relationship will be as beneficial for the Navajo populace as it will be for Sithe Global Power, a Houston firm.

Clean air is a basic right, and Four Corners residents are well within their rights to demand it. Everyone who is concerned about regional air quality should attend the meetings and comment again, to keep emphasizing that point.

If the deal is done despite local protests, those same people should keep lobbying the federal government for the health and safety of all.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents copyright ©, the Durango Herald. All rights reserved.





Mike Eisenfeld
meisenfeld@frontier.net

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Desert Rock
Energy Project and the Navajo Mine Extension Project, San Juan County,
NM

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) as lead agency, with the Navajo Nation, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) as cooperating agencies, intends to file a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with the EPA for the proposed
Desert Rock Energy and Navajo Mine Extension projects. The purpose of
the proposed action is to help meet the economic development needs of
the Navajo Nation. This notice also announces a series of public
hearings to receive comments on the DEIS.

DATES: Written comments on the DEIS must arrive by August 20, 2007. The
dates and times for the public hearings are as follows:
July 17, 2007, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
July 18, 2007 (2), 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
July 19, 2007, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
July 20, 2007, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
July 23, 2007 (2), 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
July 24, 2007 (2), 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
July 25, 2007, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: You may mail or hand carry written comments to Harrilene
Yazzie, NEPA Coordinator, Navajo Regional Office, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup, New Mexico 87305. Comments may also be
sent by e-mail to the project Web site, http://www.desertrockenergy.com.
, or to the BIA contractor's e-mail account for this project, DesertrockEIS@urscorp.com. Please include the caption,

``Desert Rock Energy Project DEIS Comments'' at the top of your letter
or in the subject line of your e-mail message; be specific in your
comments and cite the chapter, page, paragraph, and sentence to which
they pertain; and include your name and return address in your letter
or message.
The DEIS is available for review at the BIA Office, 301 West Hill
Street, Gallup, New Mexico 87305. A limited number of CD and paper
copies of the DEIS are also available upon request. You may obtain a CD
or paper copy by contacting Harrilene Yazzie at the BIA mailing address
provided above, at her telephone number shown below, or by fax at (505)
863-8324.
The addresses/locations for the public hearings are as follows:
July 17, 5 p.m. Farmington Civic Center, 200 West
Arrington, Farmington, NM.
July 18, 10 a.m. Ute Mountain Casino, Towaoc, CO. US 491/
160, 11 miles south of Cortez, CO.
July 18, 5 p.m. Iron Horse Inn, 5800 North Main Avenue,
Durango, CO.
July 19, 1 p.m. Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th
Street, NW. (1 block north of I-40), Albuquerque, NM.
July 20, 1 p.m. Larrazolo Auditorium, Runnels Building,
1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM.
July 23, 10 a.m. Shiprock Chapter House, Shiprock, NM. US
491, across from the Catholic Church.
July 23, 5 p.m. Nenahnezad Chapter House, Fruitland, NM.
From US 64, go south on County Road 6675, through the stoplight and
across the San Juan River Bridge. Take the first road on the right past
the bridge for approximately 0.5 miles to the Chapter House.
July 24, 10 a.m. Burnham Chapter House. From US 491
between Shiprock and Gallup, NM, go east at Burnham Junction for 12
miles on N-5. The Chapter House is on the south side of the road.
July 24, 5 p.m. Veterans Memorial Center, Sanostee Chapter
Compound, Road N-34, Sanostee, NM.
July 25, 10 a.m. Navajo Nation Museum, Hwy. 264 and Postal
Loop Road, Window Rock, AZ.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harrilene Yazzie, (505) 863-8287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on the Desert Rock Energy Project

The DEIS discloses probable environmental effects of the proposed
Desert Rock Energy Project (or referred to herein as Desert Rock Energy
Project or proposed project/action) and the Navajo Mine Extension
Project (or referred to herein as the Navajo Mine Extension Project or
Area IV North, Area IV South and Area V of the BHP Navajo Coal Company
[BNCC] Lease Area).
The applicants, Sithe Global Power, LLC (Sithe) by and through the
Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC, and Dine Power Authority (DPA), a
Navajo Nation enterprise, are proposing to develop and construct the
Desert Rock Energy Project. Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC, entered
into an agreement with DPA to develop and construct a coal-fired power
plant on the Navajo Reservation. Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC, is a
privately held, independent power company and a limited liability
corporation formed under the laws of the State of Delaware. DPA was
established by the Navajo Nation Council to develop utility-scale
energy projects on behalf of the Navajo Nation for the economic benefit
of the Navajo people.
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a
coal-fired electrical power plant that would generate up to 1,500
megawatts (MW) of power; the extension of existing surface coal mining
operations at the Navajo Mine to provide fuel for the power plant;
disposal of coal combustion by-products (CCBs); and mine reclamation
operations, with associated mine support facilities and activities. The
proposed project would also include a water well field with supply
pipeline to the power plant, transmission lines, a receiving electrical
station, other upgrades and ancillary facilities required in the
production and transmission of electricity, and new access roads.
The proposed project is located approximately 30 miles southwest of
Farmington in San Juan County, New Mexico, and is entirely on Indian
trust lands within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Nation. The
power plant would be constructed on a 592-acre parcel immediately
adjacent on the west to Area IV North of the BNCC Lease Area. The coal
fuel supply would be produced from Areas IV South and V of the BNCC
Lease Area and transported by conveyor to a proposed coal preparation
facility located in Area IV North of the BNCC lease area, near the
power plant.

[[Page 34036]]

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project

The purpose of the proposed action is to help meet the Navajo
Nation's need to benefit economically from the development of its coal
resources. Construction of the Desert Rock power plant would address
this need, as well as regional power needs in general, by
Supporting the Navajo Nation's objective for economic
development by providing long-term employment opportunities and revenue
cash-flow streams from the sale of Navajo natural resources (e.g.,
water, coal);
using Navajo Nation coal to generate electricity;
helping meet the demand for up to 2,000 MW of electrical
power in the rapidly growing southwestern United States; and
providing fuel diversity, hence a more economically stable
and predictable power supply for utilities in the Southwest.

Proposed Federal Agency Actions

The proposed action includes several elements that require
approvals, grants of rights-of-way, or permits by Federal agencies and
the Navajo Nation. These are as follows:
BIA-Approval of the long-term business land lease between
DPA and the Navajo Nation, of the sublease between DPA and Desert Rock
Energy Company, LLC, and of the rights-of-way requested for the
proposed project.
OSM-Approval of revisions to BNCC's current SMCRA permit
to allow development of coal processing facilities, conveyance systems,
and infrastructure in Area IV North of the BNCC Lease Area and approval
of a future SMCRA permit application to allow coal mining, CCB
disposal, and reclamation activities in Area IV South and Area V of the
BNCC Lease Area.
BLM-Approval of the Resource Recovery and Protection Plan
or a Mine Plan of Operations for Area IV South and Area V of the BNCC
Lease Area.
USACE-Approval of an Individual Permit for the Desert Rock
Energy Project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and of
Nationwide Permits or an Individual Permit under Section 404 of the CWA
for the mining operations in Area IV South and Area V of the BNCC Lease
Area.
EPA-Approval of a significant revision to BNCC's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit associated with
the mining and reclamation operations and coal preparation facilities.
Whether this constitute a new source permitting action subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act is determined by criteria set forth
in 40 CFR 122.29(b).
Navajo Nation--The Navajo Nation's action, as a sovereign
government and cooperating agency, is the approval of a land lease
package that ensures economic development on tribal lands in compliance
with the Navajo Nation Code and applicable Federal law.
The above approvals, taken together, constitute the Proposed
Action, which consists of (1) the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the Desert Rock Energy Project and associated water
supply wells, water supply pipelines, transmission system
interconnection, other facilities required for the generation and
distribution of electrical power, and new access roads; and (2) the
approval of surface coal mining, CCB disposal, and reclamation
operations at the Navajo Mine Extension Project to supply coal to the
Desert Rock power plant.

Public Meetings

Public meetings on the DEIS will include, (1) a presentation on the
Desert Rock Energy Project and DEIS, (2) an area with displays where
meeting attendees may discuss the project proposal and the EIS process
with BIA and others, (3) an area where meeting attendees may record and
submit written comments, and (4) an area where an BIA representative
and a transcriber will record oral comments. To assist the transcriber
and ensure an accurate record, BIA requests that each presenter of oral
comments provide a written copy of his or her comments, if possible. A
Navajo interpreter will be present at the meetings on the Navajo Indian
Reservation.
If you are disabled or need special accommodations to attend one of
the meetings, contact the person under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above at least one week before the meeting.

Public Comment Availability

Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be
available for public review at the mailing address shown in the
ADDRESSES section, during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents
may request confidentiality. If you wish us to withhold your name and/
or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of
your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent
allowed by law. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. All
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their
entirety.

Authority

This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR, parts 1500
through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.),
and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the
exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary--Indian
Affairs by 209 DM 8.

Willie R. Taylor,
Director,Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7-11905 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P






Mike Eisenfeld
meisenfeld@frontier.net

Date: Jun 18, 2007 9:30 AM


Desert Rock Power Plant hearings set
— By Lisa Meerts — The Daily Times
Farmington Daily Times
Article Launched:06/18/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

DURANGO — The Bureau of Indian Affairs confirmed dates for public hearings on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Desert Rock Power Plant, which have hinged on publication of a notice of availability.
The notice will publish in the Federal Register on June 20, which starts the 60-day comment period on the draft EIS, said Harilene Yazzie, regional NEPA coordinator for the BIA Navajo region. Residents also can view hard copies of the document at several locations or request a personal copy. It ends Aug. 20.

The BIA plans to give a 30-minute presentation before starting the public hearings, she said. Technical experts will be on hand to answer questions, as will representatives from all agencies involved in assembling the draft EIS.

Afterwards, staff will take comments from the public. They respond to them in writing after the comment period ends. Translators are available at all hearings on the Navajo Nation and may be on hand at meetings off the reservation.

"It would be nice to have the discussions (at the hearing) related to the technical document and the draft EIS as opposed to the merits of the project," said Yazzie. "That would be our biggest request. If a person is not discussing the draft EIS, it's very difficult to respond."

Omar Bradley, executive director of the BIA Navajo Region, said his office decided to extend the traditional 45-day comment period by 15 days because it contains so much information. It has taken three years for it to be completed.

"We wanted to have a thorough comment period for people to really be able to look through it and recognize the nature of it and the complexity of the project," he said.

People who wish to comment on the draft EIS can mail comments to: Harilene Yazzie, Regional NEPA Coordinator, Desert Rock Energy Project EIS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Regional Office, P.O. Box 1060, Gallup N.M. 87305. They can e-mail them through the project Web site: www.desertrockenergy.com. They can also give them in person at the hearings.


Hearings have been scheduled for the following dates at times:


5 p.m. to 8 p.m., July 17, the Farmington Civic Center

10 a.m. to 1 p.m., July 18, Ute Mountain Casino, Towoac, Colo.

5 p.m. to 8 p.m., July 18, the Iron Horse Inn, Durango, Colo.

1 p.m. to 4 p.m., July 19, Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Albuquerque

1 p.m. to 4 p.m., July 20, Larrazolo Auditorium, Runnels Building, Santa Fe

10 a.m. to 1 p.m., July 23, Chapter House, Shiprock

5 p.m. to 8 p.m., July 23, Chapter House, Nenahnezad

10 a.m. to 1 p.m., July 24, Chapterhouse, Burnham

5 p.m. to 8 p.m., July 24, Veterans Memorial Center, Sanostee

10 a.m. to 1 p.m., July 25, Navajo Nation Museum, Window Rock, Ariz.

The Desert Rock Energy Company — formed of Houston-based developer Sithe Global and the Diné Power Authority, a Navajo Nation enterprise — wants to build a 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant near Burnham. They received a draft air permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection agency last spring and the EIS marks the second of several steps needed to move forward with the project. Plant owners hope to start construction next year.


Lisa Meerts: lmeerts@daily-times.com

Public Hearings on the Draft EIS Announced


Farmington, New Mexico 7/17/2007 5:00:00 PM Farmington Civic Center, 200 West Arrington
Cortez/Towaoc, Colorado 7/18/2007 10:00:00 AM Ute Mountain Casino, Highway 491/160
Durango, Colorado 7/18/2007 5:00:00 PM Iron Horse Inn,
5800 North Main Avenue
Albuquerque, New Mexico 7/19/2007 1:00:00 PM Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, 2401 12th Street NW
Santa Fe, New Mexico 7/20/2007 1:00:00 PM Larrazolo Auditorium of the Runnels Building, 1190 St. Francis Drive
Shiprock, New Mexico 7/23/2007 10:00:00 AM Shiprock Chapter House, US Highway 491
Nenahnezad, New Mexico 7/23/2007 5:00:00 PM Nenahnezad Chapter House, off of CR 6675
Burnham, New Mexico 7/24/2007 5:00:00 PM Chapter House, on N-5 east of Highway 491
Sanostee, New Mexico 7/24/2007 5:00:00 PM Veterans Memorial Center, Sanostee Chapter Compound, Road N-34
Window Rock, Arizona 7/25/2007 10:00:00 AM Navajo Nation Museum, Hwy. 264 and Post Office Loop Road

Date: Jun 17, 2007 10:44 PM


Sunday, June 17, 2007



Contacts:



Sarah J. White, Diné CARE (505) 860-9877

Lori Goodman, Diné CARE (970) 759-1908

Anna Frazier, Diné CARE (928) 380-7697



Sithe/DPA changes Desert Rock DEIS hearings, misleads the Public



Sithe/DPA, in collusion with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), are intentionally misinforming the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) hearings after they widely publicized the June 18th-22nd DEIS hearings for a full month. Their announcements appeared in all local newspapers, Sithe Global’s website, and local radio stations. A little after midnight on June 15th, new dates about DEIS hearings were placed only on Sithe Global’s website without the knowledge of the general public. There is still no effort made on their behalf to correct the announcement of the June 18th-22nd Public Hearings. It is obvious Sithe/DPA is maneuvering to limit public participation.



It is unconscionable to give the public a one day notice of date changes and this looks suspiciously as if done by design to mislead us. There were ample opportunities to do the right thing and inform the public - if that was an objective for Sithe/DPA. A retraction could have easily been printed in the weekly Navajo Times, which is the primary News source for many Navajos, but there was no effort made to publicize these changes in the local papers. Navajo citizens and communities must be informed of Desert Rock hearings since this energy monster will threaten the health and livelihoods of all who live downwind and who will breathe in its toxic chemicals.



This deliberate deceptive move continues the pattern of misinformation and the disenfranchisement of the Navajo people in the decision-making processes that affect their welfare. The BIA should know that a majority of the people on the reservation have no access to communication infrastructure. The discs, which contain the DEIS documents and are being distributed by the BIA, are inaccessible without computers. The Public should receive hardcopies of the voluminous draft to review properly and be given the chance to speak publicly about the inevitable environmental degradation from the proposed Desert Rock.



Burnham resident Lucy A. Willie wondered where she would have to go to view the DEIS CD she received. Ms. Willie had sent a postcard and specifically asked for a hardcopy because she doesn’t have a computer stated, “I don’t even have a computer, let alone know how to operate one.”



Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment (Diné CARE) will hold a Press Conference at 10:00 a.m. on Monday morning at the Navajo Nation Museum in Window Rock, Arizona to express discontent at BIA’s continued deception by misleading the public.



Four Corners community people and Navajo public are strongly encouraged to contact their local media, council officials and Joe Shirley to demand fair and equal participation.



###




Lori Goodman
Dine' CARE
10 A Town Plaza, PMB 138
Durango, CO 81301
PH: (970) 259-0199
FAX: (970) 259-2300
Cell: (970) 759-1908
kiyaani@frontier.net
http://www.desert-rock-blog.com

Subject: Very Important Meeting RE: DINE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS
Date: Jun 13, 2007 11:57 PM

DESERT ROCK COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

Status as of June 12, 2007

San Juan Citizens Alliance (SJCA) has been actively opposing the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant (Desert Rock) for the past three years. SJCA is working with a broad coalition of groups concerned about the implications of another coal plant being built in an area already adversely impacted by the legacy of two large coal plants within a huge coal complex. Desert Rock, as proposed, would be a 1,500-megawatt (MW) mine-mouth, coal-fired power plant built by Sithe Global Power, LLC (Sithe) on the Navajo Nation, San Juan County, New Mexico on a 580-acre site in Burnham. Sithe has advertised the proposed Desert Rock facility as a clean coal-fired power plant.

Sithe is a privately held, independent power company based in Houston, Texas. The financial backers of Desert Rock are Blackstone Capital and Reservoir Capital. Desert Rock is proposed by Sithe in partnership with Diné Power Authority (Diné Power), a Navajo Nation Enterprise. Desert Rock is a merchant power plant, meaning that Sithe plans to sell power on the open market and has no current contracts. Sithe has suggested that Desert Rock “off-takers” (buyers of power) include APS, PNM, and the Salt River Project for energy primarily slated for Tucson/Phoenix and the Las Vegas markets. 0-5% of the proposed power from Desert Rock would stay on the Navajo Nation, where many citizens continue to be without electricity.

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been released in electronic form by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the proposed Desert Rock facility and is now available electronically at www.desertrockenergy.com. The printed Draft EIS is slated to be distributed to the public in June 2007 although no Notice of Availability has occurred to date. BIA intends to allow for a 60-day comment period for the Draft EIS. Early notification dates of Public Hearings for the Desert Rock project were posted on the Sithe Web page and stated that they will occur in June 2007. It is unclear as to when BIA and Sithe intend to hold Public Hearings for the Desert Rock Draft EIS.

SJCA has significant concerns with the potential siting and impacts of the Desert Rock facility. While fully recognizing the sovereignty of the Navajo Nation in siting the Desert Rock facility, citizens of the Four Corners region would be adversely impacted by the project as proposed. SJCA has begun review of the Draft EIS for Desert Rock, after grappling with the electronic version of the document.

Several important issues stand out in the planning/development process for Desert Rock:

1. Carbon Dioxide emissions from the proposed Desert Rock facility

With the increased recognition of the impacts of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a major contributor to climate change; State of New Mexico work to create a market-based, greenhouse gas reduction program with other Western states and California; and the formation of the New Mexico Climate Change Advisory Group; it is imperative that CO2 emissions be reduced in the Four Corners region. Existing CO2 emissions in the Four Corners region include 15.6 millions tons per year (tpy) from the Four Corners and 13.4 million tpy from the San Juan plants for a total of 29 million tpy of CO2 (source: 2002-2003 CO2 emissions as reported to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Database). Four Corners ranks as number 4 in the top ten Western Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Power Plants for CO2 Emissions. San Juan ranks as number 8 in the top ten Western Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Power Plants for CO2 Emissions.

Although portrayed by Sithe as a “clean, state of the art coal-fired power plant,” Desert Rock is projected (Sithe’s own numbers) to emit over 12.7 million tpy of CO2 to the atmosphere. The proposed Desert Rock facility would effectively wipe out all positive actions that New Mexico is taking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sithe does not introduce any analyzed alternatives in the Draft EIS that would reduce the CO2 imprint from the proposed Desert Rock facility. The Draft EIS mentions Global Warming in the context of the connection between fossil fuel emissions of CO2 and climate change. The Draft EIS then discusses the concept of Global Dimming and the idea that there may be cooling principles at place with continued CO2 emissions for coal-fired power plants that are actually beneficial. This document is clearly indicative of the strategy of the coal industry to put a spin on Global Warming and instill doubts in the public as to the severity of the problem that has been created. There is minimal analysis in the Draft EIS of the environmental impact from greenhouse emissions and consideration of best available control technology (BACT), including carbon sequestration, to minimize CO2 emissions as a result of the proposed Desert Rock facility. SJCA is concerned about the public health and economic costs to the Four Corners region and beyond as a result of 12.7 million tpy of CO2 added to the already compromised airshed in the Four Corners region.

Our community is currently saddled with a legacy of pollution from the Four Corners Power Plant, the San Juan Generating Station and tens of thousands of existing (18,000 in Farmington area alone) and projected natural gas wells in the Four Corners region. Absent significant offsets and/or zero emissions from the proposed plant, the proposed Desert Rock facility is certain to exacerbate health and environmental problems throughout the region, nation and world.

2. Mercury emissions from the proposed Desert Rock facility

Projections are that Desert Rock would contribute more mercury (117 pounds per year, at a minimum) to the atmosphere with mercury controls only “if necessary.” Data from the EPA’s Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program website provides year 2000 total mercury emissions from the Four Corners Power Plant (1,174 pounds) and San Juan Generating Station (1,194 pounds). This emitted mercury is showing up as mercury deposition in virtually all of the major water bodies in the Four Corners region. These regional waters include the San Juan, Animas, La Plata rivers; Navajo and Vallecito lakes; Narraguinnep and McPhee reservoirs, and numerous water bodies found on the Navajo Nation where fish consumption advisories due to mercury contamination have been issued. The Draft EIS for Desert Rock claims that the existing power plants are not the source for mercury showing up in our region’s waterways.

Given the news that New Mexico Attorney General Gary King has joined more than a dozen states challenging the EPA's rules governing mercury emissions from power plants and the quote attributed to him, “Simply put, this brief alleges that the EPA's rules weaken the Clean Air Act. Especially in New Mexico, which has the highest atmospheric concentration of airborne mercury in the nation, we feel the EPA's rules are unacceptable,” SJCA believes that stringent mercury reduction measures are more important than ever. Cap and trade of mercury emissions, as proposed in the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) would be a disaster for the Four Corners region. In fact, SJCA submitted recent comments to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on the proposed adoption of the new regulation, 20.2.85 NMAC (Mercury Emission Standards and Compliance Schedules For Electric Generating Units) where state of New Mexico annual emissions of mercury would be capped at 480 pounds per year (per the proposed rules of CAMR). Proposed mercury emissions from the Desert Rock facility would only add to significant, cumulative public health impacts that are unacceptable to the region. Recent information from the EPA suggests that the Navajo Nation would potentially have a mercury allowance of 1,200 pounds per year (per the proposed rules of CAMR), potentially making the Four Corners a mercury hotspot. There is no mention of the implications of CAMR in the Draft EIS for Desert Rock.

3. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts in the Four Corners region

The proposed siting of the Desert Rock facility, as currently designed, would be detrimental to citizens of the Four Corners region through increased emission levels of CO2, mercury and pollutant contributions that result in the formation of ozone. There are literally thousands of sources (coal plants, refineries, natural gas compressors, natural gas compressors) that are contributing to the formation of ozone in the Four Corners. San Juan County, the Cities of Aztec, Bloomfield, and Farmington, the NMED, and the EPA signed the San Juan County Early Action Compact (EAC) on December 20, 2002. The EAC entails milestones through 2007 that are designed to keep San Juan County in attainment of the federal standard for ground-level ozone. If San Juan County cannot remain in attainment for ozone, there would certainly be significant economic and environmental repercussions. The proposed Desert Rock facility represents serious implications that apply to climate change, mercury policies and ozone attainment for the State of New Mexico. It is essential that state of New Mexico, state of Colorado, and Federal legislators be involved in siting and design decisions for the Desert Rock facility, to understand potential alternatives (including renewables, demand-side management, energy efficiency) that preclude the need to build more coal-fired power plants in our state.

The Draft EIS uses the same deficient monitoring and modeling of air quality that was used in the Draft PSD permit.

4. Disproportionate Impacts to citizens of the Four Corners

The Draft EIS clearly states that Desert Rock power would be marketed for Phoenix/Tucson and Las Vegas. The Draft EIS also states that the Four Corners area has disproportionate public health impacts associated with the existing power plants in the region. Of particular note is the idea put forward in the Draft EIS that high cancer rates in the Four Corners are the result of natural arsenic in the soils, rather than any connection to the legacy of energy development in the region. The conclusion of the Draft EIS is that the opportunity to provide cheap power to areas far from here is more important than the public health of citizens of the Four Corners. This is an alarming conclusion by the authors of the Draft EIS and agencies responsible for oversight of public health.

5. Failure to analyze a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

The Draft EIS for Desert Rock fails to fully analyze renewable energy options or carbon sequestration in comparison to the proposed Desert Rock project. Given the recent implications of the Supreme Court ruling that EPA should regulate CO2, the Draft EIS is deficient. SJCA will provide comment analysis on the Draft EIS that will include renewable energy alternatives to Desert Rock.

6. Deficient Scope of Analysis

The Draft EIS fails to include complete information or analysis on coal mining, water quality and quality, transmission of power (all the way to Phoenix/Tucson and Las Vegas!!!) and cumulative impacts. In addition, there is minimal information on the dumping of coal combustion wastes as a result of burning coal for Desert Rock and the contribution to adverse water quality impacts.

San Juan Citizens Alliance will be providing more detailed analysis of the Draft EIS once the document has been distributed properly.

Mike Eisenfeld
meisenfeld@frontier.net

I have received a number of different schedules for the meetings on the EIS. Some seem to change from day to day. I have decided not to post anything until we get official notification. As far as I am concerned they are still going to happen in June. The "official" Desert Rock site says they will be held in July but no dates.

I think this confusion is a deliberate tactic to confuse and undermine the opposition to this plant.

John Sefick

Date: Jun 11, 2007 9:40 AM

Navajo Times
June 7, 2007
Letter to the Editor
Women bear brunt of uranium, power plant contamination
The lives of Navajo women are in the hands of our president, Mr. Joe Shirley. How? We live in a generation where there are more health problems associated with uranium dumpsites, uncovered mines and the ongoing problem of power plants that surround our Navajo Nation.

Everyday there are more women who are diagnosed with some form of reproductive cancers in the areas where the problem of power plants are within a 30-mile radius.

The age for many of these women are under the age of 30. They have not even begun to realize their role as Navajo women at this age when they are faced with fertility problems, hysterectomies and reproductive cancers.

As we talk and discuss the biggest problem now is the building of the newest most efficient energy saving power plant, Desert Rock, which is an underground plan from the U.S. government to realize their dream of making the Navajo more dependent on them for economic stability.

This power plant will release unclean air disguised by their fancy words as state of the art and clean and safe in the form of mercury (a toxin given off by power plants generated by coal).

Another problem is uranium dumpsites and tailings seeping into the groundwater. Growing up in Shiprock for more than 15 years I lived within a 30-mile radius of two power plants and one uranium dumpsite within a short walking distance. This covered dumpsite is on the east side of the Fairchild building.

I was 23 years old when I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and was told that my body underwent a form of genetic mutation and created more estrogen which is harmful at a high level making my body more susceptible for cells to develop cancer.

I underwent a 13-hour surgery to remove one ovary and several lymph nodes that were infected. I am now 34 years old and am in the early stages of menopause.

Is this normal? Is this right? After researching this problem after being told that estrogen plays a huge part in reproductive cancers the risk becomes even greater in the area where there are high pollutants such as power plant toxins and uranium.

I personally know a young mother at the age of 25 who was also diagnosed with ovarian cancer and the solution for her was removing her womanhood, an unborn child's sanctuary. She had a hysterectomy.

There is the problem of infertility, another young woman whom I personally know was not able to conceive for more than six years, undergoing fertility treatments was unsuccessful but through her own faith she was blessed with a child.

The above three women, including myself, all grew up in Shiprock. The added fear of having Desert Rock blowing up steam generated by what they say is safe is not.

The women that are living in the surrounding areas of Desert Rock, BHP and APS are at risk now more than ever. Their daughters and their own daughters will be more at risk of developing a reproductive/breast cancer or being a carrier.

The problem of mercury released into the air is not only affecting the women but the unborn children who have a greater chance of developing some sort of birth defect or mental incapacity hindering their lives with more difficulties.

Where do the problems of respiratory problems stop? It doesn't, it will be an ongoing problem as more babies will suffer from respiratory conditions and have chronic asthma.

The issue is not employment or money, it is about the quality of life, that is what being DinŽ is all about.

When the Navajo Nation leaders who we have elected into office are willing to subject our lives into fearing if our daughter or ourselves will suffer from the black skies you paid for it is a sad day.

Where is the unity that our grandfathers and grandmothers fought so hard for? We are here because they stood up and died so we could live in a place where our decisions will be based on and decided on as a family.

They did not endure the Long Walk to have it literally thrown back in their face as our leaders foolishly decide to perform genocide on their own people.

There are many other safe environmentally sound economic venues that could provide employment, why not pursue those instead? Now there is a push to open the uranium sites. Does your promise to protect the Navajo people still remain true, Mr. President, even though uranium is selling at more than $80 a pound?

Your strong effort to stop all uranium mining was applaudable but the practice of hypocrisy still holds water for you. The same letter should have been issued to power plants as well. It causes the same health risks.

Are you willing to put more money into childcare and health care for those innocent children who have to suffer from mental retardation or other birth defects caused by your decisions just so you could provide jobs for more than 400-plus people?

In conclusion, I ask you, Mr. Navajo Nation President, and the Desert Rock supporters, "How much are you willing to pay for your wives, daughters, granddaughters, sisters, nieces, and mothers uterus or breasts?"

Because, as strong Diné women who have been affected by the illnesses caused by uranium and power plants, our womanhood still remains priceless even though we are lacking some or all of what makes us a woman physically.

Helena Racheal Benally
Sweetwater, Ariz.

Subject: Desert Rock Energy Project Draft EIS public hearings postponed to July
Date: Jun 4, 2007 11:50 AM


Introduction

Desert Rock Energy Company, LLC proposes to construct a hybrid dry cooled coal-fired electric power-generating plant south of Farmington in northwestern New Mexico, per the project development agreement entered into with Diné Power Authority (DPA), an enterprise of the Navajo Nation. Desert Rock Energy is a subsidiary of Sithe, a privately held, independent power company. DPA was established as an enterprise by the Navajo Nation Council to promote the Navajo Nation’s development of energy resources. This project would represent a substantial economic development for the Navajo Nation.

The proposed location of project facilities is on land held in trust by the Federal government for the Navajo Nation; therefore, the project proponents will enter into a long-term land lease with the Navajo Nation that will require the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) approval. The BIA approval process is considered a Federal action requiring review under and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The BIA Navajo Regional Office, serving as the lead Federal agency for compliance with NEPA, has determined than an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared. Under NEPA, actions such as the Desert Rock Energy Project must consider the potential effects on the environment including human, natural, and cultural resources. Questions that typically are considered by agencies during this type of planning process include:

Is there a valid purpose and need for the project?
Have a reasonable range of alternatives been considered?
Is the proposed project consistent with applicable existing regulations and plans?
Will the proposed project cause adverse effects on the human and natural environment?
Is mitigation effective in minimizing impact?
Has the public been informed about the proposed project and had an opportunity to express issues or concerns?
URS Corporation (URS) has been retained to assist BIA in preparing the EIS required under NEPA. A number of Federal and tribal agencies are participating in the preparation of the EIS as cooperating agencies, including the Navajo Nation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Draft EIS for the Desert Rock Energy Project will be released for public review and comment in May 2007. The Draft EIS provides a description of the proposed project, analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives, and recommends measures to mitigate impacts. The Draft EIS has been placed on this web site for downloading. Comments on the Draft EIS may be submitted through this web site (see “Comment on the Project” tab above).

A 60-day public review and comment period will be initiated when the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS is published in the Federal Register (expected in early June 2007). Public hearings have been rescheduled to provide opportunities for public comment. The new locations and dates (in July 2007) will be announced as soon as possible.


What's New (Updated April, 2007)

The BIA has posted a copy of the Draft EIS to this project website to facilitate access to the document by interested parties. The document is currently in production and will be distributed by mail concurrently with publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, anticipated for early June.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for downloading
Please note that the BIA does not currently have access to the internet. To improve public access to project information, including the Draft EIS, materials are being posted on the Desert Rock Energy Project website.


This web page has been viewed 11685 times since December 7, 2004



If you experience difficulty with the operation of this website, please contact the website administrator.

Young, Aggressive Exec Named BHP Billiton CEO

HONG KONG - The world¹s largest mining company, BHP Billiton, on Thursday chose a youthful and aggressive new chief executive, 44-year-old Marius Kloppers, to lead it forward in an increasingly competitive, consolidating global market that is likely to require greater risk-taking.

The 14-year BHP employee had been widely tipped as a successor to Charles ³Chip² Goodyear, who is slated to retire in October after five years at the helm. (See: " Goodyear: A Combination Of Skill And Luck")

The South African-born Kloppers, an executive director who currently runs the company¹s non-ferrous materials businesses, was invariably described by analysts as ³aggressive² and ³ambitious,² traits that seem to fit BHP Billiton (nyse: BBL - news - people ) perfectly in its current stage of expansion. Investors gave the appointment a thumbs up, bidding shares of the miner up 65 Australian cents (53.5 cents) or 2.09% up, at 31.72 Australian dollars ($26) in mid-day trading.

Citigroup praised Kloppers in a research note as ³the right candidate to take BHP Billiton forward in an increasingly competitive sector for acquisitions and investors¹ attention, especially for a diversified miner.²

Kloppers has a strong background in mining operations and mergers, and his promotion raised expectations in some quarters that BHP would move more aggressively to make large acquisitions, such as Alcan, Canada¹s largest aluminum producer. Analysts were less optimistic about the likelihood of a push for a merger with Australian rival Rio Tinto (nyse: RTP - news - people ), due in part to anti-trust concerns over its core iron-ore operations.

Robert Clifford, a mining analyst at ABN Amro, downplayed the idea that a change at the top would make a great deal of difference to BHP¹s near-term acquisition plans.

"I believe that BHP remains a process-driven organization < the influence of the CEO on the organization is measured in decades, not years,² he said.

The CEO is traditionally less directly involved in mergers and acquisitions than a permanent internal team, which constantly runs the rules over potential targets, Clifford said.

Kloppers joined BHP in 1993 and helped create the group¹s aluminum business. He has held a wide variety of executive roles, including overseeing its coal and manganese businesses. He played a central role in the 2001 merger of BHP and Billiton that created the current mining behemoth.

Prior to joining BHP, he worked in the Netherlands as a management consultant at McKinsey & Co. after earning an MBA from Insead in France.

He also has a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a PhD in materials science from MIT in the U.S., and worked for two South African companies, Sasol (nyse: SSL - news - people ) and Mintek.

BHP Billiton Chairman Don Argus described the industry ³in a time of considerable change,² with the emergence of new markets and sources of supply. He described Kloppers as having ³an excellent strategic mind² and offering ³very value-focused leadership.²

© 2007 Forbes.com LLC All Rights Reserved Privacy Statement Terms, Conditions and Notices

Washington Group to be sold to URS

This story was published Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer


Washington Group International, a major contractor at Hanford and the Umatilla Chemical Depot, is being bought by URS Corp. for $2.6 billion, the companies announced Monday.

The purchase positions URS, based in San Francisco, to move into an anticipated resurgence in the nuclear energy market. URS pointed out it would have one of the largest teams of nuclear scientists and engineers in the engineering and construction industry.

Washington Group has contracts at most of the major nuclear weapons cleanup sites across the nation. It's the 13th-largest engineering and construction company in the nation, and combining the companies would make URS the fourth largest. It would have more than 54,000 employees and combined estimated revenue of $8.6 billion in 2007 from projects in more than 50 countries.

At Hanford, Washington Group is the lead company in Washington Closure Hanford group, which has a $1.9 billion contract to clean up the nuclear reservation along the Columbia River. It also is the principle subcontractor to Bechtel National, which is building the $12.3 billion vitrification plant to treat radioactive tank wastes.

It worked with the Tri-City Development Council on a $1 million siting study to determine how Hanford might be used for reprocessing used commercial nuclear fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

It also runs the Umatilla Chemical Depot incinerator, which is destroying aged chemical weapons under an Army contract.

URS and Washington Group have signed a definitive agreement that calls for Washington Group stockholders to receive $43.80 in cash and 0.772 shares of URS common stock for each Washington Group share. That represents a premium of about 14 percent over the Friday closing price for Washington Group shares.

The price for Washington Group stock rose 15 percent Tuesday and the price of URS rose 5 percent.

Employees of both companies should benefit from a diverse portfolio of projects and broad career opportunities, Stephen Hanks, chief executive officer of Washington Group, said in a statement.

"The increased scale and resources of the combined company, including URS's significant design resources, will further support our ability to compete for new opportunities in high growth markets," he said. "The combined company also will have a significant presence in the anticipated resurgence of the nuclear industry, including fuel sourcing, enrichment, power generation and spent fuel reprocessing and disposition."

Both companies will be better positioned to benefit from the increased use of contracting by the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, Martin Koffel, chief executive of URS, said in a statement.

The move comes as contracts employing 4,600 workers at Hanford are due to expire in fall 2008 and DOE works to award three replacement contracts.

URS offers a range of engineering, construction and operation services to government and private clients in the pharmaceutical, oil and gas, power, manufacturing, mining and forest products industries. It operates in more than 20 countries and employs 29,500 workers.

- The McClatchy news service contributed to this story.