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