Thursday, January 31, 2008

Source: http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2008/jan/31/commentary-navajo-tribal-council-should-consider-a/

Commentary: Navajo Tribal Council should consider alternatives to proposed coal-fired power plant

Dailan J. Long


Diné CARE thanks The Albuquerque Tribune for its editorial ("Bouquet: Diné CARE," Jan. 23) bestowing a bouquet on our report, "Energy and Economic Alternatives to the Desert Rock Project."

We commissioned this report to analyze the availability of wind and solar resources on Navajo Nation lands and to shift the obsolete coal-development paradigm that has traumatized our land with irreparable harms — a problem that will be perpetuated by the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant.

When compared to Desert Rock, wind, solar and energy-efficiency technologies are less expensive. Renewable technologies provide 80 percent more construction jobs and five times as many longterm operation and maintenance jobs than Desert Rock — numbers that Desert Rock proponents have not provided to the Navajo Tribal Council and its constituents.

In addition, indirect job creation and economic multipliers within the regional economy would increase, making the net economic benefits from renewable energy development four times greater than those of Desert Rock.

The cost to build Desert Rock has increased dramatically, from $1.4 billion in 2004 to $3.7 billion in 2007, making the project economically impractical, when these costs are passed onto consumers in the form of high-priced electricity.

Renewable energy developments would provide lower-cost electricity than Desert Rock and could be used for decentralized rural electrification in the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo Tribal Council is spending $5 million per month on Desert Rock — without a single return to date. There is no "momentum" behind the Desert Rock project, as The Tribune's editorial suggests — nor should The Tribune worry that Diné CARE's opposition "might not have a Popsicle's chance in a furnace of success."

Part of Diné CARE's mission with this report is to generate discussion within the Navajo Nation about the clean, affordable, renewable energy resources that are available and invoked by people at the grass roots — medicine men and even Navajo tribal officials.

The Navajo people are ready and waiting for change. It's time for the tribal council to listen and consider an alternative that will be more sustainable and not harm the health of our people or our land.

To obtain a copy of the Alternative study or to learn how you can support Navajo grassroots, please email Dailan Long (dailan.jake@gmail.com) or Lori Goodman (kiyaani@frontier.net).

WINDOW ROCK, Arizona (Jan. 28, 2008) - Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) Director Steve Owens invited leaders of the
Navajo Nation to join with Arizona and other Western states to address
climate change by joining the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a
collaborative effort by seven Western states and two Canadian provinces
to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the West.

The WCI was launched in 2007 by Governor Janet Napolitano and four other
Western governors. The WCI presently consists of Arizona, California,
Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington State, along with the
Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba, as full "partners."
Six other U.S. states, two additional Canadian provinces and four
Mexican states participate as "observers" in the WCI. Director Owens
serves as co-chair of the WCI.

In remarks before the Navajo Nation Council, Owens said that the WCI
welcomes participation by tribal governments, and he encouraged the
Navajo Nation to become the first tribe to join the WCI.

"If we are going to effectively reduce GHG emissions in the West, we
need to work closely with our tribal partners," Director Owens said.
"The Navajo Nation can be a real leader in the effort to stop climate
change by being the first tribe to participate in the Western Climate
Initiative."

Owens also encouraged the Navajo Nation to join The Climate Registry, a
multi-national group comprised of more than 40 U.S. states (including
Arizona), tribes, Canadian provinces and Mexican states, which is
developing protocols for reporting GHG emissions and reductions. Owens
told the Navajo Nation Council that three tribes are members of The
Climate Registry, but the involvement of the Navajo Nation is needed as
The Climate Registry moves forward with its work. "We need the Navajo
Nation at the table with us as we develop protocols for keeping track of
greenhouse gas emissions," Owens said.

Owens added that Western states and tribes already have been feeling the
effects of climate change in recent years, such as prolonged drought,
decreased snowfall, increased and earlier snowmelt, and more severe
forest and rangeland fires. Moreover, scientific studies show that the
Southwest will be particularly hard hit by climate change in the future.
"We all need to work together to solve this very serious problem," Owens
said.

The rush to build power plants slows as worries grow over global warming, building costs and transportation.
By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 18, 2008

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/la-na-coal18jan18,1,2287174,full.story

WASHINGTON -- America's headlong rush to tap its enormous coal reserves for electricity has slowed abruptly, with more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states canceled or delayed in 2007 because of concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportation problems.

Coal, touted as cheap and plentiful, has been a cornerstone of President Bush's plans to meet America's energy needs with dozens of new power plants. Burned in about 600 facilities, coal produces more than half of the nation's electricity.

FOR THE RECORD:
Coal plants: A story in Friday's Section A about postponed and canceled coal-fired power plants said that cargo ships were carrying 6,000 to 9,000 pounds less coal than their capacity in order to stay afloat in shallow Great Lakes channels. The ships are carrying 6,000 to 9,000 tons less than their capacity. In addition, a map that accompanied the story labeled the state of Michigan as Wisconsin. The location of a proposed coal-fired power plant indicated on the map is, in fact, in Michigan. —


But urgent questions are emerging about a fuel once thought to be the most reliable of all. Utilities are confronting rising costs and a lack of transportation routes from coal fields to generators, opposition from state regulators and environmental groups, and uncertainty over climate-change policies in Washington.

"Coal projects need more regulatory certainty before any new ones are going to get built in the near future," said David Eskelsen, a spokesman for PacifiCorp, which serves more than 1.6 million customers in six Western states. "The current situation does make utility planning very challenging."

Just a few weeks ago, PacifiCorp dropped plans for two coal-fired power plants in Utah, citing the many unknowns in assessing the costs and objections on global warming grounds from a major customer: the city of Los Angeles. PacifiCorp said in filings with the state of Utah that it hadn't found a substitute for production that it will need to bring online in 2012 and 2014.

Shortages are feared

The setbacks have energy regulators jittery about the prospects for meeting America's ever-increasing hunger for electricity. They say that any delays in building new capacity -- coal-fired or otherwise -- add pressure to an already strained electricity infrastructure, raising the prospect of shortages or sharply higher prices.

Energy planners say coal needs to be in the mix because the other mainstay fuels for generating electricity also have serious drawbacks. Natural gas has proved volatile in both price and supply. Nuclear power plants are costly and take much longer to build -- and the problem of radioactive-waste disposal remains unsolved.

"We're very close to the edge," said Rick Sergel, who keeps a close eye on the grid as chief executive of the quasi-governmental North American Electric Reliability Corp. "We operate under tight conditions more often than ever. We need action in the next year or two to start on the path to having enough electricity 10 years from now."

This fall, regulators in Kansas and Washington state denied applications for coal plant permits because of concerns about carbon dioxide emissions.

After Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said in October that he wasn't a "fan" of coal, utilities postponed plans to build coal plants in Tampa and Orlando.

Xcel Energy has told Colorado officials that it plans to close two coal plants and add 1,000 megawatts of wind and solar power, in addition to a new natural-gas plant. The company wants to cut its carbon dioxide emissions 10% by 2015.

In Nevada, Sierra Pacific Resources delayed construction of a coal plant and moved up the schedule for a natural-gas-powered plant instead.

The Tennessee Valley Authority decided in August to add a $2.5-billion unit to a nuclear power plant rather than construct a new coal facility -- the other main option -- because of the uncertain economics.

Altogether, 53 coal-fired plants were canceled or delayed in 2007, according to Global Energy Decisions, a private consulting firm that tracks power plants for the Department of Energy.

In the near term, coal clearly will remain a part of the American energy picture. Even as the postponements and terminations pile up, plans for new coal-fired power plants continue to advance in New Mexico, Mississippi and Indiana.

Although TXU Energy canceled eight coal-fired power plants it had proposed in Texas, the utility is going ahead with three others.

Last month, an energy industry consortium announced plans to build a government-subsidized power plant in southern Illinois to demonstrate low-emissions coal technology. But the ballooning cost of the FutureGen plant -- now projected to be about $1.8 billion, nearly double its original estimated price tag -- has drawn criticism from the Department of Energy, which could delay or kill the project by withholding funds.

The growing push in Washington to do something about global warming is a major factor that affects the cost of burning chunks of solid carbon, by far the dirtiest way to manufacture power.

A recent study by the industry-funded Electric Power Research Institute projects that coal power will cost more than nuclear power or natural gas by 2030 if coal's carbon dioxide problem is solved the way most experts envision. Still unproven, that method involves separating carbon dioxide from the gas stream before it heads out of the stacks, collecting the vapors and then storing them underground. That would also require a new network of pipelines to move carbon dioxide from the power plant to a geologically sound site.

Another industry analysis predicts that wholesale electricity prices will rise 35% to 65% by 2015 if the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill -- one of the more conservative plans put forward in the Senate -- is enacted.

A more immediate challenge is transportation, from missing links in the rail routes to silted-up Great Lakes shipping channels, which raise concerns that coal may not be so simple to get at after all.

"Can coal deliver?" asked Gary Hunt, president of Global Energy Advisors, a Sacramento-based unit of Global Energy Decisions. "The answer is no," he said -- not without "billions and billions" spent on improvements for mining capacity, railroads and shipping.

Powder River Basin

About 40% of the coal that America burns comes from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana. Sought after for its low sulfur content, the product is sent all over the country on trains more than 100 cars long. But only two rail companies serve the basin, and for 100 miles they share one set of tracks.

That caused trouble in spring 2005, when coal dust built up between the ties, snow and rain fell on the tracks, and the resulting slush caused two derailments. The ensuing bottleneck delayed coal deliveries for months. Utilities started hoarding the coal they had on hand, and ran their more expensive natural-gas plants more often. They filed for rate hikes, and at least two sued their rail carriers.

Railroads are investing about $200 million to improve and expand the tracks leading out of the Powder River Basin, and they point to record cargoes this year. But the National Mining Assn. still has concerns about the future, spokesman Luke Popovich said. "Capacity is adequate now, but it's close to being inadequate," he said.

In the coal fields of southern Illinois and Indiana, a mining renaissance is hoped for -- but no north-south rail line connects them with Chicago and the Great Lakes.

Purdue University recommends building a 300-mile "Indiana coal corridor" -- at a cost of about $1 million a mile.

Overall, the Assn. of American Railroads estimates that $148 billion needs to be invested in freight infrastructure over the next 28 years. The industry says it needs federal assistance to help it cover about $39 billion of that cost.

We Energies, which provides electricity in Wisconsin and Michigan, said it had faced at least $45 million in higher fuel costs as a result of rail disruptions. Like other producers in the Upper Midwest, the company tried to find relief by shipping coal across the Great Lakes. But lake channels have silted up, creating a "dredging crisis," in the words of James H.I. Weakley, president of the Lake Carriers' Assn.

The Lake Erie port of Dunkirk, N.Y. -- site of a coal-fired power plant -- closed to shipping in 2005. A freighter ran aground at the Lake Huron port of Saginaw, Mich., last year. With ships loading 6,000 to 9,000 pounds less than their capacity in order to stay afloat in the shallower channels, coal-cargo totals on the lakes this year are down 8% from a year ago, the carriers' group said.

The domestic transport problem has led some coal customers to look overseas for supplies. Despite the promotion of coal as crucial to energy independence, imports have been rising since 2003. For example, Southern Co., the largest power supplier in the Southeast, brings in nearly 19% of its supply through East Coast ports from Colombia, Venezuela and Russia, said W. Paul Bowers, president of generation and energy marketing.

Coal's advocates say they are still optimistic about the future, because America has 200 years' worth of reserves -- and growing electricity needs. "If you don't want to use coal," asks Janet Gellici, executive director of the American Coal Council, "which 12 hours of the day don't you want electricity?"

Decisions up in the air

In any case, coal producers say, surging worldwide demand, especially from China and India, indicates there will be a healthy global market for their product. Indeed, that demand has helped drive up the cost of coal, which has been at record levels for much of 2007, which in turn drives up the potential cost of coal-fired energy.

The changing coal picture is making it hard for America's energy planners. Decisions about where power plants are located and when they are built can also determine where -- and whether -- new transmission corridors are built. And that could create spillover effects that hurt the availability of cleaner sources, like wind, that would use the same lines.

With power plant decisions up in the air, there's been a lag in seeking new transmission lines, said Suedeen Kelly, who sits on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And because the transmission lines -- like power plants -- take years to move from the proposal stage to operations, "ideally, you should be starting to build these transmissions lines today," Kelly said.

It's tough for those who would build power plants to make billion-dollar commitments that will last for the next 50 years while trying to guess what's going to happen in Washington. The White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives are sharply divided over versions of global warming legislation that could provide answers.

The president's threat to veto the energy bill forced congressional Democrats to drop a requirement for utilities to meet targets for use of renewable energy, such as solar and wind power.

Bush has also signaled that he'll reject any global warming legislation that includes mandatory carbon limits. The proposals are controversial in Congress as well.

This could mean at least another year of jousting -- and another year of indecision.

For environmentalists, a pause in the rush to coal is a good thing.

"It's the silver lining" in an otherwise clouded energy picture, said Bruce Nilles, who heads the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign.

More important is which energy sources utilities turn to in its place, he said.

"That's what this is all about: whether they stick with the old way or we transition to a new, clean way of making energy."

judy.pasternak@latimes.com

Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief
Read Ken's Blog

Coal waste actually falls under the guidelines set for non-municipal, non-hazardous waste. The rules governing its disposal are vague, allowing the substance to be regulated by the state that establishes the appropriate rules for each site. At present, most such waste is buried in landfills. But promising technologies are emerging that allow it to be converted into other, more useful products.

The improvement of control efficiencies and the integration of various gasification technologies either already have or will have the ability to reduce emissions from coal powered electric generation. However, the byproducts of the coal combustion process, such as fly ash and bottom ash, and emissions control byproducts, such as scrubber sludge, are still an outstanding issue. Critics say that those byproducts create a nasty pollutant that leaches into the groundwater when they are buried.

Routine coal plant operations are estimated to produce annually about 28 million tons of fly ash and bottom ash, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. A small fraction of that is now used to make concrete, asphalt or masonry blocks, although the potential to create far more is on the horizon. "By seeking alternative uses for these waste materials, we are showing how innovation is a key to environmental stewardship," says Secretary of Energy Sam Bodman. "Materials that once were discarded are now going into construction projects, not landfills."

Older sub-critical pulverized coal-fired operations are less efficient than the newer super-critical units. Because they operate at higher temperatures and pressures, those higher efficiency boilers will burn 20 percent less coal. Less coal means less carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions. Considering the tonnage of coal burned each year, those improvements could have a dramatic effect on the environment.

Sithe Global has a 1,500 megawatt project in Northern New Mexico that it says will use a super-critical coal facility that will effectively manage coal combustion byproducts. The so-called Desert Rock project will use a scrubber system to cut more than 98 percent of the sulfur dioxide emissions and generate a subsequent byproduct known as synthetic gypsum. This gypsum is used primarily in the production of drywall. It is also used as an additive to high strength cement, an agricultural supplement and a raw material for the production of common chalks used in schools.

Desert Rock says that its super-critical boilers will not just produce fewer emissions than other types of coal plants in the United States but that it will also use 80 percent less water than conventional cooling towers. The facility will be located next to the mouth of the mine, it adds, thereby reducing transportation risks and costs.

"Desert Rock is obtaining the necessary approvals to bury all coal combustion byproducts back into the coal mine from which it is obtained," says Nathan Plagens, vice president for the Desert Rock project. "However, it is our goal to contract the removal of all byproducts from the plant to a company that can use them."

Better Ideas

The controversies surrounding coal combustion byproducts are not new. In fact, in 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency determined there would be a need for national regulations to deal with such "waste," saying that it could pose serious health effects and that viable pollution controls may be currently lacking.

Just recently, the non-profit group Environment Maryland issued a report that said that technicians sampled 80 acres near a dumpsite that is used by Constellation Energy and discovered fly ash residue "everywhere." While the Maryland Department of the Environment has issued fines and ordered clean ups, environmentalists have said the site needs to be permanently closed.

To avert federal regulations, utilities have clamped down on themselves while the states have enacted more rules. For their part, utilities are now placing so-called synthetic liners in their ponds to help prevent leakage. In the case of Constellation, it stopped using the dump site last September and says that it is submitting a plan to clean up the mess.

"The dust results in this study are disturbing because the samples were taken a month after Constellation's dumping was temporarily stopped," says Tim Berkoff, of Crofton First, a local community organization. "It seems like it's everywhere in the surrounding neighborhoods."

That hazard, though, gives rise to the possibilities of re-using coal waste. The Energy Department is underwriting $7.2 million of a $19.6 million conversion process in which a Pennsylvania-based company will turn 430 tons of the stuff into building materials. Power plant designer Universal Aggregates took an existing 240-megawatt Birchwood Power Facility and re-shaped it so that it could make soft pellets from ash. It then sold the pellets to Versalite Sales for use in the making of concrete blocks. In the past, Birchwood has had to pay to bury 100,000 tons of ash in the county landfill.

Similarly, Colorado-based Sky Ute Sand and Gravel uses fly ash to replace cement in concrete. It says that not only is it cheaper than cement but it also increases the quality of the concrete. The company, which has been in business for six years, has projects all over New Mexico and the western slope of Colorado.

"These are all materials that are the result of burning coal, which has its environmental disadvantages," says Rodney Zubrod, vice president of Sky Ute. "Meantime, the production of cement has the same environmental consequences. The more materials you can use from 'necessary evils,' the more you are lessening the impact on the environment and the overall carbon dioxide emissions."

Without question, utilities need to better handle coal combustion byproducts. The dissention created by burying them in landfills, however, could give way to the promise of re-using such waste to make practical products. If that technology expands, it would be good for coal and good for the environment.

Navajos intend to sue over proposed coal-fired power plant
By SUSANMONTOYA BRYAN Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 01/23/2008 04:11:28 PM MST

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been notified by one of the nation's largest American Indian tribes that it intends to sue over the agency's lack of action on an air permit application for a proposed coal-fired power plant.

The Navajo Nation's Dine Power Authority and Houston-based Sithe Global Power have partnered to build the $3 billion Desert Rock plant, which would be capable of producing electricity for more than 1 million homes in cities across the Southwest.

Navajo Deputy Attorney General Harrison Tsosie told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the tribe and Sithe applied for an air permit in May 2004 but that the EPA has yet to make a ruling.

"Under federal law, the agency has a year to make a determination and issue a decision," Tsosie said. "It has been the practice that they take longer than a year, which is to be expected, but in the case of this particular application ... it has been almost four years."

Wendy Chavez, a spokeswoman with the EPA's regional office in San Francisco, said the agency has received the tribe's notice of intent to sue.

"There just hasn't been sufficient time to review it and comment on it," she said.

The 1,500-megawatt plant would be built on tribal land near the Navajo community of Burnham, southwest of Farmington. The area already is home to two other coal-fired plants.

Some Navajos and environmentalists argue that Desert Rock would harm the environment and residents' health. But DPA and Sithe have touted it as one of the cleanest coal-burning plants in the country and a much-needed source of jobs and revenue for the Navajo Nation.

Tribal officials have said that a delay in construction means a delay in the economic benefits the tribe expects to see from Desert Rock—including millions of dollars in lease payments, taxes and coal royalties.

Tsosie said the notice of intent to sue was the tribe's only option.

"Hopefully, what this does is give them some incentive to consult with the proponents and to see what the glaring issues are for the hold up," he said.

The air permit would set limits for emissions covered under the federal Clean Air Act, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulates and lead emissions. Both federal officials and Desert Rock developers have said the draft permit contains some of the strictest controls ever set for a coal-fired power plant in the United States.

The New Mexico Environment Department and others have criticized the draft permit for not including enforceable conditions to address adverse visibility and for not analyzing mercury or carbon dioxide emissions.

Others have complained that a better understanding of existing air quality conditions in the Four Corners region is needed before acceptable standards can be set for Desert Rock.

The draft permit is currently being reviewed by EPA officials in Washington, D.C., said Colleen McKaughan, associate director of the EPA's air division in San Francisco.

"There are complicated issues, a lot of technical issues and there were a lot of comments so it takes longer to review," she said.

----------------
Sithe Global’s law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, has filed a letter with the EPA saying it intends to sue the agency for not yet issuing it an air quality permit — one of many needed by Sithe to build its proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant in northwestern New Mexico. Sithe is threatening to take legal action if the EPA doesn’t issue the permit within 60 days.

Sithe claims there are no adverse impacts associated with its proposed 1,500 megawatt conventional power plant and that the plant will be the cleanest ever built, but that is far from the case. Already, state and federal agencies have filed comment letters highlighting serious flaws with the facility and its effects on everything from air quality and mercury contamination to haze problems at nearby national parks and harm to endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA and the New Mexico Department of Environmental Protection have documented how Desert Rock would have significant impact on public health and the environment in the Four Corners.

Please see the attach file submitted by Jeffrey R. Holmstead of Bracwell & Giuliani.

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — The U.S. Department of Energy is not designating any corridors on the Navajo Nation as part of its energy transport corridor, because it does not have the authority to dictate what Indian nations do on sovereign tribal lands.

But that does not mean that the corridors will not connect with Navajo lands or that the locations of the corridors will not in some way dictate a pathway through the reservation. In the case of Eastern Navajo, the corridor will impact four chapters in the checkerboard area, according to land officials.

“We have some corridors that abut the Nation, and we also know that there are other lands off the reservation that you care about, that you have historical connections to. There could be cultural impacts,” Laverne Kyriss, DOE federal energy corridors project manager, told a handful of concerned tribal officials and grassroots Navajos during a meeting Wednesday in Window Rock.

While the room was packed with federal officials, the general Navajo public was noticeably absent, perhaps because many of them were at work during the 2-5 p.m. hearing.

Or, as pointed out by Anna Frazier of Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Elouise Brown of Dooda Desert Rock, and Judy Willetto of the Division of Natural Resources, DOE did “a poor job in advertising the meeting,” so many members of the public were unaware that it was being held or that DOE had changed the location after it was advertised.

The meeting was set for 2-5 p.m. because officials at the Bureau of Land Management offices in Farmington and Albuquerque said that time worked best, Kyriss said, though it was unclear whether that meant best for federal officials or best for the Navajo people.

The federal corridors touch the Nation’s borders in three separate areas as well as edge along NAPI and impact trust and fee lands, but the DOE map showed no detail inside the Nation’s boundaries because, as Kyriss said, designation of corridors on tribal lands is “up to each individual tribe.”

After several complaints, Ihor Hlohowskyj of Argonne National Laboratory projected a map that showed existing pipelines and transmission lines on Navajo and then overlaid those lines with the proposed corridor. Not surprisingly, they lined up.

Arvin Trujillo, executive director for the Division of Natural Resources, speaking on behalf of the Navajo Nation, said that in reviewing the proposed locations of the energy corridors on federal lands outside the boundary of the Navajo Nation, “it is apparent that in order to connect the initial placement of these corridors, pathways through the Navajo Nation will be needed.”

The Navajo Nation currently has existing oil and gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines crossing the reservation. “Through negotiations and following the Nation’s rights of way process, additional requests for new pipelines and transmission lines could be accommodated, but only after following the prescribed processes in place with the Nation.

“The designation of the corridors on federal lands that border the exterior boundaries of the Nation places an undue burden on the Nation to designate similar corridors to accommodate federally designated corridors,” Trujillo said.

“The Nation wants to make it clear that in order to connect the lines developed through this process, the federal government and future developers must work with the Nation,” he said.

The proposed corridor, on average, would be about 3,500 feet wide — a little less than three-quarters of a mile. Trujillo told the feds not to expect Navajo to accommodate a corridor that cuts right across the Nation.

“Establishing a corridor that would average — and again, ‘average’ — 3,500 feet, would be very difficult to put in place, and the Nation would not consider such an effort as being in the best interest of the Nation,” he said.

Disturbing lands outside the Nation that are of cultural or traditional significance also would not be considered in the best interest of Navajo.

Diné CARE’s Frazier reminded the feds, “We all know the history of relocation, and relocatees that have been impacted have been traumatized. To come in and remove them, all because somebody else somewhere in the big cities is going to be using the energy, I don’t think that’s right to do that. We need to be told the truth about these kinds of things.”

She and Dooda’s Brown both asked that the hearing be extended and advertised extensively so that the Navajo people would have a better opportunity to participate. In checking at her chapter house in Dilkon Wednesday morning, Frazier said those present were unaware of the meeting, though DOE said it sent notices of the meeting and location change to all chapters, as well as copies of the Draft EIS.

Elroy Drake, special project person for the Division of Natural Resources’ Narbonna Growth Fund, said the proposal appeared to be “an opportunity for the Navajo Nation to develop renewable energy and have a way to transmit this power to where people are willing to pay for it, primarily California and Phoenix.

“This kind of fits in with what we’d like to do. We’re looking at wind farms and solar farms and developing our own natural gas resources and having a way to transport it out of here. If not, utilize it on the reservation,” he said.

Jimson Joe, executive director of Navajo Department of Emergency Management, said that in looking up documents on the corridor Web site, “There is an indication that you have an emergency plan. ... I’d like to see if I could get a chance to review it. I couldn’t download it because it was a 40-megabyte document.

“You also have a community information document on there, and I need to see if we can get an opportunity to see those reports and information,” to ensure the safety of the Navajo people. The project “is an economic venture,” he said, and one he does not believe benefits the Navajo people.

Larry Rogers, Eastern Navajo Land Commission executive director, and Delegate Charles Damon, vice chairman, raised questions regarding the lines on the map indicating the path of the corridor.

Rogers said the broken black line represents the corridor’s placement on BLM lands. The spaces in between indicate land which could be allotted or privately owned. “Albuquerque BLM did us a map and it shows the full corridor. There are four chapters affected in Eastern,” he said.

Damon told the feds there is a pending land exchange in Eastern Agency that would have an impact on the proposed corridor. He requested the commission and the feds meet to discuss the matter.

The deadline for comments on the Draft PEIS are due by Feb. 14 and may be submitted on the Web at http://corridoreis.anl.gov; via fax to: (866) 524-5904, or by mail to: Westwide Corridor DEIS, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Ave., Bldg. 900, Mail Stop 4,
Argonne, IL 60439.

Environmentalists and politicians are turning up the heat on coal plants proposed by the investment giant.

By Marc Gunther, senior writer

1/24/08

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Throughout the West - in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming - battles are raging over proposed coal plants. Caught up in two big ones is The Blackstone Group, the global asset manager than went public last year.

Blackstone (BX) owns 80 percent of Sithe Global Power, an independent power producer. Sithe wants to build a 1,500-megawatt plant, known as Desert Rock, on land governed by the Navajo Nation in New Mexico. It also wants to build a 750-megawatt plant called Toquop in southeast Nevada.

If the plants are built - which is no sure thing - they would provide electricity to some of the nation's fastest-growing areas, including Las Vegas and Phoenix. The Desert Rock plant would also deliver a much-needed economic injection into the Navajo Nation, America's largest Indian reservation, many of whose 200,00 residents are poor.

But both projects face powerful opponents. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico opposes the Desert Rock plant, although there's not a lot he can do to stop it because of the sovereignty granted to the Navajo tribe. In Nevada, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, vows to do all he can to block Toquop and two other coal plants.

Environmentalists including the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense also want to stop the plants, and that could be a problem for Blackstone. So far, the groups have not targeted Blackstone or its high-profile chairman and CEO, Stephen A. Schwarzman, but it's only a matter of time before Schwarzman is brought into the fray, according to insiders. Blackstone, which managed nearly $100 billion in assets as of last Sept. 30, did not respond to a phone call and e-mail seeking comment.

Blackstone will likely face pointed questions about the coal plants from institutional shareholders, who have lobbied other public companies to disclose their climate-related risks. Coal-fired plants are the single biggest source of greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

"Every ton of global warming pollution that we release today has measurable, real impacts that will last for decades," says Vickie Patton, a Colorado-based lawyer for Environmental Defense and an author of a report called "Climate Alert" that argues against new conventional coal plants in the west.

The $3 billion Desert Rock project has proven particularly controversial. It was endorsed by a 66-7 vote of the Navajo tribal council, and the tribe's leaders say it will create jobs and generate $50 million in annual revenues for the Navajos. Just as poor countries like China and India have argued that they should not be subject to mandatory controls on their carbon emissions, the Navajos say they are entitled to exploit their energy resources to raise their standard of living. Coal for the plant will be mined on nearby Navajo land.

"The Navajos want to tap their natural resources for the benefit of the nation," says Frank Maisano, a Washington, D.C.-based spokesman for Sithe Global. "They have a lot of coal. They can generate a lot of revenue. And they can provide affordable and reliable power for the region."

The Desert Rock plant, he says, will be far more efficient and less polluting than existing coal plants in the region because it uses newer technologies. The U.S. EPA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have recommended granting the plant the permits it needs to proceed.

Dissident Navajos, however, have been protesting at the plant's site for more than a year. They commissioned a 160-page report that argues that the Desert Rock plant violates Dine laws and traditions (Dine is another word for Navajo).

"Mother Earth and Father Sky is part of us as the Dine, and the Dine is part of Mother Earth and Father Sky," the report says. It also argues, as others have, that solar power, wind power and energy efficiency efforts will do more for the tribe's economic development,and provide cheaper electricity over time, than will the coal plant.

Others in New Mexico worry that Desert Rock's mercury emissions will aggravate the state's existing mercury problem, and they complain that the electricity generated by Desert Rock will go to neighboring Arizona. "We get all of the pollution and none of the power," says Gregory Green, an organizer with a New Mexico group called Coalition for Clean and Affordable Energy.

Similar debates are unfolding throughout the Rocky Mountain region, where more than two dozen coal plants have been proposed. Opponents say the costs of building coal plants are rising fast, and that regulation of carbon emissions by the federal government will eventually further increase the cost of coal-generated electricity. Meanwhile, the costs of solar, wind and geothermal power are all declining.

"It's not cheap anymore to build coal plants, no matter what people say," argues Jennifer Coken, director of the Western Clean Energy Campaign, which works with local groups to oppose the plants.

Recently PacifiCorp, a utility that is a subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., which is a 88 percent owned by Berkshire Hathaway, cited the uncertain regulatory and political environment in dropping plans for coal plants in Oregon and Wyoming. "The energy landscape is changing," Coken said. Various tallies indicate that proposals for between 20 and 31 coal plants have been scrapped in the last 18 months, most because of rising costs, the risk of greenhouse-gas regulation and opposition from environmental groups and state governments.

That's a real problem, counters the coal industry, utility companies and the North American Electric Reliability Corp., or NERC, which assesses future needs for power. They warn that much of the U.S. could face electricity capacity shortages if more power plants are cancelled or delayed.

LETTER-Navajo Nation remains divided

To the editor:

Criticisms have been rolling high and hitting the national media circuit. Is it because the Navajo Nation has become so unmanageable and ungovernable? With the population rising, I am concerned about what is happening in our government. Being the center of several attentive issues politically, I feel that criticisms being thrown at our leaders are well deserved.

The Navajo Times concluded 2007 with exposures of how beautiful our culture glows. Our home, people, and language photograph the Navajo Nation as united. However, behind what seems to be absent of problems, the Navajo Nation is drowned in a heavy measure of political difficulties.

Fiscal motivation is the objection of the current administration, which of course would be rewarding if only proposing elements of the Desert Rock Plant, casino and the Intergovernmental Compact were not processed through scandals of negotiations, and contracts through secrecy. So exactly then, what is in the best interest of the people when we have a huge percentage with legitimate concerns of lands, health, livestock, religion, and money? To risk lives for financial purposes is taboo culturally and to those who believe otherwise, it's a sin.

I understand the president is stubborn with his decisions, but the power lies within the council. The few delegates who stand by the people, I applaud your sincerity in trying to apply resolutions.

Legal births of political debacles will continue to divide the people. I assure you, those who oppose the president's decisions will succeed by bringing the people back together. Unity will be accomplished and a greater respect for sovereignty will strengthen the Navajo Nation as a whole.

Now isn't this what we all want?

Having noted the problems politically at the government level, I would like to highlight lingering questions of Navajo police brutality. It has been happening way back from the '80s, and '90s. I wouldn't blame the jail crisis on the current administration however, with crucial questions, the judicial department needs to retrieve, review and re-investigate the many reports of police brutality. It is happening in our communities and it's time someone stands up and arise the matter to those who are pressing efforts for funds on the jail crisis situation.

As members of the largest tribe, the embarrassment of a dysfunctional government hurts. Will we ever be united again?

Kee Jackson Jr.

Tuba City

Navajo group offers alternatives to coal-fired power plant
By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 01/18/2008 02:21:27 PM MST

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A group of Navajos released a report Friday that spells out a host of renewable energy alternatives to a controversial coal-fired power plant proposed for the nation's largest Indian reservation.

The Navajo Nation's Dine Power Authority and Houston-based Sithe Global Power have partnered to build the $3 billion Desert Rock plant on tribal land in northwestern New Mexico. The plant would be capable of producing electricity for up to 1.5 million homes in cities across the Southwest.

But Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Environment said that in light of growing concern over greenhouse gases and global warming, the electricity should instead come from a mix of solar, wind and natural gas.

"The grass-roots Navajo people aren't just running around and saying we oppose Desert Rock," Dine CARE member Dailan Long told The Associated Press. "We're saying no to it, but saying yes to something else. And we have our work to prove it."

The report, released during a news conference at the state Capitol in Santa Fe, contains more than 160 pages and dozens of maps, pie charts and graphs showing how renewable energy projects would compare to Desert Rock.

But more importantly, Long said, the report provides a comprehensive look at how the tribe's Dine Fundamental Law—based on centuries of customary, traditional, natural and common law—can be applied to the modern problems of resource management and energy development.

Navajos are defined by their fundamental laws, which were handed down by deities who went through certain experiences and developed virtues and values that teach Navajos how to live as decent human beings.

As part of this, Navajos have a responsibility to maintain "hozho"—or beauty and balance—and they are obligated to protect their land, air and water.

"We envision a path of development for the Navajo Nation that is economically and culturally sustainable, one which counterbalances obsolete coal development and overwhelmingly invokes the Navajo Nation to invest in a healthy future," the report states.

Dine CARE and other environmental groups have argued that Desert Rock, which would be the third coal-fired plant in the Four Corners region, would harm the environment and residents' health.

But Navajo tribal leaders and Sithe have touted Desert Rock as one of the cleanest coal-burning plants in the country and a much-needed source of jobs and tax revenue for the Navajo Nation.

George Hardeen, a spokesman for Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr., said people forget that the power plant's design is well within current federal emission standards.

"It doesn't make sense to attack the global warming problem one power plant at a time and it doesn't make sense to go after power plants starting with Desert Rock," he said.

Hardeen added that tribal leaders for the past few decades have been struggling to bring jobs and economic development to the sprawling reservation, where roughly two-fifths of people live below the federal poverty line.

"A project like Desert Rock is not just economic development, it's mega economic development. Nothing compares to it," he said. Hardeen also said the Navajos are sitting on about 100 years worth of coal reserves, which he described as a "very valuable resource to produce energy."

Dine CARE, in its report, contends there's more risk investing in coal technologies given the current and proposed regulatory pressures aimed at curbing global warming.

The group said Navajos have other resources within their borders that are more sustainable and more economically viable.

For example, the report states that Northern Arizona University found potential wind capacity on tribal lands in northeastern Arizona to be over 11,000 megawatts. There's also the possibility of more than 48,000 megawatts of solar generation on Navajo land, according to the report.

Hardeen said the tribe's power authority already is studying the possibility of some wind and solar projects.

Long acknowledged the difficulty of getting leases and financing for projects on the reservation, but he hoped the report would be a starting point for Navajos and their leaders to begin talking about alternatives for developing energy, protecting the environment and bringing in revenue for the tribe.

"I think the problem is just pressuring our council delegates to engage in this dialogue," Long said. "Let's sit down and talk about this. Let's work this out."

———

On the Net:

Desert Rock Blog: http://desert-rock-blog.com/

Desert Rock Energy Project: http://www.desertrockenergy.com

Sithe Global's Desert Rock Web site: http://www.desertrockenergyproject.com

Contact:
Dailan Long, Diné CARE, 505-801-0713
Paul Sheldon, Ecos Consulting, 970-259-6801 x 305

Friday, Jan. 18, 2008

New Report: Clean Energy Far Better For Navajo
Economic Development Than Desert Rock
Benefits include more jobs, less financial risk and less pollution

Investing in renewable energy development and energy efficiency could provide more jobs and
economic benefits for the Navajo Nation than building the proposed $3 billion Desert Rock Energy
Project, according to an economic analysis released this week by the Navajo organization Diné
Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment (Diné CARE).

The analysis, prepared in consultation with Ecos Consulting, compares sources of clean energy, such
as solar and wind power, with coal, assessing economic factors such as short- and long-term
employment, financial risks, environmental and health impacts, potential costs of carbon pollution, and
profitability for the tribe. When the estimated economic benefits and costs of the proposed 1,500-
megawatt pulverized coal power plant are weighed against benefits and costs of renewable energy
development, the analysis determined that “developing clean-energy resources rather than coal
provides a net economic advantage.”

“Wind, solar and energy-efficiency technologies, which are cost-effective, reliable and available,
would provide greater Navajo economic development and lower cost electricity than Desert Rock, with
fewer negative consequences and more sustainable benefits,” concluded Ecos Consulting co-author
Chris Calwell. “Burning coal to produce electricity is not even the best, let alone the only form of
economic development for the Navajo Nation.”

This claim counters the assumptions in the recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Desert
Rock prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. The federal government’s analysis predetermined
the need to use Navajo coal resources without considering alternative forms of economic development
and energy resources already available to the tribe.

The report found, for example, that developing clean energy would create 80 percent more
construction jobs and five times as many long-term operations and maintenance jobs compared to
employment figures for Desert Rock. (See graphic comparison below.) Furthermore, the report
determined that clean energy would provide greater indirect job creation and economic multipliers
within the regional economy.

“Clean energy resources such as wind and solar are abundant on the Navajo Nation,” said Dailan Long,
of Diné CARE. “The Nation could be a leader in renewable technology, boost the economy, protect
public and environmental health, and, altogether, do so in accordance with the Navajo Fundamental
Laws.”

The Navajo Nation Council voted in 2004 to construct Desert Rock, despite already high levels of
pollution in the region due to two existing coal-fired power plants bordering the eastern Navajo Nation,
the Four Corners Power Plant and the San Juan Generating Station. These existing plants, noted
polluters of the Four Corners region, burn coal conventionally – just like Desert Rock would – and
have caused extensive degradation of the region’s air and water resources, endangering Navajo health
and disrupting cultural sites and livestock grazing areas.

Like Desert Rock, these plants were built with promises that they would deliver development and
prosperity to the Navajo people. Such guarantees have never been fulfilled, and the Navajo, despite
some new jobs, have been left with disproportionately negative impacts, Long said. The new report, he
continued, “quantifies the many ways that clean energy is far superior to coal in economic terms, and it
provides a roadmap showing how we can avoid the coal-tainted mistakes of the past.”

For instance, the analysis says, when combined with continued growth in utility-funded energy-
efficiency programs in Nevada and Arizona, the overall cost of the electricity delivered from
alternative sources would be less than that of Desert Rock, even when future charges or “carbon taxes”
on global warming emissions are accounted for.

The report found that developing a combination of wind, solar and natural gas facilities on Navajo land
could easily generate more power than the 1,500 megawatts promised by Desert Rock. Additionally,
the power from those alternatives energy sources would allow for distributed, local energy
consumption as well as the sale of electricity on the wider market. Desert Rock would not provide any
local electricity benefits for Navajo families since all of its power would be sold for export to urban
centers such as Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Job Creation with Solar and Wind Projects
As cited in the report, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers found that solar and wind energy
projects create three to 11 times more jobs per megawatt-hour than coal projects. Analytic tools from
the National Renewable Energy Lab indicate that 500 or more long-term clean jobs would be created
by wind projects that are smaller in size than Desert Rock.

Carbon Costs
The likely costs of carbon emissions and their effect on the atmosphere are becoming increasingly
significant for newly proposed coal-fired power plants and utilities considering new power sources.
Sithe Global LLC, Desert Rock’s developer, did not factor the predicted costs of carbon emissions into
the financial plan for the plant, thus masking the real cost of future pollution from coal-fired
generation. Other utilities, meanwhile, are increasingly factoring carbon costs into their resource
planning. Northwest Energy, for example, calculates $15 - $42 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. The
Desert Rock plant could be priced out of the regional power market if carbon costs are calculated into
the plant’s business plan.

Economic Costs vs. Benefits
When the estimated economic benefits and costs of the Desert Rock project are compared to sources of
local and distributed renewable energy generation, the results show that developing resources such as
wind and solar power rather than coal provides a net economic advantage for the Navajo Nation. Such
financial advantage, when coupled with the drastically smaller environmental “footprint” of renewable
energy, offers a prosperous and healthy future for the Navajo Nation and its people, who have
disproportionately suffered the negative impacts of fossil fuel extraction for decades.

“The changing economic, political, and social climate has created a strong demand for clean energy
while drawing into question many of the premises of Desert Rock first proposed in 2003,” Long said.
“The Desert Rock project still has not acquired the necessary federal permits and, as a merchant plant,
has yet to secure any contracts with utilities that would purchase the power.”

###

To obtain a copy of the report, please send an email to:

Dailan Long, email: dailan.jake@gmail.com

Lori Goodman, email: kiyaani@frontier.net

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

**NOTE: The deadline to submit a public comment on this permit is February 4 2008. Please see attached File.

WINDOW ROCK — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is seeking public comment on a permit for Desert Rock Energy Project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The permit is being requested in conjunction with construction of the 1,500 megawatt coal-fired power plant and processing facility and would allow for Desert Rock to place dredged and fill materials such as native soils, pipe, concrete and cobble into U.S. waters — mainly washes.

Fill in various tributaries of the San Juan River also would be required for project infrastructure such as a water well field, transmission lines and access road. About 1.15 acres of washes would be lost through placement of about 1,605 cubic yards of fill material.

According to the Corps of Engineers permit application notice, the project would be located along tributaries of the Chaco and San Juan rivers, about 26 miles southwest of Farmington. Power transmission lines would end north of the San Juan River about 5 miles east of Shiprock at the existing Navajo Transmission Project.

A 101-acre coal processing facility operated by BHP Billiton would be located adjacent to the proposed plant and would result in the loss of about 0.12 acre of washes due to the need to regrade the site. The Desert Rock plant would be located on 160 acres, resulting in the loss of 0.78 acre due to site regrading, drainage control and associated roads.

A proposed 2-mile long, 24-foot wide access road to the power plant would require fill within one wash, while a series of culverts with an adjacent heavy-haul, low-water crossing would be constructed where Burnham Road crosses Pinabete Wash, resulting in the loss of 0.12 acre and 0.09 acre of waters, respectively.

Water for the proposed Desert Rock plant would come from two deep groundwater well fields, requiring buried waterlines. One well field south of the plant site and Pinabete Wash would require an access road and bridge over the wash, while the second well field north of the plant site and east of the Chaco River would require buried waterlines and a 12-foot wide gravel road that would cross 11 washes.

A proposed overhead power transmission line would extend from the Desert Rock site, north about eight miles to the Four Corners Power Plant. A second proposed transmission line would continue from the Four Corners plant and end about 14 miles north at the existing east-west Navajo Transmission Project line.

Alternatives to the proposed project include different types of generation technologies, renewable and non-renewable generation, alternative water sources, three different site locations and different plant sizes. The 1,500 megawatt supercritical facility would include up to two 750 megawatt units. A 550 megawatt sub-critical coal-fired power plant also is proposed.

Alternative water sources for cooling technology include surface water from the San Juan River and groundwater from the Morrison Aquifer. Wet cooling, which uses more water but results in higher generation efficiency in hot weather, and dry cooling also are alternatives.

Three alternative power plant sites include Site 1, within Navajo Agricultural Products Industry farmland, near the northeast corner of Area III of the Navajo Mine. Benefits of the site include close proximity to Navajo Indian Irrigation Project water sources and an adjacent location to the coal mine.

Site 2 is located near Burnham Chapter House, southeast of Area V of the BHP Navajo Coal Co. (BNCC) lease and was chosen for its proximity to the decommissioned Consolidation Coal Co. (Consol) mine.

Site 3 is located just west of the BNCC lease adjacent to Area IV North and was chosen because of its proximity to BNCC lease and its distance from surrounding communities.

To offset impacts to waters, Desert Rock Energy Co. has committed to the enhancement or creation of up to 5 acres of riparian habitat on the Navajo Nation.

_________________
NEWS RELEASE
DATE: January 4, 2008

Subject: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District
PUBLIC NOTICE No. SPA-2005-00740-DUR

PUBLIC NOTICE UNDER SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

The Albuquerque District has posted a public notice to our internet home page:
http://www.spa.usace.army.mil/reg/publicnotice.asp

Application Number: SPA-2005-00740-DUR
Applicant: Sithe Global Power, L.L.C. has requested a Section 404 permit to discharge dredge
and fill material into 1.15 acres of waters of the United States in conjunction with the
construction of the Desert Rock Energy coal-fired power plant in a tributary of the Chaco River,
Burnham, San Juan County, New Mexico.

Written comments may be submitted to:
PROJECT MANAGER: Deanna L. Cummings
PHONE: (970) 375-9509 FAX: (505) 342-3498
EMAIL: deanna.l.cummings@usace.army.mil

Comments must be received by: February 4, 2008

*******************************************************
Window Rock Public Meeting Location Changed
*******************************************************

The location for the Jan. 23 West-Wide Energy Corridor Draft Programmatic EIS (Draft PEIS) public meeting has been changed. The new address is:

Quality Inn Navajo Nation Capital
48 West Highway 264
Window Rock, AZ 86515
(928)871-4108
Web site: http://www.qualityinnwindowrock.com/contact.htm

The meeting will be from 2-5 PM.

See the Public Meetings page of the West-Wide Energy Corridor PEIS Web site for additional important information on attending public meetings. http://corridoreis.anl.gov/involve/pubschedule/


Draft PEIS Public Comment Period Open
-----------------------------------------------------------

The public comment period for the Draft PEIS opened November 10, 2007 and will continue until Thursday, February 14, 2008. All comments received or postmarked by Thursday, February 14, 2008 will be considered. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

There are four ways to submit comments or suggestions on the draft PEIS:

* Electronic comment submittal via the Web at http://corridoreis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm,
* Regular mail,
* Facsimile
* Public hearings (written or oral comments - see below).

See the Getting Involved page of the West-Wide Energy Corridor PEIS Web site for additional important information on commenting procedures. http://corridoreis.anl.gov/involve/

For More Information
********************

To learn about energy corridors and the Energy Corridor PEIS, visit the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS Information Center Web Site at http://corridoreis.anl.gov, or contact us at:
corridoreiswebmaster@anl.gov

To learn more about public involvement activities and the commenting process, visit the "Getting Involved"
page of the Web site at
http://corridoreis.anl.gov/involve/index.cfm

SHIPROCK — The drone of a small wind turbine is the only sound punctuating the stillness on a plot of land five miles south of Shiprock.
A few houses dot the horizon to the east, and an occasional car passes by on Navajo Route 36 — the only signs of civilization Denton Blueeyes sees from his home near Chaco Wash.

Blueeyes, 74, grew up on the Navajo Nation and doesn't speak English. Until two years ago, he never had electricity in his home.

"I've been living here for years and years," Blueeyes said with the help of an interpreter. "We never had power or running water or heat."

On a clear day, the retired engineer for Navajo Engineering Construction Authority can see the power lines that serve a nearby community, but in the 30 years that he's lived in the one-bedroom house, the promise of light and heat has never come closer than two miles.

Blueeyes is one of about 350 Nation residents to rent a renewable energy unit from the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. At the cost of about $80 per month, Blueeyes and his wife can plug in a television and a lamp.

"I used to use kerosene lamps for light," Blueeyes said through an interpreter. "Now the lamps are packed away, and I don't have to take them out except in the barn."

The package includes a 10-foot solar panel and a wind turbine that, together, produce about two kilowatts per day — enough to power a small house or double-wide trailer, said Melvin Duncan, an electrician for NTUA's Shiprock District.

The unit uses natural energy to charge two car batteries, he said. As long as the batteries are charged, electricity flows into the house. Technicians maintain the units throughout the year, adjusting the solar panels every season to accommodate the sun's changing position in the sky.

The unit relieves some Third World conditions faced by residents of the remote areas on the Nation, but there are limitations, NTUA Renewable Energy Specialist Larry Ahasteen said. The batteries can take as long as eight hours to charge on a sunny day, and when they're drained to 20 percent capacity, the unit shuts off.

"It only powers a coffee pot in the morning, and maybe lights and the TV," he said. "We really stress to the families to be conservative and manage their load. It can't power a hair dryer, a range, a toaster or a water heater."

Customers can supplement the power with a gas-operated generator, Ahasteen said, but even with an additional energy source, the unit falls short of some customers' expectations.

Blueeyes still hauls water for drinking and bathing, and for his small herd of sheep. He still uses an outhouse perched 50 yards from the house, and he still heats his home with coal.

Blueeyes is building a cistern next to the house, and he hoped the solar and wind power would help pump the water inside.

"I would still have to haul water and put it into the tank, but I wanted the unit to pressurize it," he said. "I was told the power will not be enough. There are still limitations, and I have to realize that."

Even with its limitations, the unit provides a service that likely won't be available to remote areas in the near future — the cost to run a power line tops $30,000 per mile, said Herb Beyale, field superintendent in the Shiprock NTUA office.

"It's not too feasible to supply electricity to just one home, a home right smack in the middle of nowhere," he said. "It's more convenient to set up a solar unit."

Blueeyes probably won't get power lines any time soon, Ahasteen said. The waiting period for electricity in homes on the Nation is decades long, with about 18,000 households in line.

With a little less than 50,000 households on the Navajo Nation, the number without power is close to 20 percent, and only a handful have access to the solar and wind units.

Only seven households in the Shiprock District are renting units, but the need is much greater, Ahasteen said.

"We haven't really promoted the program," he said. "There would be an influx of people asking for it, and we don't have the amount we need to deploy them into the field."

The need for power on American Indian reservations is great, said Jonathan Cogan, energy information specialist with the U.S. Department of Energy.

More than 14 percent of reservation households have no access to electricity, he said, as compared to the less than 2 percent of all U.S. households. The Navajo Nation alone accounts for 75 percent of the households in the country without electricity.

Solar and wind units are a temporary solution to the problem, Ahasteen said. The NTUA always is looking for grants to run power lines to the rural parts of the Nation.

"We want to get that power out to the families," he said. "Once we get power to the families, we change the concept of the family. We give them refrigeration, TV, heat, and that changes things. That's the vision we have."


Alysa Landry: alandry@daily-times.com

Longtime Navajo tribal worker remembered

WINDOW ROCK, Ariz. (AP) - A Navajo tribal worker of 27 years is being heralded as a champion for environmental issues.

The Navajo Nation says Arlene Luther died earlier this week after a brief illness.

Navajo President Joe Shirley Junior says Luther was among the first generation of environmental professions who has set an incredibly high standard for those who follow her.

Luther served as the department manager for the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency's Waste Regulatory Compliance Department.

Navajo EPA executive director Stephen Etsitty says Luther was instrumental in convincing the U.S. EPA that it had a responsibility to clean up radium-contaminated soil from the abandoned Northeast Church Rock Mine near Gallup.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

* Dine CARE offers its condolences to the Luther Family, Friends, and Kin. *

Richardson Expected to Give Up White House Bid

By Jeff Jones and Michael Coleman
Journal Staff Writers

Stung by dismal showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, and scraping the bottom of his campaign war chest, Gov. Bill Richardson apparently is ending his bid for the presidency.

Richardson's national campaign finance chairman, Ed Romero of Albuquerque, told the Journal on Wednesday that he has been informed the governor will have a news conference today announcing his decision to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination.

Romero added that he is already making calls on behalf of Hillary Clinton, who won the New Hampshire primary election Tuesday.

"I have not spoken with the governor, but I do have information that he is to announce in the morning his withdrawal from the race," Romero said.

Although Richardson's campaign spokesman Tom Reynolds refused to confirm anything to the Journal— "The campaign has no comment," he said Wednesday— The Associated Press also reported late Wednesday that Richardson would throw in the towel.

The AP cited two unnamed people close to the governor in New Hampshire as its sources in reporting that Richardson would announce the decision today.

Richardson's results fell far short of his stated goals in both early states, despite having spent most of his time and money in Iowa and New Hampshire.

He apparently was unable to afford television advertising in the waning days of the New Hampshire campaign. But he said before leaving the Granite State that he would continue campaigning for the nomination in Nevada, where Democrats hold caucuses on Jan. 19.

Told by a Journal reporter late Tuesday as he was leaving New Hampshire that some people had suggested it was time to quit the race, Richardson said, with a hint of annoyance, "What people? Who's saying that?

"We're going to spend a couple days in New Mexico and then get ready for Nevada. I want to see how we do out West," he said.

No 'grand delusions'
Romero, former ambassador to Spain and longtime New Mexico political kingmaker, said he's proud of how Richardson ran his campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

"He was a long shot. We didn't go into this with any grand delusions," he said. "I'm very proud of the campaign he ran, how he ran it. It just wasn't in the cards."

The AP said the governor's decision was reached after a meeting with his top advisers Wednesday in New Mexico. But Governor's Office spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said in Santa Fe on Wednesday evening, "No decision has been made."

The report followed Richardson's 5 percent finish in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, the second major voting event of the 2008 presidential season.

The New Hampshire performance was his second fourth-place finish in less than a week. Richardson won only 2 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3.

Richardson flew home to New Mexico on Tuesday night, but he remained out of reporters' view Wednesday.

'The right decision'
A 30-day session of the New Mexico Legislature convenes in Santa Fe on Tuesday.

"I think the governor is making the right decision," said Albuquerque pollster Brian Sanderoff of Research and Polling Inc.

"He should be remembered as the candidate who for most of the race was at the top of the second tier," Sanderoff said. "He shouldn't be remembered as the candidate who stayed in too long."

Richardson formally announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in January 2007 and spent most of last year away from New Mexico on the campaign trail.

Richardson said in advance of both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary that he needed to finish in the top three of each contest, but he ran fourth in both events, with Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards continuing to dominate the race.

Richardson only briefly climbed out of the single digits in the polls and turned in uneven performances in televised debates.

He arrived in New Hampshire on Friday politically wounded from the distant fourth-place finish in Iowa. He was one of the four candidates in Saturday night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, and many New Hampshire voters told him it was his best debate performance of the campaign.

Richardson spent the bulk of his time and money in Iowa, but he also invested heavily in New Hampshire, with a paid staff of more than 40 and eight field offices.

Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire seemed to enjoy the affable governor and spoke highly of his credentials as a governor, former congressman, U.N. ambassador, energy secretary and diplomatic troubleshooter.

It became clear quickly that candidates like Clinton and Obama were stirring more excitement, and Richardson often joked that "I'm not a rock star."

But Richardson, already well-known as a tireless campaigner, vowed to outwork the other candidates.

In the end, his personality, experience and plain old hard work couldn't trump the broad name recognition and well-honed messages of his better-funded Democratic rivals.

His presidential bid shortfalls in New Hampshire and Iowa were his first political losses since his very first race in New Mexico, when he lost the 1980 contest for the 1st Congressional District seat to longtime incumbent Rep. Manuel Lujan Jr., R-N.M.

Journal staff writer Trip Jennings contributed to this report.

Source: http://staci-on-water.livejournal.com/tag/desert+rock
____
A little caution

Dear water folks,

[EXCERPT -- CLIP]

Finally, I've been asked by someone close to the Navajo water rights settlement to reiterate that the settlement is not connected to the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant on Navajo land near Shiprock. They are two separate issues.
Each will be decided on its merits.

However....it is in the long run years ahead where they may be connected.

The Navajo-Gallup water pipeline, if it is ever built, will run down the road a few miles from the proposed power plant. If the power plant ever ran into water problems, it conceivably could lease water from the tribe, since the tribe will also own part of the power plant.

Desert Rock ostensibly, if it is every built, will derive its water from deep underground aquifers which are not hydrologically connected to the San Juan River. Supposedly. I'm not a hydrologist and I haven't looked at all the hydrology reports, but the word of caution here again is: San Luis Valley Closed Basin Project.

Sometimes it can take increased, long term use and a long term drought to show hydrologists best estimates were wrong. That's what happened in San Luis and now they have a mess.

Just pays to be super cautious when it comes to planning big water projects.

The list of "cancelled coal plant" articles on this page includes coal plant proposals that have been rejected by regulators, abandoned by utilities, switched to natural gas projects, or placed on hold due to regulatory, financial, or other problems.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Cancelled_coal_plants

By Brian K. Sullivan

Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- More than 1,000 people in the U.S. will die for every degree Celsius the atmosphere warms because of carbon dioxide, according to a computer model at Stanford University in California.

Each degree of warming will lead to about 21,000 deaths worldwide. In the U.S., there will be 1,000 more fatalities from asthma other non-cancer causes linked to air pollution, as well as 20 to 30 more cancer-related losses, according to a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The health effects of climate change would become more profound in areas of the country that already experience high rates of air pollution, such as southern California, according to Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor who developed the model used to write the paper.

``Ultimately, you inhale a greater abundance of deleterious chemicals due to carbon dioxide and the climate change associated with it, and the link appears quite solid,'' Jacobson said in a statement today. ``The logical next step is to reduce carbon dioxide.''

Carbon dioxide also causes air temperatures to rise faster than those at the surface, Jacobson found. The result is that pollution tends to stay near where it originates and doesn't disperse so easily.

Ozone production in urban areas will also rise because of increased carbon dioxide, Jacobson wrote. Ozone is known to cause respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, according to a statement released by Stanford.

``It is a very corrosive gas; it erodes rubber and statues,'' Jacobson said in a statement. ``It cracks tires. So you can imagine what it does to your lungs in high enough concentrations.''

Emissions Rules

California, New York and several other states adopted new vehicle emissions rules to limit the amount of carbon getting into the atmosphere. On Dec. 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied the rules, saying an energy bill signed by President George W. Bush already seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions through new auto-mileage standards.

The California standards were more stringent than the bill signed by Bush. Earlier this week, California and several of the other states sued the EPA.

Jacobson's work lends credence to California's need to control its air pollution, the Stanford statement said.

``With six of the 10 most polluted cities in the nation being in California, that alone creates a special circumstance for the state,'' Jacobson said.

Jacobson developed a computer model of the atmosphere to look at the effects of increased pollution and changes in the climate. Among the variables that go into the model are the amount of sunlight, the effect of rain, wind and clouds, and how pollutants are formed and move and change in the atmosphere.

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian K. Sullivan in Boston at bsullivan10@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: January 3, 2008 15:29 EST

January 6, 2008
By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau
DENVER - An old adage says oil and water don't mix.

But they do. So do coal and water, and ethanol and water.

There's a connection between water and energy that many water planners don't appreciate, said Melinda Kassen with Trout Unlimited.

"It goes both ways. There's water needed to produce energy. But there's energy needed to develop and deliver water," said Kassen, who sits on a high-level water panel called the Interbasin Compact Committee. "If you talk about this, I think, you need to talk about both sides."

Coal power plants need water to generate steam for their turbines and to cool off excess heat in their towers. Ethanol requires water for irrigation and to process corn into a useable fuel. Oil shale needs water to scour the underground rocks and refine the product into fuel for vehicles and jets.

Fast-growing Phoenix will build five more power plants, Kassen said, yet none of the water demand estimates she's seen for the Western United States take the increased demand for power into account.

By 2030, U.S. power plants could be using as much water as all domestic users in the country were in 1995, according to a Department of Energy report called "Energy Demands on Water Resources."

Closer to home, water planners are keeping their eyes on the large conditional water rights of Shell and Chevron, but the largest conditional water right in Colorado is for a future power plant. The Colorado River Water Conservation District owns the right to store more than 1 million acre-feet of water a year in Juniper Reservoir. Like the oil companies' reservoirs, Juniper does not exist yet.

The Eastern Plains are producing energy, too, thanks to the ethanol boom. But today's ethanol plants use corn, and Colorado corn usually requires irrigation.


Ethanol made from irrigated corn takes about 1,400 gallons of water per one gallon of ethanol produced, according to the Department of Energy's report.

However, a lot of the acres used for ethanol are already under cultivation, and some of the water used for irrigation seeps into the ground and eventually migrates back into the river for use downstream.

It takes energy to move water, too, Kassen said. Farmers and suburbs need power to run their well pumps.

Fort Collins entrepreneur Aaron Million has plans for a 400-mile pipeline from Southwest Wyoming to the Front Range. It will require lots of energy to run the pumps, Kassen said. Million, though, said he's looking at using wind turbines and solar cells. And because the pipeline loses elevation on its way into Colorado, he can use it for hydroelectric power.

Originally, he estimated the yearly operation costs would be $50 million to $75 million, but that cost will drop if the project uses renewable energy, Million told state legislators in September.

Digging deeper

By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune energy reporter
Now that Wyoming coal producers have a higher-capacity set of rails to export more of the black rock, continued growth could depend on the construction of new power plants.

In recent years, coal-burning utilities steadily increased operating capacity from an average of 85 percent to about 92 percent, according to one industry official.

"That's about as high as one could reasonably expect (utility operating capacity) to get. The only way for coal demand to grow is to build new coal facilities," said Thomas A. Johns, vice president of development for Sithe Global LLC, an independent power producer.

That means the prospect for nationwide growth in the near-term is minimal. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration expects national demand for coal to decline 1.7 percent this year, "in all coal producing regions."

That notion was at least partially solidified recently when PacifiCorp announced it was pulling coal out of its bag of potential new electrical generation sources for its next 10-year planning cycle, including two previously announced coal projects in Wyoming.

"The issue right now is there's so much uncertainty for greenhouse gas regulations, and it's made a lot of people in the market take a pause on what they're going to do," said Johns. "But there's absolutely a need for new generation."

While regulated utilities including PacifiCorp become more hesitant to build new coal plants within a changing regulatory atmosphere in each state, unregulated independent power producers see an opportunity.

Three coal plants are proposed in Nevada, including Sithe Global's Desert Rock project. And more are in the queue in Texas and elsewhere across the nation. Many plan to use Powder River Basin coal.

With the exception of mine-mouth plant proposals, Powder River Basin remains the coal of choice, according to Johns.

"If there's an issue with Powder River Basin coal, it's the escalation of rail transportation costs," Johns said.

That's largely a function of paying off more than $1 billion in investments by railroads in recent years.

"No one can compete with Powder River Basin production costs, but it's the delivered cost everyone looks at," Johns said.

It's a growing concern for Powder River Basin coal producers, particularly in Eastern states where greenhouse gas regulations are tightening. The basin's low-sulfur advantage over higher-heating-content Eastern coal helped Wyoming's industry expand its Midwest and Eastern market share during the 1980s and 1990s. Johns said that as utilities there are forced to add scrubbers to meet more stringent pollution standards, Powder River Basin coal loses that low-sulfur edge.

Wyoming Mining Association Executive Director Marion Loomis said he believes Powder River Basin coal will remain competitive.

"I hesitate to say we are the lowest-cost provider, but we're competitive with lowest-cost suppliers," Loomis said.

Meanwhile, Wyoming coal producers continue to invest in operations, particularly coal load-out facilities to maximize train loading opportunities.

The utility industry's current "pause" on coal comes in the midst of changing regulations, but it is in contrast to growing electrical demand.

Although the nation's electric utilities are expected to rely slightly less on coal as a fuel stock -- down from 51 percent in 2003 to 48 percent in 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration -- it has more to do with the volatility of natural gas prices than concern over greenhouse gas emissions.

The long-term outlook for coal remains steady. Shifting from natural gas, utilities are expected to rely more on coal after 2015. Coal could fuel 57 percent of the nation's electrical generation by 2030, according to the EIA.

"(Utilities) still have to decide how they're going to meet growing demand," Loomis said.

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com.

Editorial: In Office

The One Environmental Issue

The overriding environmental issue of these times is the warming of the planet. The Democratic hopefuls in the 2008 campaign are fully engaged, calling for large — if still unquantified — national sacrifices and for a transformation in the way the country produces and uses energy. The Republicans do not go much further than conceding that climate change could be a problem and, with the notable exception of John McCain, offer no comprehensive solutions.

In 2000, when Al Gore could have made warming a signature issue in his presidential campaign, his advisers persuaded him that it was too complicated and forbidding an issue to sell to ordinary voters. For similar reasons, John Kerry’s ambitious ideas for addressing climate change and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil never advanced much beyond his Web site.

Times have certainly changed. It is not yet clear to what extent Americans are willing to grapple with the implications of any serious strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: more specifically, whether they are ready to pay higher prices for energy and change their lifestyles to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.

Polls suggest, however, that voters are increasingly alarmed, and for that Mr. Gore is partly responsible. His film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” raised the issue’s profile. Then came four reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore, predicting catastrophic changes in weather patterns, sea levels and food production unless greenhouses gases can be quickly stabilized and then reduced by as much as 80 percent by midcentury.

There is also a growing appetite for decisive action — everywhere, it seems, except the White House. Governors in more than two dozen states are fashioning regional agreements to lower greenhouse gases, the federal courts have ordered the executive branch to begin regulating these gases, and the Senate has begun work on a bipartisan b