For immediate release: Contact:
Tuesday, April 29, 2008 Penelope Whitney, 415-397-5000 x 313
Dailan Long, Diné CARE, 505-801-0713
Mike Eisenfeld, San Juan Citizens Alliance, 505-360-8994


MEDIA ADVISORY

Navajo tribal members to meet with Blackstone & Sithe in New York
Diné CARE will ask execs to invest in clean energy, not coal, on their reservation


NEW YORK CITY – Navajo Nation tribal members who will be impacted by the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant will meet with Bruce Wrobel, Sithe Global Power's chairman and CEO, and David Foley, senior managing director of the Blackstone Group, in New York City on April 30.

Members from the Navajo grassroots group, Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment (Diné CARE), will urge the executives from the two companies to invest in clean energy on the Navajo nation rather than in another polluting, financially risky coal plant that will have detrimental impacts on Navajo health and culture.

“Desert Rock is a bad financial risk for investors and bad for Navajo health and prosperity,” says Dailan Long, community grassroots organizer for Diné CARE. "Desert Rock's projected emissions of 12.7 million tons of carbon dioxide each year is a risky liability for the Navajo Nation with disastrous consequences for global climate change."

Diné CARE was invited to New York to speak at the United Nations Seventh Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples on April 29. They will detail the impacts of living in a region being dramatically affected by intensive energy development and present their economic study, “Economic and Energy Alternatives to the Desert Rock Energy Project,” which found that wind and concentrating solar power would deliver more jobs, less financial risk and less pollution to the Navajo nation. That study is available at http://www.box.net/shared/static/tirr6zsw0g.pdf.

Blackstone and Sithe are the financial backers behind the Desert Rock Energy Project, a proposed 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant in New Mexico on the Navajo Nation. Blackstone holds an 80 percent ownership stake in Sithe Global LLC, which has partnered with the Diné Power Authority, a business enterprise of the Navajo tribal government, to construct and operate Desert Rock. State and federal agencies have documented extensive health and environmental concerns with the project, and as a result, federal operating or construction permits have not been issued.

Members of Diné CARE say that Navajos will face forced relocation by the proposed expansion of the existing BHP Billiton Navajo coal mine that would fuel Desert Rock. Toxic coal combustion waste, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury will further degrade the health of local Navajo communities already impacted by two nearby coal-fired power plants and other industrial facilities. Both the San Juan Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant sit within 25 miles of the proposed Desert Rock facility.

Despite the proximity of these plants, many Navajo living nearby continue to live without running water or electricity, and Desert Rock will not change that.

“There is an existing legacy of energy exploitation in Navajo communities where coal, natural gas, and oil are found under our homes and communities,” says Long, who lives in Burnham, New Mexico, a traditional Navajo community surrounded by oil fields, the coal mine, and the two existing coal plants. “Desert Rock plans to export its power to large cities in Nevada and southern Arizona and leave us with the pollution.” San Juan County ranks sixth in the nation as one of the nation’s 20 worst CO2 polluters – most of which are metropolitan areas like Houston and Detroit - according to a recent Purdue University study.

Sithe and Desert Rock’s backers say it will generate $50 million in tribal revenues per year for the Navajo Nation, but Long said it will likely be Navajos who will feel the financial impact of impending global warming legislation – estimated from $63.5 million to $292.1 million dollars per year for Desert Rock – since the project is a merchant plant with no existing contracts to sell its power. A wiser choice for the Navajos would be to invest heavily in the nation’s vast renewable energy resources, which will be free of carbon costs.

“The Navajo Nation contains valuable, untapped solar and wind resources which could be a wise investment for the tribe and Blackstone,” says Lori Goodman of Diné CARE. "Solar and wind development is common sense for the Diné."

Navajo Nation weighs costs and benefits of coal mining on its land

By KARI LYDERSEN

As a child, bonnie Wethington remembers hunting for “star-crossed fairy rocks” and catching lizards in thigh-high grass below the majestic Ship Rock and Church Rock on the Navajo Nation, near Four Corners (where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah meet).

Now in her 40s, Wethington, a member of the Nation, laments that the grass is sparse and scrubby, and there is hardly a lizard in sight. She says the changes in the land have much to do with the noxious plumes pumping out of two massive coal-burning power plants in the area, and the harvesting of coal from a wide gash in the red and gold earth that runs for miles near her family’s land.

“Now we just have a barren wasteland and acid rain from the power plant,” she says, adding that Navajo consider small reptiles their evolutionary forebears — so their disappearance is ominous.

“The land is changing,” she says. “The rabbits are dying, the lizards, the cattle are dying off, even the horny toads are dying, and we consider them our grandfathers.” Then she adds: “I used to think Navajos were immune to cancer. Now I’ve had a few relatives die of cancer. I think it’s the power plant.”

The Navajo, like a number of Native American tribes in the Southwest, has found itself in an ironic conundrum.

While this swath of Native land is largely dry, windswept and difficult to farm, it sits in an area rich with mineral and fossil fuel resources — coal, natural gas, oil and uranium. Although Native Americans believe in protecting the earth like a mother, exploiting these resources has provided one of few economic lifelines for a number of impoverished Native communities.

The Southern Ute tribe in southwest Colorado is flush with income from its natural gas leases. About 1,300 tribal members enjoy monthly payments of about $1,400 and, after age 60, a generous pension of about $65,000 a year; plus the use of a spacious fitness center, Montessori school, hospital and other amenities. That’s thanks to the Southern Ute Growth Fund, a private equity investment fund that, since its 1999 inception, has leveraged its gas income into a $1.45 billion portfolio, including real estate, construction and oil exploration. (The tribe declines to break down how much of this investment is in natural gas.) A large wooden seal adorning the tribe’s headquarters shows a gushing oil well and gas pipelines, along with livestock and mountains — its traditional tribal identifiers.

But historically, it was outsiders who exploited Native Americans lands, leaving environmental and social havoc in their wake.

The Black Mesa Coal Mine on Navajo and Hopi land, east of Phoenix near the New Mexico-Arizona border, is a prime example. The mine fed coal to the Mohave Generating Station located 273 miles away in Laughlin, Nev., via a slurry pipeline — meaning the coal was ground and mixed with water to form a slushy liquid that could be pumped through the pipeline. Each year, the tribes sacrificed about a billion gallons of their sparse water supply to blend and pump the coal to Laughlin, where it was burned to produce electricity for a large swath of the West. Meanwhile, one in three Navajo homes — about 18,000 total — has no electricity, according to the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority.

In 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) closed the Mohave Generating Station — built by multinational Bechtel — because of its high sulfur dioxide emissions. With the station closed, Black Mesa’s coal production has been suspended until the Peabody coal company can find another customer.

Also on the reservation, 130 miles north of Black Mesa, the Four Corners and San Juan coal-burning power plants produce electricity that is transported to regional customers on high-tension power lines that pass right over many unwired Navajo homes.

(These are the plants Wethington blames for destroying the local ecology and causing cancer. Numerous studies have also linked emissions from coal-burning power plants to higher rates of asthma and other health problems. The Black Mesa mine has no connection to these plants.)

Desert Rock

Now the Navajo tribe is considering a $4 billion coal investment that proponents claim would give the tribe ownership over — and significant profit from — its mineral resources.

Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. supports the proposed Desert Rock generating station, which is spearheaded by the New York firm Sithe Global Power, in partnership with the tribal Dine Power Authority. The station would generate 1,500 megawatts of power, burning local coal harvested by BHP Billiton — one of the world’s largest mining companies and the current supplier of the Four Corners and San Juan plants.

Shirley, a controversial figure who made Desert Rock a central platform of his 2006 re-election campaign, describes the plant as a way to “put food on the table and put shoes on little feet.”

Proponents say the tribe would earn $50 million a year in coal royalties, taxes, jobs and related investment. Plus, if it can come up with the capital, the tribe could purchase up to 49 percent interest in the venture. Fliers handed out by proponents promise jobs that could pay $60,000 a year.

“This is the first energy development we’ve been able to personally be a part of,” says tribal chapter president Lucinda Yellowman Bennalley. “We’re very excited.”

Bennalley and other proponents of the plan say many of their relatives who have left the reservation because of a lack of jobs want to return, and they hope jobs at Desert Rock would make that possible.

But the proposal has divided the tribe, shattering long-standing friendships and alienating neighbors. During a March meeting with journalists, Shirley described Navajo opponents of the plan as “dissidents.”

Meanwhile, these critics say they have suffered ongoing harassment and intimidation from tribal police. George Hardeen, spokesman for Shirley’s office, says that claims of harassment — including murdered dogs and cattle — were investigated by independent veterinarians and were found to be groundless.

Lucy Willie, 65, who lives near the proposed Desert Rock site, was part of a December 2006 encampment protesting the Desert Rock plan. Armed tribal police threatened to take her to jail, she says.

If the Desert Rock plant opens, not only would it bring emissions, but BHP Billiton could also significantly expand its coal mining operations across its 25-square-mile lease.

Brad Bartlett, an attorney with the Energy Minerals Law Center, charges that BHP Billiton has done a poor job of safely storing waste from the open pit and underground mines it currently operates on Navajo land, and of restoring the tapped-out sites it has mined to supply the Four Corners and San Juan generating stations with coal.

“None of this land has been restored to its pre-mining usage,” Bartlett says. “The waste has everything in it: mercury, selenium, cadmium, radiological contaminants. The ash is stored in unlined ponds and the dust goes everywhere. Eventually they will probably leave the Navajo Nation with the cost of the cleanup.”

Willie, who has tended sheep on the same land since she was 7 years old, doesn’t want to see the ecosystem destroyed this way.

“Five-fingered creatures are supposed to nurture a healthy environment,” she says. “Navajo are not meant to be wanderers. We always come back to a place we call home. Generations down the line, I hope this will still be here for them.”

The Navajo Nation is divided into 110 chapter houses, with each chapter acting essentially as a small local government. The Burnham chapter, which encompasses the proposed Desert Rock site, voted against the idea. Then the boundaries were redrawn so the site lay within the Nenahnezad chapter, which voted for it.

However, the tribe still needs an air permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). On March 18, the Diné Power Authority and Desert Rock LLC (a subsidiary of Sithe) sued the EPA, claiming it has delayed the permit for four years and is obligated to act.

On March 12, prior to the filing of the suit, Navajo President Shirley, who flew to Washington, D.C., to meet with EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, characterized the federal government’s failure to shepherd through the project as a violation of the tribe’s sovereignty. Likewise, he claims outside environmentalists are stirring up opposition among tribal members.

“Outsiders are coming in, foreigners giving money to Navajo to say no,” Shirley told a group of journalists on the reservation shortly after his meeting with the EPA. “The majority of Navajo support it. What do you want us to do, continue to stay quagmired in poverty? I want to get us standing on our own two feet.”

Wind and sun

In 1988, the grassroots group Dine CARE formed to protect local forests and fight a proposed toxic waste incinerator near Dilkon, a town in the southwest part of the reservation. (“Dine” roughly means “people,” and it is the way Navajo refer to themselves. CARE stands for Citizens Against Ruining our Environment.)

—————-
Last fall, the group released a study on renewable energy potential on the Navajo Nation. It describes “world-class” solar resources in the Arizona side of Four Corners, and reservation-wide “abundance of moderately to highly valuable solar and wind resources, all largely untapped to date.”

“The Navajo Nation is poised to be a leader in renewable energy,” says Dailan Jake Long, who grew up near the Desert Rock site and recently graduated from Dartmouth College. “Solar and wind could supply Navajo homes with electricity without the negative consequences of Desert Rock.”

Wind energy potential is low in the area immediately surrounding the proposed site, but other parts of the Navajo Nation are considered promising for wind turbines. However, a lack of access to high capacity power lines prohibits the large-scale sale of energy to the interstate grid.

Proponents say Desert Rock would be a “clean coal” plant — which refers to plants that use technology with an integrated gasification combined cycle and “scrubbers” — to greatly reduce emissions of mercury, nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide. Desert Rock’s environmental impact statement says it would emit 12.7 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.

Though the Bush administration has pushed coal as the fuel source of the future, concerns over pollution and greenhouse gases have meant a nearly de facto moratorium on the building of new plants.

Utilities have canceled or suspended plans for at least 45 coal-fired power plants nationwide. Various state governments have adopted greenhouse gas reduction platforms that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for new plants to be built.

In 2006, California led the way by prohibiting the purchase of energy from plants spewing more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of energy produced.

Long and other Desert Rock opponents argue that now is the time to turn to renewable energy for economic self-sufficiency. In late April, Long, 25, will discuss the Diné CARE study and ideas for renewable energy at the United Nations in New York.

“The nation could invest in lifelong clean jobs and sustainable development projects that don’t desecrate the land and relocate people off the reservation,” he says. “This is the opportune time. [Nonrenewable] resources can only last so long. We’re not just about resistance, we’re creating blueprints for our nation, roadmaps for the future.”

Kari Lydersen writes for the Washington Post out of the Midwest bureau and just published a book, Out of the Sea and Into the Fire: Latin American-US Immigration in the Global Age.

By Cornelia de Bruin The Daily Times
Article Launched: 04/27/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT


FARMINGTON — San Juan County is ranked No. 6 on the nation's Top 20 Worst Offenders for Carbon Dioxide Emissions list in research published by a Purdue University professor.

Being one of few non-major metropolitan areas included on the list further sets San Juan County apart from other cities listed by Kevin Gurney, Ph.D.
San Juan County follows counties that include Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit.

"This is really due to the electrical demand," Gurney said. "There is a wide-spread phenomena (in the U.S.) to produce power and send it to other areas."

Gurney said he was surprised to discover that all parts of the nation were represented on the Top 20 list.

"There is a great representation of the variety of sources of emissions," Gurney said. "The list shows the different texture of emissions."

Gurney pulled most of his data from the federal Environmental Protection Agency, but also obtained information from a federal acid rain program, the Federal Home Administration and the 2000 U.S. Census.

His research drew attention when ScienceDaily published its results in its April 17 issue.

Los Angeles' pollution comes from transportation, while Harris County, Texas — home to Houston — is polluted by industrial sources.

Part of San Juan County's pollution is generated in tandem with the energy produced at the coal-fired San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow and Four Corners Power Plant in Upper Fruitland. Further affecting local air quality are pollutants emitted by petroleum and petrochemical production, Gurney said.

What's in the air?

The industry produces carbon and other pollutants. New Mexico Environment Department officials claim nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methane, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur oxides are the main pollutants generated by the oil and gas industry in San Juan County.

"It's a shell game," said Mike Eisenfeld, of San Juan Citizens Alliance. "BLM doesn't know how many compressors are in the area. It refers inquiries to the state Environment Department, who has no data."

San Juan Citizens Alliance took action against the BLM in 2003 when it was considering permitting about 10,000 new oil and gas wells in the county, Eisenfeld said.

"We were putting the onus on an ozone task force," he said. "Almost six years later no data is available from the task force other than suggestions for how to mitigate the effects of more drilling. We continue to say the way to prevent the ozone is to deny the permits."

Joel Farrell, assistant field manager for BLM's Farmington office, could not furnish any ozone task force data. He referred questions about the group's findings to the Environment Department in Santa Fe.

Eisenfeld said the clusters of all oil and gas industry equipment combine to become an aggregate source of pollution.

Mary Uhl, bureau chief of the Environment Department's Air Quality Bureau, said the main contributors to San Juan County's carbon emissions are its two power plants.

Susan Sponar, a spokeswoman for PNM-operated San Juan Generating Station, said Gurney's conclusions do not come as a surprise since two of the nation's largest coal-burning power plants are in San Juan County and others are not far from them.

She pointed out the utility is in the middle of a $320 million upgrade of the plants — an upgrade that shows it might exceed initial estimates of improvement in lessening carbon emissions.

"We are also taking part in a study sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute that would develop a cost-effective technology to take the carbon out of the plants' emissions," Sponar said. "The goal is to develop a technology for existing or new plants, using chilled ammonia technology."

It also is a founding member of a group called U.S. CAP, a consortium of electrical companies and environmentalists working toward a national carbon policy created to regulate all sources of carbon emissions.

"The policy takes a long view regarding carbon emissions," Sponar said.

Damon Gross, spokesman for Arizona Public Service, which owns and operates Four Corners Power Plant, did not return a call requesting comment.


Study timing

The results of Gurney's study come at a time when the nation's power companies plan to increase their use of coal in generating energy.

The Sierra Club notes about 150 new coal-fired power stations are on the drawing board across the U.S., adding some already are under construction.

Slated for Burnham, on the Navajo Nation, is the 1,500-megawatt Desert Rock Power Plant, which will burn pulverized coal. Diné Power Authority, formed by the Navajo Nation to operate the plant, and Sithe Global Energy, which is paying for its construction, are awaiting federal environmental permits.

"There is no doubt that coal is the most carbon dioxide-emitting energy," Gurney said. "Natural gas is better, and there's also wind- and solar-generated energy."

Gurney's point is popular with foes of Desert Rock Power Plant, such as Eisenfeld of San Juan Citizen's Alliance. Eisenfeld and Dailan Long, community organizer of Diné CARE (Citizens Against Ruining our Environment) both push for alternative energy generation.

Gurney hopes to extend and apply the results of his research.

"It raises questions of socioeconomic issues, but it also takes a quantum leap to do something more detailed," the researcher said. "It has been difficult for public and policy makers to have a closer connection to climate change."

The political dialogue on the subject has gone in several directions, he said.

"The climate change story is not as it's been portrayed as originating with Al Gore," he said. "It comes from a community of people who do science."

The first hypothesis that pumping tons of chemicals into the atmosphere and the effect of the sun on them could cause the climate to change originated with a Swedish geophysicist, Svanti Arrhenius, at the turn of the 19th century.

"He was the founder of modern-day meteorology," Gurney said.

Gurney is an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric science, and leader of a carbon dioxide inventory project called Vulcan. He received his doctorate in ecology from Colorado State University in 2004.

Top 20 for carbon pollution

The nation's Top 20 worst counties for carbon dioxide emissions, and the amounts of pollutant pumped into the atmosphere include:

1. Harris, Texas (Houston) - 18.625 million tons of carbon per year

2. Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles) - 18.595 tons/year

3. Cook, Ill. (Chicago) - 13.209 tons/year

4. Cuyahoga, Ohio (Cleveland) - 11.144 tons/year

5. Wayne, Mich. (Detroit) - 8.270 tons/year

6. San Juan, N.M. (Farmington) - 8.245 tons/year

7. Santa Clara, Calif. (San Jose) - 7.995 tons/year

8. Jefferson, Ala. (Birmingham) - 7.951 tons/year

9. Wilcox, Ala. (Camden) - 7.615 tons/year

10. East Baton Rouge, La. (Baton Rouge) - 7.322 tons/year

11. Titus, Texas (Mt. Pleasant) - 7.244 tons/year

12. Carbon, Pa. (Jim Thorpe) - 6.534 tons/year

13. Porter, Ind. (Valparaiso) - 6.331 tons/year

14. Jefferson, Ohio (Steubenville) - 6.278 tons/year

15. Indiana, Pa. (Indiana) - 6.224 tons/year

16. Middlesex, Mass. (Boston metro area) - 6.198 tons/year

17. Bexar, Texas (San Antonio) - 6.141 tons/year

18. Hillsborough, Fla. (Tampa) - 6.037 tons/year

19. Suffolk, N.Y. (New York metro area) - 6.030 tons/year

20. Clark, Nev. (Las Vegas) - 5.995 tons/year



Source: Purdue University, Kevin Gurney, Ph.D

By Marley Shebala
Navajo Times

"Shocked" was the reaction of Omar Bradley, BIA Navajo region director, on Monday to a lawsuit filed against him, the BIA and Interior Department.

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment and the San Juan Citizens Alliance are suing under the federal Freedom of Information Act on grounds that the federal agencies have withheld documents used in writing a draft environmental impact statement on the proposed Desert Rock Power Plant.

The groups are challenging the draft study's central conclusion that harmful effects to people and the environment would occur but would not exceed tolerable levels.

"I'm shocked," Bradley said of the lawsuit, "because we've been providing them with documents."

He said the BIA had to comply with federal regulations and policies in releasing documents to Diné CARE and the Citizens Alliance, both environmental groups based in Durango, Colo., that oppose Desert Rock.

Bradley declined to comment further on the lawsuit, filed April 2 in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.

Brad Bartlett of the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, lead attorney for the environmental groups, confirmed Wednesday that the BIA had released some of the requested documents.

But Bartlett said a good portion of those documents was redacted - blacked out.

For example, he said, the BIA provided the lease agreement between the Navajo Nation, Diné Power Authority and Sithe Global Power of Houston but most of the document was blacked out.

DPA, a Navajo tribal enterprise based in Window Rock, is partnering with Sithe to develop the $3 billion, 1,500-megawatt power plant, which would burn coal. The lease agreement was approved by the Navajo Nation Council.

Bartlett explained that the important part of the lease was a clear description of the site to be used, and the source of water that would be used by the plant.

The BIA is charged with protecting Native American land and water resources, which is why the BIA bears the chief responsibility for analyzing the possible impacts of Desert Rock, he added.

Bartlett noted that the source of Navajo water to be used by Desert Rock is of the utmost importance because the tribe is pushing Congress to approve a settlement agreement with New Mexico regarding water rights to the San Juan River.

Part of that settlement involves a commitment for $6 billion in federal funds to construct a water pipeline from the river to Gallup. The pipeline would also provide water to Navajo communities in the eastern areas of the Navajo Reservation.

But Bartlett noted that the pipeline route would also pass near the proposed power plant, which will use large quantities of water, raising questions about whether the use of river water is contemplated somewhere in the thousands of pages of fine print.

Sithe and DPA have tested the groundwater at the Desert Rock site and the results show there isn't enough groundwater to meet the plant's need for 6,000 acre feet of water a year over five decades, Bartlett said, referencing testimony given last week by President Joe Shirley Jr. in Washington, D.C.

Diné CARE and the Citizens Alliance share Shirley's concern for the water needs of the Navajo people and the city of Gallup, which is why the groups requested those documents from the BIA, he explained.

And Bartlett said if the water for Desert Rock is coming from the Navajo Nation water settlement with New Mexico, Navajos who still haul their own water deserve to know the impact of Desert Rock.

He said the two groups also sued Bradley, the BIA and Interior over communications with the contractor hired to prepare the environmental study, URS Corp.

It's common for the BIA to contract consultants but the BIA must understand that any communication by the consultant, like itself, is subject to the federal freedom of information law, he explained.

Barlett noted that initially the two groups asked the BIA for any and all communication between the BIA and Sithe.

The BIA responded that it wasn't communicating with Sithe and that URS, as the preparer for the environmental impact statement, was communicating with Sithe, he said.

Barlett said when the groups resubmitted their request for any and all communication between URS and Sithe, the BIA informed them that they couldn't provide the documents because of the working relationship between URS and Sithe.

If URS is really working for Sithe, and URS is under a federal contract with the BIA to prepare the environmental assessment that involves the impact of Sithe's proposed plant to the Navajo Nation and its citizens, then there certainly is a "potential for bias and for the BIA to start over," he said.

He added that the groups are also requesting public records concerning the impact of the Navajo Mine, which would supply coal to Desert Rock.

Diné CARE and Citizens Alliance want to know how many Navajo people were relocated to make way for the mine, operated by BHP Billiton, and how many more would be relocated if it expands production to feed Desert Rock, Bartlett said.

But he said the BIA's response was to ask Diné CARE, a nonprofit grassroots organization, to pay $1,800 in copying and clerical fees. The BIA decided the group was not eligible for the fee waiver provided under FOIA because it would use the information to make money, a position Bartlett called "absurd."

The defendants have 20 days to respond to the suit, meaning a response was due before the court Tuesday. Bartlett said he had not heard anything.

Burt Shirley, spokesperson for Diné Power Authority, was attending a DPA board meeting Wednesday and was unavailable for comment.

Sithe spokesman Frank Maisano said, "The charges are nothing new. They are the same old, tired, conspiracy charges that we have come to expect from project opponents.

"All this amounts to is another delaying tactic," he said. "It's time for opponents to stop throwing the darts at the board, hoping they'll hit something. These tactics have only hurt the Navajo workers and the Navajo people who stand to benefit."

Sithe and DPA recently sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failure to issue a decision on the application for an air quality permit for Desert Rock.

Proposes green energy production for Navajo

By Kathy Helms
Din Bureau

WINDOW ROCK Joseph Patrick Kennedy II and representatives of Citizens Energy Corp. blew into Window Rock Wednesday like a breath of fresh air, promising economic development and profit for the nations largest tribe from its most abundant resources wind and sun.

The trademark Kennedy charisma and impassioned speech brought the Navajo Nation Council to its feet as the eldest son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy spoke of the poverty of Indian nations and prejudice in Congress against Native Americans.

But just as the 1960s was a time of revolution, this election year promises to be a time of great change, Kennedy said, with the same opportunity for changing the direction that this country takes over the course of the next eight years.

He reminded Council that their ancestors understood the importance of living in balance with nature, that human beings arent all-powerful, that we dont have some God-given right to just dig up and develop anything and everything that we see to the detriment of local communities as long as some people can get rich.

Kennedy, 55, served 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and started Citizens, a non-profit energy company, about 30 years ago.

We all remember the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s and how there were enormous gas lines, the price of oil was skyrocketing, oil companies were making profits that were really astounding, and the poor were being left behind.

Beginning in 1979 with oil-trading ventures in Latin America and Africa, Citizens has used revenues from commercial enterprises to channel millions of dollars into charitable programs in the United States and abroad.

We sold solar farms, we sold wind farms, we created all sorts of businesses to go out and try to make a profit. With the profit we make, we try to help the poor. And that is what Im here to talk with you about today, he said.

Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. announced Monday during his State of the Nation address that the Nation entered into an agreement in principle with Citizens on March 12 to explore wind energy development.

We hope to develop the largest renewable energy project on Native American lands, Shirley said.

The venture is expected to create up to 150 construction jobs, 10 to 20 permanent jobs, and provide about $3 million in annual tax and royalty revenues with an option for the Nation to acquire majority ownership in the future.

You know much better than I will ever be able to tell you, the poverty rates of most Indian people in this country is a scourge on the reputation of the United States of America, Kennedy said to rousing applause.

Twelve percent of all Americans live in poverty. By comparison, 27 percent of Native Americans live in poverty; 43 percent of Navajos live in poverty.

In the greatest depression that this country ever went through, 25 percent of the people of this country were unemployed. The unemployment rate among Native Americans today is twice what it was for all Americans in the Great Depression, and nobody says a word about it.

He recalled coming to the Navajo Nation as a young boy with his father.

There was a big press conference, and you know, the devastation that we saw as the result of drug and alcohol abuse on this reservation is something that I will never forget. That trip, and the impression it made, has a lot to do with the direction his life has taken today.

I worked for the federal government. I worked for the federal Anti-Poverty, and very, very quickly after I started working there, I began to think, This isnt an agency designed to help the poor get out of poverty. This is an agency that is designed to maintain the poor in poverty. And if you ask me, thats what weve seen the BIA do for the last ... His words were drowned out by applause.

As a congressman of the United States, I saw first-hand the cover-up of what happened to the Indian Trust Fund. I saw what would happen when I chaired the Housing Committee, what would happen to Native American housing when it would get on the House floor.

Im telling you, you think there isnt prejudice in this country against Native Americans, you go to the Congress of the United States and you wonder why the only way you have to make money is through gambling.

The reason why Native Americans have gambling today is because the Congress of the United States didnt have the guts to stand up and write the check that was necessary to provide for the housing ... Again, his words were lost amid applause and whistles.

I understand what it means to have to go in and fight for the poor ... to fight for people on the outside of political and economic power, he said.

Its time for a change, and time for a new kind of company, according to Kennedy. He is hopeful that Navajo and Citizens will go out and start to develop the natural renewable resources that this tribe has been blessed by our Lord with.

Kennedy said the last half hour of the plane ride into Window Rock was a very bumpy little ride. Though that tends to frighten some, When Pete Smith, Roger Freeman and I start bumping around in an airplane, we love it and you know why? Because that means its windy as hell out there!

So, guess what? You live in a windy place. There may not be a lot of oil and coal and gas left out there, but one thing youve got is wind; and youve got sun ... and with that we can make money.

All of us at Citizens Energy are dedicated to try our best to lift the poor out of poverty, not by giving out a hand-out but giving a hand-up, he said, adding that he believes the Navajo/Citizens partnership could be the envy of Indian people and all people that have energy development on their land.

Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur said Citizens, like other companies coming to Navajo, is interested in wind energy development in the Gray Mountain area.

There is criteria that goes from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most quality type wind. I understand that the Gray Mountain area is in the upper 8, so I know that theres a lot of interest there.

I was just telling him (Kennedy) that my concern is a lot of these people come in and we dont know their primary interest, other than making money off us, and were no longer interested in that kind of arrangement.

Kennedy said Citizens is looking at Gray Mountain and a number of other sites.

There are power lines, theres a lot of the infrastructure thats necessary to actually get this power developed. ... This is, I hope, the kind of initiative that would be welcomed.

Navajo Council support sought
for Gray Mountain wind project

By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — Though there are five transmission lines running right through the middle of Cameron Chapter, most of the homes are without electricity and residents have seen no benefits from the lines criss-crossing the barren landscape.

But Cameron Delegate Jack Colorado and Community Services Coordinator Rayola Werito say that is about to change.

Chapter residents approved a resolution Sunday supporting Independent Power Projects Inc.’s plan to conduct a feasibility study for a wind farm to be located atop Gray Mountain, and asking the Navajo Nation Council to support the chapter-based effort.

“We’re just giving them the OK to do the feasibility study. That’s it. If there’s going to be all those wind turbines that’s going to be put up, then we’re going to negotiate with that company just like we’re doing with IPP,” Colorado said.

“The Navajo Nation, they don’t include the chapters in the negotiations,” but the chapter realizes it needs to do that, he added, “because all these transmission lines running through Cameron Chapter, the rights of way, they’re just in the way and we’re not benefiting from them — no electricity, no nothing.”

Bruce McAlvain, president of IPP Inc., during Monday’s presentation to Council, said the company has been in the area more than a year and a half and has worked closely with the chapter.

“We have endeavored to do this as properly as possible and build a trust and support with the local community,” McAlvain said.

McAlvain believes there are four to eight sites that would be viable for development. “We are in a current position to put in additional monitoring equipment on top of Gray Mountain to give us a better, finite detail of what the resource is, but right now we believe that it will hold a 250 megawatt wind farm, possibly a 500 megawatt wind farm.”
He said IPP is in the “due diligence phase” with its industry partner, Sempra Energy of San Diego, on the potential project.

Werito said IPP first approached them in October 2006. “Before IPP came to the chapter, presentations were given to the chapter from Diné Power Authority with Citizens Energy. In October 2007 they gave a presentation to the community and questions were raised.

“Benefits was one of the No. 1 things they were asked. At that time, DPA and Citizens Energy did not have a response for the community. We passed a resolution yesterday to have IPP partner up with Sempra Energy ... They’re well known. They’re probably one of the biggest developers of wind farms. They also do their own financing.”

She said the community is requesting the Nation and DPA work with IPP and Sempra in support of the project.

“I think this is a great initiative by a community, although I have some reservations,” Delegate Jonathan Nez said.

“This is a good initiative, a grassroots-level type thing. I think Council should support it — at least hear the ins and outs of it and be educated. It’s clean, renewable energy, and that’s what I support,” Delegate Leonard Chee said after the presentation.

Resources Committee Chairman George Arthur and Delegate Ervin Keeswood took issue with the presentation. Arthur said he did not recall IPP coming before his committee, which has oversight on such projects. “There is a protocol that is in place.

“I am somewhat puzzled about where we are with making these allowances for private industry to present to council at this stage. I do have a concern about that.”

Keeswood agreed, saying the item was out of order. “It should go back to the various committees and let them determine the process. After that’s done, if there’s legislation attached, then we have something to talk about.”

Chee said the chapter should be commended for its efforts, “rather than saying, ‘Oh, you’re here in Window Rock. You have to do everything on our terms,’ while we’re not doing anything here. There is not a Navajo energy policy in place. We’re kind of keeping the chapters quiet while they need services — power services.”

Delegate Colorado said, “We have APS service line running right through the middle of the Cameron Chapter area, but APS does not agree with the contract that is being offered to them from the Navajo Nation. Because of that, they are not doing any power line extension over there.

“Cameron Chapter had to go and find funding to get solar panels. The chapter got $1.9 million to get 100 solar panels. The mountain people, way out there, they have electric now and refrigerators in their homes. The chapter did that.

“The authority that the Navajo Nation talks about, they need to include the chapters in that authority so they’ll be negotiating between the chapters, the Navajo Nation and the company, all the way through.

“If we’re going to do a wind farm out here, we’re going to do one that can serve the community,” he said. If they’re not going to provide power to the community, “they’re out of the picture.”

Proposed plant parallels evident

Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/19/2008 10:01:19 PM MDT

Editor:

I have followed coverage of the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Nation as well as reporting on the anticipated return of uranium mining in the Grants Mining Belt.

I find the parallels interesting, especially when you look closely at comments made by Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. in support of the coal plant and his opposition to uranium mining. In an interview with Tim Gardner of Reuter.com, Pres. Shirley said the Desert Rock coal plant is needed because it will bring jobs to the Nation and provide more than $50 million annually. His exact quote was, "it's all about putting food on the table, putting shoes on little feet."

What I find ironic are the words Pres. Shirley uses to defend the Desert Rock coal plant. He says that technology has improved, making the plant the cleanest of its kind, and carbon emissions will be less due to its efficiency. With economic development and environmentally sound operations, according to Pres. Shirley, it's a win-win situation.

The irony is that the same science Pres. Shirley uses to defend desert Rock is the same science that demonstrates the dramatic improvements that have also occurred in uranium mining. Why does the science work when defending a coal plant, but doesn't work for uranium mining?
Pres. Shirley strongly expresses opposition to uranium mining because of environmental and health problems that occurred during the last mining cycle. Mining companies that plan to mine in New Mexico were not here during the last cycle. Several of these companies are already using in-situ mining processes in other states for over three decades. The science is working; there haven't been any environmental disasters at any of the uranium mine sites.

Reasonable thinking people are realizing that nuclear energy is the only power that will reduce greenhouse gases. The World Nuclear Power Organization reports that 34 new reactors are being built, 93 are on order or planned, and another 222 are proposed. Uranium is the only fuel source for those plants.

I represent the members of the Eastern Navajo Allottee Association who live outside the Navajo Nation's boundaries. We also need economic development. We will not benefit financially from the Desert Rock coal plant nor will we receive any of its electricity.

However, we sit on vast reserves of uranium deposits and would welcome the opportunity to provide for our families and their future. Pres. Shirley is right; its all about putting food on the table and shoes on little feet. We just need to agree on the science.

BENJAMIN HOUSE

Eastern Navajo Allottee Association, Inc.

Crownpoint

By Cornelia de Bruin The Daily Times
Article Launched: 04/21/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT

FARMINGTON — San Juan County is one of 14 New Mexico counties given two thumbs up by Colorado College for its renewable energy potential.
Colorado College, located in Colorado Springs, Colo., rates western states from the renewable energy point of view. Lead researcher and report author Elizabeth Kolbe said renewables are a refreshing change of pace for this part of the nation.

"Generally the Rockies is a region affected by the extraction of minerals," she said. "I'm definitely against the building of more coal-fired power plants in the West, or the mining of coal."

Among the findings researchers who compiled the school's fifth annual State of the Rockies Report Card noted this year:

- Energy use in the Rocky Mountain region is 9 percent less than the national average, while consumers' monthly bills are 17 percent below those of the rest of the nation.
- Five of the eight Rockies states are among the top 15 windiest in the country.
- Wind is the leading renewable resource in the Rockies.
- Seven of the eight Rocky Mountain states are rated "superior" solar sources.
- The region's geothermal resources distinguish it from other parts of the nation.
- The three highest energy-using states in the Rockies are Idaho, Nevada and Arizona.

The Rockies region includes the states of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming and Utah.

Kolbe analyzed each county within the region, assigning them grades based on the counties' potential for biomass, solar, wind and geothermal energy. Her results highlights which counties are positioned most favorably to take advantage of a renewable energy boom when supplemented with the necessary labor and infrastructure.

San Juan County does not top the list of New Mexico's counties, a spot held by Quay and Río Arriba counties, but received an "A" grade for its solar potential. It is one of six such counties within the state.

This area received an "A-minus" grade for its geothermal potential.

Surprisingly Kolbe's research did not place San Juan County with other New Mexico counties acknowledged for their wind power potential. San Juan Citizens Alliance and Diné CARE (citizens against ruining our environment) are pushing for the use of wind power as a better alternative than the Desert Rock Power Plant the Navajo Nation's government hopes is built near Burnham.

"By any measure ... renewable energy is far superior to burning coal," said Diné CARE Community Organizer Dailan Long. "That's why the Navajo Nation needs to develop alternative sources."

Kolbe agreed there is a place — both for the Diné and the state — for harvesting energy from non-coal sources.

"I know there is no way that a solar plant can replace a 15,000-megawatt (coal-fired) plant, but people collectively installing solar panels on their homes could really help the Navajo people," she said regarding the proposed Desert Rock Power Plant. "It could help the state achieve its renewable portfolio standard."

New Mexico's Public Regulatory Commission mandated that 20 percent of utilities' energy come from renewables by the year 2020.

The State of the Rockies Report Card is a 120-page book containing reports about Affordable Housing, Restoring Rivers, Wilderness and Extractive Industries and Renewable Energy.

The different sections are viewable at http://www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/reportcard.html. To order a copy contact Colorado College Bookstore at (800) 854-3930.

Cornelia de Bruin:

cdebruin@daily-times.com

Although President Joe Shirley Jr. has put one foot down, signing an agreement with the Citizen Enterprises Corporation to produce more than 500 megawatts of sustainable wind energy on Navajoland, the air is not quite clean yet.

Why is it that he said that Navajos "do not want to sit by (and) watch another generation of mothers and fathers die" regarding uranium mining on Navajo land? How about the Desert Rock Plant? How about using precious water to slurry coal?

The Desert Rock Plant and slurrying coal with precious water are also not welcome by many of his people on their land. Also, many species of animals, including man globally, depend on him putting his other foot down.

Desert Rock Plant will put the Navajo Nation in the category of man living luxuriously off the energy-rich land, like a spoiled child off wealthy parents.

I attended the Longest Walk 2 forum at Northern Arizona University on March 26, 2008. When the panel discussion ended, it ended on a negative note: that most of the tribal governments do not support increasing awareness of the consequences of high-energy consumption.

It is quite obvious the Navajo Nation is not an exception. Money for gold rings and travel expenses is what seems to drive them, just like kings. However, they need to remember that they are our servants, that they were elected to serve the Navajo people.

I also read the Longest Walk 2 founder Dennis Banks' story about how the growth of his wild rice plantation is growing shorter every year. He made it quite clear that global warming is real.

Many of us are scratching our heads and asking, "How can President Joe Shirley Jr. sit by and watch mothers and fathers and their children die from the pollution from another power plant, the Desert Rock Plant?"

The time has come for President Joe Shirley Jr. to put the other foot down on Desert Rock Plant. Otherwise in the Navajo custom it is considered that one is out of balance in his intellectual approach and leadership - specifically for a people whose elders strongly believe that they are the keepers of Mother Earth and who have elected him to serve them.

Erma Yellowman-McCabe
Flagstaff, Ariz.

ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2008) — The top twenty carbon dioxide-emitting counties in the United States have been identified by a research team led by Purdue University.

The top three counties include the cities of Houston, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Kevin Gurney, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric science at Purdue University and leader of the carbon dioxide inventory project, which is called Vulcan, says the biggest surprise is that each region of the United States is included in the ranking.

"It shows that CO2 emissions are really spread out across the country," he says. "Texas, California, New York, Florida, New Mexico, the Midwest — Indiana, Illinois, Ohio — and Massachusetts are all listed. No region is left out of the ranking, it would seem."

The listing of the counties includes the largest city in each county. The numbers are for millions of tons of carbon emitted per year.

Harris, Texas (Houston) — 18.625 million tons of carbon per year
Los Angeles, Calif. (Los Angeles) — 18.595
Cook, Ill. (Chicago) — 13.209
Cuyahoga, Ohio (Cleveland) — 11.144
Wayne, Mich. (Detroit) — 8.270
San Juan, N.M. (Farmington) — 8.245
Santa Clara, Calif. (San Jose) — 7.995
Jefferson, Ala. (Birmingham) — 7.951
Wilcox, Ala. (Camden) — 7.615
East Baton Rouge, La. (Baton Rouge) — 7.322
Titus, Texas (Mt. Pleasant) — 7.244
Carbon, Pa. (Jim Thorpe) — 6.534
Porter, Ind. (Valparaiso) — 6.331
Jefferson, Ohio (Steubenville) — 6.278
Indiana, Pa. (Indiana) — 6.224
Middlesex, Mass. (Boston metro area) — 6.198
Bexar, Texas (San Antonio) — 6.141
Hillsborough, Fla. (Tampa) — 6.037
Suffolk, N.Y. (New York metro area) — 6.030
Clark, Nev. (Las Vegas) — 5.955
The current emissions are based on information from 2002, but the Vulcan system will soon expand to more recent years.

Gurney says Vulcan, which is named for the Roman god of fire, quantifies all of the CO2 that results from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline. It also tracks the hourly outputs at the level of factories, power plants, roadways, neighborhoods and commercial districts.

"It's interesting that the top county, Harris, Texas, is on the list because of industrial emissions, but the second highest CO2 emitting county, Los Angels, California, is on the list because of automobile emissions," Gurney says. "So it's not just cars, and it's not just factories, that are emitting the carbon dioxide, but a combination of different things."

Gurney notes that some counties on the list are there but they are producing goods or power for occupants of a different area.

"Counties such as Titus, Texas, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Clark, Nevada, are dominated by large power production facilities that serve populations elsewhere," he says.

"My favorite one on the list is Carbon, Pennsylvania," Gurney adds.

The three-year project, which was funded by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy under the North American Carbon Program, involved researchers from Purdue University, Colorado State University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The Vulcan data is available for anyone to download from the Web site at http://www.eas.purdue.edu/carbon/vulcan. Smaller summary data sets that offer a slice of the data and are easier to download also are available for non-scientists on the Vulcan Web site. These can be broken down into emission categories, such as industrial, residential, transportation, power producers, by fuel type, and are available by state, county, or cells as small as six miles (10 kilometers) across.

Adapted from materials provided by Purdue University.

Frank fires back
(Editors’ note: The following letter is in response to the March 6 editorial, “Cocktails with Frank.)

Will,

Saw your recent snarky piece and would love to tell you a few things you forgot:

1) I have worked on a number of power plant-related issues and nearly every one of them has been a rational argument for finding and walking the fine line between growth, economics and environmental protection. There is a need to understand all sides of issues and find the right balance that will not only protect the environment, but meet community needs and protect its economy as well.

2) Before you go reading “Source watch” and take it as gospel, you should always check what else people work on. The climate group, when I worked with it (1998-2002), was widely recognized as credible business group that had a strong influence on the economic debate surrounding whether policies like the Kyoto Protocol would work or what they would cost. I think 10 years later, history has shown we were right about Kyoto. Also, I never did any work for the nuclear industry – although I would be happy to since Sen. Harry Reid doesn’t like me already anyway.

3) Perhaps you should investigate my involvement building wind turbine projects. In fact, by the number of quotes I have in the media, one might argue I have been more active on renewable projects than I even have been on Desert Rock or any coal power project. I suggested building wind turbines around the ridges of Durango just as we have in other regions to air permit and EIS meeting-goers, but surprisingly (not), I got a similar response as in those other places: “Not here”... Funny how that seems to happen.

4) I live within 15 miles of two big, coal-fired power plants, both of which are much closer than Desert Rock is to Durango. By the way, both are older than San Juan and Four Corners and have less emissions controls. Both of them are also close to the Chesapeake Bay, a relatively large, significant water resource ... even by Durango standards. By the way, my three small kids are growing up happy right here playing their sports, playing with friends, learning about the environment in our state. I think the power plants and car emissions (which are a much bigger problem here) may have affected their ability to hear though, because many times they don’t listen to me when I tell them to do things.

5) While I might have offered to buy you a beer, I don’t drink or smoke, so we wouldn’t be able to hang out and progress to heavier drinking. Sorry, not any particular reason, just never did. That way my judgment remains sound always.

6) I don’t drive Cadillacs .. .In fact I like to drive hybrids like the Prius – especially when I am on the road.

7) I do travel to Las Vegas often because, in fact, we are building another state-of-the-art, advanced coal plant just north of Las Vegas. I don’t think it’s my place to tell people how they ought to live, though. But certainly Las Vegas and the entire Southwest continues to grow rapidly and needs power. And it’s not just Las Vegas. St. George, Utah, is the second-fastest growing community by percentage in the U.S., according to recent census numbers. These power needs must be met. By the way, don’t gamble either. Just don’t like it.

8) Why shouldn’t the Navajos – who are aren’t as fortunate as those living in Durango – get opportunities to make a better life for their families as well. You might remember, the Nation will get hundreds of jobs, millions in revenue from taxes and royalties and new opportunities for economic development. It was their idea to do this project, and they invited us to help them build it better than any coal plant ever built before. I know nobody in Durango really cares about the Navajo Nation, but they should. Out of sight ... out of mind.

9) I’ve been to the plant site plenty of times ... have you? If not, I would recommend it. I think for the most part, you might find it to be a pretty darn good place to put a power plant – especially since it will have virtually no emissions of regional haze pollutants and use 85 percent less water than a typical plant (most of which goes to pollution control). And with the Navajo’s coal mine right next to the plant, not much use for trains, trucks or other items which have fuels costs and emissions as well.

10) Well, no smoking, drinking, gambling or girls. Sounds like your mapped out excursion might be pretty boring after all when you add me into it. Nothing but rational policy wonk talk and bragging on my kids’ sports, packed into a hybrid driving across the desert. At least we could get some Tony Hillerman novels on tape. I still have a few more to read (I love those books). Too bad you didn’t join us last time ... Anyway, the offer is still good.

– Sincerely, Frank Maisano spokesman, Desert Rock

Environmental lawyers make a concentrated effort to stop new ones from being built; a coalition claims 65 victories in the last year. But industry groups are fighting back.
By Judy Pasternak
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-coalwars14apr14,1,2805749.story

April 14, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Every time a new coal-fired power plant is proposed anywhere in the United States, a lawyer from the Sierra Club or an allied environmental group is assigned to stop it, by any bureaucratic or legal means necessary.

They might frame the battle as a matter of zoning or water use, but the larger war is over global warming: Coal puts twice as much temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas, second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.

The plant-by-plant strategy is part of a campaign by environmentalists to force the federal government to deal with climate change. The fights are scattered from Georgia to Wyoming, from Illinois to Texas, but the ultimate target is Washington, where the Bush administration has resisted placing limits on carbon dioxide and Congress has yet to act on a global warming bill.

The campaign against new coal-powered plants has infuriated utilities, which say the environmentalists' tactics are an abuse of the regulatory and judicial systems. They are counterpunching with ads, lobbying and court briefs of their own, bringing the clash over coal to a pitch that rivals the environmental and legal fights over nuclear power decades ago.

The environmental coalition, which includes the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental Integrity Project, claims 65 victories over the last three years. The Sierra Club is coordinating opposition to about 50 additional power plant proposals.

"We have a national presence, so we're sort of mission control," said Pat Gallagher, director of the Sierra Club's environmental law program.

The goal: "We hope to clog up the system," said David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "It's putting pressure on Congress to put together a comprehensive plan."

Utilities and industry groups acknowledge that the environmentalists have been responsible for stopping some coal plants that otherwise would have been built. But the number is "nowhere near" 65, said Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA official who is now an industry lobbyist.

The partners in the anti-coal crusade are picking fights over any and all generators that use coal "regardless of merit," said Brendan Collins, a lawyer in Philadelphia who represents utilities and power plant developers. "They are doing it in a way that is unfair."

Since a meeting in Washington last summer, the partners in the anti-coal crusade have been focusing more squarely on carbon dioxide emissions in their local skirmishes, hoping to create precedents for dealing with a pollutant that is not federally regulated.

Their first high-profile victory came in Kansas last October, when state regulators denied a request by Sunflower Electric Co. for an air-quality permit for two 700-megawatt generators that would run on coal in the town of Holcomb.

The Sierra Club petitioned the state's health and environment secretary, Roderick L. Bremby, to deny the air-quality permit on grounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

"I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing," Bremby said at the time.

Ever since, the state courts and Legislature have been haggling over coal and carbon dioxide in Kansas, and Sunflower has been unable to proceed.

Nick Persampieri, a Denver-based attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice, represents the Sierra Club in opposition to the Sunflower plant. He works closely with the Sierra Club's Kansas chapter. "You could argue that power plants harm everyone all over the country, but we always have somebody local to help us get standing" in court, he said.

Bookbinder is the Sierra Club's point man against a proposed power plant on tribal land in Utah, a case that shows the scope of the anti-coal push.

Usually he focuses on big-picture, national litigation from his Capitol Hill office. Bookbinder was one of the original petitioners in last spring's landmark Supreme Court decision that the EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. But when he found himself with a block of free time last fall, he told Sierra Club headquarters in San Francisco, "I'll take a coal plant."

He received this mission: Halt a project by six electric cooperatives that run the Bonanza generator on the Uintah and Ouray Indian reservation. The co-ops, operating as Deseret Power, want to add a new unit with the capacity to manufacture 110 megawatts of electricity, about a fifth the capacity of the average power plant.

Bookbinder spied a big opportunity in the small project. Because the Bonanza plant is on property held in trust for Indians by the U.S. government, it was the Environmental Protection Agency, not a state, that issued the permit allowing the co-ops to proceed.

Bookbinder persuaded an administrative appeals board to consider overruling the EPA's permit on the grounds that it would vent more than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Oral arguments are scheduled for late May, and a decision is expected near the end of the summer.

If Bookbinder is successful, a ruling would affect any project that comes before the EPA, which has permitting authority for power plants in eight states, all federally owned land, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Deseret's lawyer, Steffen N. Johnson, declined comment.

But this time, industry groups are jumping into the fray in a big way. "Where it's going to be precedential, we will be getting involved," said Russell Frye, who filed a half-inch-thick brief last month that supports the power plant on behalf of seven powerful trade associations, including the American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the American Chemistry Council and the National Assn. of Manufacturers.

Various business groups are discussing how to handle the environmentalists' challenges in a more comprehensive way, but industry sources said their members have such a wide range of positions on climate change that it's been difficult. Some suggest bringing conspiracy charges against the environmentalists if they can find instances in which the national groups recruited locals to allow them to file legal papers that they couldn't have filed otherwise. But "no one has the guts," said one industry lawyer.

Instead, Collins and two law partners wrote an article for the spring 2008 issue of the American Bar Assn.'s natural resources journal, advising clients to build in schedule and budget delays due to litigation -- because it is inevitable.

"It's good for lawyers. It's good for me," said Frye. "But it's not particularly constructive to have all these symbolic gestures that may gum up the works but won't necessarily advance what we as a society ought to be doing."

Stopping the Bonanza plant, he said, "might not give you more bang for the buck than controlling an existing source" of carbon dioxide emissions, "or replacing light bulbs."

Members of the environmental law brigade concede that stopping new plants may not be as effective in reducing emissions as getting the oldest, dirtiest, least efficient coal plants offline. Coal supplies half of America's electricity.

"We'll need to find a way to go after them, too," Persampieri said.

judy.pasternak@latimes.com

Coalfields Turn Into Battlefields

Push for New Plants
Divides Democrats
In Rural, City Areas
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-coalwars14apr14,1,2805749.story

By STEPHEN POWER in Wise, Virginia, and NICK TIMIRAOS in Levittown, Pa.
April 14, 2008; Wall Street Journal, Page A6

The race for the Democratic nomination hinges on a handful of states
where coal is still king. That puts Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama in a bind: how to attack global warming without threatening an
industry that provides half the U.S.'s electricity and more than 80,000
mining jobs.

Campaigning in the Pennsylvania presidential primary this month,
Senators Clinton and Obama are championing technology to capture and
store carbon-dioxide emissions from coal -- while vowing to invest in
renewable energies such as wind and solar power.

BURNING ISSUE

The News: The Democratic race is shifting to states that depend heavily
on coal, putting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a bind as they try
to appeal to green audiences.

The Backdrop: Coal producers and their allies are spending heavily to
bolster public support for coal.

The Politics: In some states, efforts to build coal-fired plants are
pitting Democrats in rural areas against city and suburban dwellers
worried about climate change and air pollution.

"Coal is going to remain a major player in American energy," Senator
Clinton told the Pittsburgh Business Times last month.

"We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, and it could be a very important way
for us to meet our long-term energy needs," Senator Obama told voters
Wednesday in Levittown, Pa.

The candidates' comments reflect a broader challenge for Democrats, as
efforts to build coal-fired plants pit Democrats in struggling rural
areas against city and suburban dwellers worried about climate change.

In Kansas, rural Democratic lawmakers joined Republicans in opposition
to Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius's decision to reject two new
coal-fired plants that would have brought $3.6 billion in investment to
the state. In New Mexico, Navajo leaders are sparring with Gov. Bill
Richardson, who opposes their effort to build a coal-fired plant to
bring jobs to the Navajo reservation. Both governors said the projects
would contribute to global warming.

In Virginia, Democrats at opposite ends of the state are clashing over a
$1.8 billion coal-fired power plant proposed for the state's
impoverished southwest corner. Governor Tim Kaine backs the plant even
as he vows to cut greenhouse gas emissions -- a stance that has
confounded many supporters in the state's affluent northern suburbs.

"There's no way to power the needs of our commonwealth or our nation
without using our coal resources," Gov. Kaine said.

These state-level skirmishes are forerunners of the debate taking shape
in Washington over how to address global warming. Democratic
congressional leaders -- and all three remaining Democratic and
Republican presidential candidates -- advocate the creation of a
"cap-and-trade" system that would place limits on carbon-dioxide
emissions and let companies buy or sell rights to pollute.

That support masks significant differences over how to cap emissions
without hurting industries that rely heavily on coal. Democrats from
rural states that rely on coal for electricity support legislation that
would allocate some emissions credits for free to utilities and other
large carbon-dioxide emitters.

Other Democrats, including Senators Obama and Clinton, say all pollution
credits should be auctioned, to ensure that companies don't obtain
windfall profits. Some, such as Reps. Henry Waxman of California and
Edward Markey of Massachusetts, want to put an immediate halt to
construction of any new coal-burning plants that lack technology to
sequester carbon dioxide emissions. Many experts say that the technology
is years from widespread commercial viability. The Energy Department
withdrew its support for a project to test such technology in January
after huge cost overruns.

Groups funded by the coal industry and its allies are spending heavily
to bolster public support for coal, and to reinforce fears that limits
on its use will raise living costs. A Virginia-based group called
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is spending as much as $40 million
on TV ads and other outreach efforts.

In Virginia -- whose 13 electoral votes could be decisive in November --
the dilemma facing Mr. Kaine centers on efforts by Richmond's Dominion
Resources Inc. to build a 585-megawatt plant in Wise County, an
Appalachian coal-mining community where 20% of the population lives in
poverty.

Mr. Kaine has gone out of his way to promote the project. His 2007
Virginia Energy Plan, a document meant to guide state policymakers,
mentions the project 10 times. It says that Virginia "should work
together" with its coal producers "to maintain a viable mining industry
that supports the economy in southwest Virginia."

At the same time, Mr. Kaine is spearheading Virginia's push to cut its
greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2025, an undertaking that some fear will
be undercut by the new plant. The facility would emit 5.4 million tons
of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of putting 895,000 more
automobiles on Virginia roads, by some estimates.

Some Democrats worry that the plant also will emit large quantities of
smog-forming pollutants that could drift beyond Wise. But those
complaints rankle many in Wise County. The plant would generate hundreds
of new jobs, double Wise's tax base and fund a renovation of the
county's 1950s-era high schools. In the winter, students wear coats in
class because only one of the school's three boilers still works.

Some environmentalists have questioned Mr. Kaine's motives for
supporting the proposed plant. Since 2001, Dominion has contributed more
than $230,000 to Mr. Kaine's campaign coffers, according to the Virginia
Public Access Project, a group that tracks campaign contributions in
Virginia. Mr. Kaine says Dominion's donations haven't influenced him,
adding, "I'm sure I've received as much or more from people on the other
side of this issue."

Ryan Randazzo
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 13, 2008 12:00 AM

Navajo Nation leaders are well aware that coal has fallen from favor in thisage of global warming. But to them, plans for a new power plant on the reservation mean more than rising temperatures and climate patterns.

To them it is survival.

The proposed Desert Rock Energy Project in northwestern New Mexico could add $50 million in revenue to their annual budget of about $130 million, excluding government contracts, and bring 1,000 construction jobs and 400 permanent positions to the plant and expanded mine.
advertisement


Environmentalists on and off the reservation are fighting the plans, saying that the region already suffers enough air pollution from existing coal plants and mines. They say the poverty-stricken tribe could see a bigger economic boost from developing wind and solar energy.

The jobless rate among the more than 100,000 tribal members living on the reservation is about 50 percent, depending on whether traditional Navajo roles such as gathering herbs are counted as jobs.

It's an understatement to say that attracting industry to the 27,000-square-mile reservation is a challenge. It's likely the largest swath of the continental U.S. without a Starbucks, and long drives into Gallup, N.M., to fill water tanks for homes are common.

The spokesman for the tribe's power authority, Albert Shirley, is one of many people living on the reservation without electricity.

Like many Navajo, he visits a nearby mine in the winter to collect coal to burn for heat.

The importance of electricity hit home last winter, when his 28-year-old daughter-in-law fell ill during a cold snap and died, leaving behind a months-old son.

"That was a reality for me," he said. "It was so cold. I got sick myself. We took her to the hospital, but she fell so fast."

Shirley is all too familiar with the problems linked to poverty. Three years ago, his 22-year-old son, who worked as an art-exhibit tour guide for the New Mexico Legislature, was killed in a violent stabbing outside his home.

"Poverty is a factor in a lot of this," Shirley said. "People don't care. They don't have values."

Better offer

The tribe could buy in and become a partial owner of the coal plant. That's a better deal than past coal developments, some of which paid pennies per ton in mining fees and didn't offer an ownership stake.

And the project would have a Native American hiring preference, something that has served the tribe well at the nearby Four Corners Power Plant run by Arizona Public Service Co., where about 80 percent of the workers are Native American.

"We have to look at more than just the environment," Shirley said. "There is a little bit more to consider."

Desert Rock is planned south of the Four Corners plant and the coal mine that feeds it. Another plant and mine, San Juan Generating Station, lies farther north, just off the reservation, not to mention the Navajo mine to the west in Arizona, which is tapped by both Salt River Project and APS.

Some tribal members say that is more than enough.

Alice Gilmore, 76, keeps time like many Navajo her age, with a reference to The Long Walk, the military roundup of the tribe in the 1860s that temporarily removed them from the land that now is the reservation.

Gilmore grew up chasing sheep on the hills near the Desert Rock site. As she recalled her youth, the draglines from the mine could be heard across the valley.

Through a translator, she explained that relatives are buried in the area and that because of what has happened at Four Corners, she doesn't trust promises about keeping the environment clean.

Navajo council members told her in the early 1960s that the land would be returned to its original condition after it was mined. But she points to it now and says the mine's restoration efforts are falling short and nobody can move back to that area.

Gilmore is helping a Navajo environmental group opposed to the plant, Diné CARE (Citizens Against Ruining our Environment).

The group hopes to see the tribe develop more alternative-energy projects, such as a major wind-power project recently announced, that, if built, could be the first in Arizona.

Shirley acknowledged the difficulty of explaining certain concepts regarding the coal plants, or "big stoves" to tribal elders in their native, wispy language.

"We are obligated to tell people what is going on," he said.

He is helping create translations for some of the terms, such as "the air with a wild spirit," for air pollution.

"A spirit that can hurt you, your health," he added.

The translation efforts have notfound a way to explain the concept of global warming caused by fossil-fuel emissions.

Project delayed

Desert Rock's energy output doesn't have any takers yet. It has been mired in an application for an air permit from the Environmental Protection Agency for four years, triggering a lawsuit from developer Sithe Global Power.

And environmentalists are suing the Bureau of Indian Affairs for withholding operating plans for the facility - namely, where it will get its water.

Sithe officials said they plan to use groundwater, but environmentalists suspect that won't work, and the plant will pull from the nearby San Juan River, just like the Four Corners plant.

"We would be way more amenable discussing the future of this project if it were to allow utilities to decommission another one and bring on a cleaner plant," said Mike Eisenfeld, a staff organizer for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, which is fighting Desert Rock.

Eisenfeld said it's important that the tribe understand global warming.

If Congress passes taxes or limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, which most utility officials believe is imminent, the cost of burning coal will go up.

And if the tribe is a partner in the coal project, that could place some of the expenses, from new taxes or limits, on them.

Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., no relation to Albert, has a word for people like Eisenfeld and his group in Farmington: foreigners.

He said building the plant is worth the risk, and that technology could help Desert Rock capture its global-warming gasses someday.

"It's all about putting food on the table to me," he said. "Putting shoes on the little feet."

Poverty and crime are too high on the reservation, which stretches across parts of three states, to turn down the opportunity, he said.

"Some of our children are killing each other," he said. "Once upon a time the Navajo Nation was very fierce, very independent. I'd like to get us back to standing on our own two feet."

Ryan Randazzo
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 12, 2008 04:32 PM
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0412biz-coalfuture0413.html

Uncertainty about the future of coal power plants could prevent Arizonans from tapping the inexpensive and abundant resource to meet their growing electricity demands, and likely will mean higher energy bills.

Coal powers a hefty portion of American appliances for electric utilities and their ratepayers.

But coal releases more carbon dioxide than other energy sources, and with growing agreement that those emissions must be capped, cut or taxed to address global warming, utility companies see coal as a low-hanging yet forbidden fruit.

With legislation pending in Congress and other parts of the world to charge utilities for CO{-2} emissions, utility officials are hazy on the future of traditionally cheap coal power.

Companies such as Arizona Public Service Co. and Salt River Project are wary of committing to new coal projects that might seem inexpensive now. New global-warming laws could make those plants much more expensive to operate down the road.

They predict they either will have to pay more for the emissions or pay more for yet-to-be-invented equipment to catch those emissions. Or they could rely on more expensive sources of electricity.

Like all other utility expenses, those would be passed on to ratepayers in monthly bills.

For example, Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., support legislation that aims to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 63 percent by 2050.

APS officials used some assumptions to calculate that would cost them $180 million a year in 2012 in operating expenses, based on the coal plants they operate. That would add 5 percent or more to customer bills. SRP officials declined to offer such estimates.

A separate analysis of the bill by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if utilities could pass on the expenses, customers could see bills go up 44 percent in 2030 and more afterward.

Whether that bill or similar legislation gets passed, and when, is completely up in the air. Lenders already are setting new guidelines for coal plants, though, to make sure the potential expenses are accounted for in business plans.

Filling the gap

The uncertain future of coal generation is revealed in the blueprints for the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant outside Farmington, N.M.

Developer Sithe Global Power would be happy to see APS or SRP sign agreements to buy the plant's electricity for Phoenix customers. But the utilities are holding off on new big coal plants until they know about the costs.

A huge gap in the middle of the 1,500-megawatt Desert Rock plant's design could be the deal breaker or deal maker.

Sithe is leaving space for equipment that can capture CO{-2}, but nobody knows how to do that very well yet.

"When you take coal into consideration, you have to take in CO{-2} as part of the equation," said Nathan Plagens, vice president of the Desert Rock Energy Project. "When we get this carbon regulation straightened out, we can put something in that gap."

Plagens takes in the sweeping landscape of the high-desert site near the Four Corners for the proposed plant, with monumental Shiprock and Colorado's snow-capped peaks on the horizon.

The site is on the vast Navajo Reservation and has the endorsement of the tribal government.

A few miles away, draglines work around the clock digging coal for another generator, the Four Corners Power Plant run by APS, and stand ready to fuel Desert Rock if it gets built.

Plagens has a few other hurdles before that happens. His company just sued the Environmental Protection Agency for delays in getting an air permit for the plant. He said the EPA is stalling because coal is "politically incorrect" amid the growing concern over global warming.

He's remains optimistic. Dozens of coal-plant cancellations have drawn lots of attention in the past year, but the U.S. Department of Energy still lists 47 coal plants either permitted or under construction, including an Arizona addition from SRP.

Coal-burning plants, mostly in the Four Corners area, generate 38 percent of the power for APS customers, and 45 percent for SRP's. Nationwide, about half of electricity generation comes from coal plants.

Plagens and other proponents argue the country should use coal, which is more plentiful than natural gas and less complex than nuclear power.

"Our company is technology-neutral," Plagens said. "If we could get the same return on natural gas, we would do that."

The land near Desert Rock is bursting with coal, with a deposit so vast that it breaks through the ground surface in places. Lightning strikes occasionally spark underground coal-seam fires that can burn for years.

Utilities already tap the Fruitland coal formation to fuel the massive San Juan Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant. Both existing plants sit next to their mines, as would Desert Rock.

The mine feeding Four Corners has dug an area 14 miles long by three to four miles wide since the plant opened in 1963, providing inexpensive, around-the-clock electricity for the utility, and there is plenty of coal left.

"We are in an interesting position right now as a utility and as a country," said Don Robinson, senior vice president of planning for APS, who added that "interesting" isn't necessarily good. "I don't think anybody can go out today and start a new coal plant without some assurance of where CO{-2} is headed. Whatever tax or system is put in place will factor into whether we continue to run plants or replace them."

APS and other utilities are researching a variety of ways to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, from pumping CO2 underground, which is commonly done to enhance oil wells, to feeding it to algae that is converted into biodiesel or ethanol. But capturing it without significantly reducing the capacity of a plant isn't easy.

Either way, the price of coal power looks to be rising, but how much? And how do utilities compare the unknown future price of coal generation to the also illusionary prices of natural gas, or to expenses of building a nuclear plant with nowhere to permanently store nuclear waste?

APS has begun a series of industry meetings to help the utility decide what major power source to pursue. Utility officials are hopeful they get state regulators' endorsement of the energy plan so that they aren't left on the hook if their energy-price predictions are off the mark.

Customers would pay

If a utility builds or agrees to buy power from a coal plant and emissions are taxed, electric customers will see higher prices. Likewise, if a utility builds a natural-gas or nuclear plant and encounters unexpected costs, customers will pay.

Robinson wouldn't comment specifically on Desert Rock. But he said the utility recently asked for proposals to provide more base-load energy, and has spoken with every energy developer in the region.

"Right now if you tell me somebody is out there who wants to build a coal plant, and they will take the risk and not pass it on to me, I'd certainly consider that. But nobody is going to do that," Robinson said. "They certainly are willing to build a plant and have me take the risk on my customers' behalf."

SRP, which splits electricity service in the Valley with APS, is building a coal generator at an existing power plant but holding off on larger projects for now.

"It is critically important for us to find a way to continue to utilize coal," said John Coggins, who manages resource planning for SRP.

"If we were to look at a coal project today, we certainly would want to know as much as we can about the future of CO{-2} regulations," he said.

SRP is spending $700 million to add a new coal generator to the existing Springerville Generating Station that should come online by 2010. SRP also operates the 773-megawatt Coronado Generating Station in northern Arizona, and has partnerships in several others, including the 2,250-megawatt Navajo Generating Station near Page and the 2,000-megawatt Four Corners plant.

"We really need to pursue every option," Coggins said. "I don't think we can abandon coal. We need to find the right solutions to make it work."


Industry optimism

As environmental groups try to stop new coal development, coal-mining companies promote the fuel, suggesting that "clean" methods of burning it are a breakthrough away from reality.

"I do believe in my lifetime we will have the ability to produce energy from coal with little of the pollutants that are now regulated, and the ability to capture and store carbon," said Joe Lucas, executive director of the coal advocate Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. "Coal is going to have a central role in America's energy future and the world's energy future."

The group began in 2000 and now has a budget of $35 million to advertise and educate people on the benefits of coal. Lucas doesn't want to see inexpensive coal in the United States passed up for imported natural gas or uranium, and emphasizes that relying on other energy sources likely will raise power bills.


Alternatives limited

New nuclear power could play a role with an expansion of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, but the investment is much larger than coal just to get the proper permits, not to mention concerns over where the radioactive spent fuel will be stored.

"For a utility to move forward with a project like that, there already is tremendous risk, $50 million or more, just to get the license, and you don't even know if the project can go forward," Coggins said.

Meanwhile, APS coal plants are coming off a record year, operating well above 80 percent capacity, Robinson said. The performance makes coal that much more attractive and difficult to replace with solar or wind.

He's succinct when asked if alternative energy can replace coal.

"No," he said. "Remember, I've got 1,750 megawatts right now that is running 24 hours a day basically. It is there overnight, all the time.

"If I look at building solar plants, it would be very difficult to replace that 24-hour operation even with something like solar-thermal with backup heat storage and 16 to 17 hours a day of power."

APS and SRP both can meet growing power demand for a few years with new natural-gas and alternative energy, but eventually will have to decide whether coal or another fuel will add to their base energy.

"The big issue with coal right now is the emissions," Robinson said. "The question is, what is going to be the technology that comes about, if any, that helps us eliminate that as an issue?"

Source: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10966109

Business in the Navajo Nation

Capitalism's last frontier
Apr 3rd 2008 | WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA
From The Economist print edition

America's biggest Indian reservation tries to stimulate private enterprise

JUST outside the south-east border of the Navajo Nation, along highway 264 in New Mexico, there is a string of shops. It is not much—a bank, a couple of fast-food outlets, a petrol station and a garage. Compared with what lies across the border, though, it feels like a boom town. Cross into the Navajo reservation and the shops abruptly disappear, to be replaced by a scruffy trailer park. As Mike Nelson, a Navajo entrepreneur, puts it: “This is the last frontier for free enterprise in America.”

When Americans talk about Indian businesses, they generally mean casinos. Since 1988, when the Supreme Court ruled that states could not ban gambling on Indian lands, a few, mostly coastal, tribes have become stupendously rich. But most big Indian reservations are in the interior, miles from potential punters. More than twice the size of Massachusetts, and with a growing population of about 200,000, the Navajo Nation is the biggest of the lot—and the most in need of private enterprise.

There are only about 400 businesses in the Navajo Nation. With a few exceptions, such as a coal mine, they are tiny. The official unemployment rate is about 50%, and the median income is less than half the American average. What little money is generated in the reservation tends to leak out. Three times a month—when the welfare cheques arrive, and when government workers are paid—Navajos stream out of the reservation to stock up on groceries, car parts and alcohol in border towns. The local joke goes that the tribe's biggest export is dollars.

The reservation has produced plenty of entrepreneurs. Navajo silversmiths and weavers are justly famous. But the tribe's division of economic development lists more Navajo-run outfits off the reservation than on it. One of these is the garage on highway 264. Its owner, Donald Dodge, did not want to leave the Navajo Nation. He did so because he could not afford to wait years to obtain a business licence.

Anybody who wants to set up shop in the reservation must conduct an archaeological survey, obtain a letter of support from the tribe's president and jump through up to a dozen other hoops. These regulations, put in place to protect Indians from white traders, now bind native entrepreneurs large and small. Timothy Halwood recently obtained a permit to take small groups of tourists into the Canyon de Chelly. The process took two years.

Another problem is land. Like other reservations, most of the Navajo Nation is held in trust by the federal government. Because Navajos do not own their land, they cannot use it as collateral to finance a business. To make matters worse, almost 8,000 people claim grazing rights over land that often extends into towns. These rights have no paper value and so cannot normally be sold to developers. The result is a paradox: a vast, underpopulated area where it is hard to find a commercial site.

A third problem is politics. The Navajo Nation has an 88-member legislature and 110 local chapters. “It's a lot of chiefs,” says Joe Shirley, the Navajo president. This is a big reason the Navajos have been slow to get into the casino business. Plans to do so were approved in 2001, but feuds over how to divide the spoils between tribal and local governments led to delays. The Navajos' first casino is expected to open this autumn, some 150 miles from the nearest big city, in a market that has been saturated by smaller, nimbler tribes.

The dysfunctional politics of the Navajo Nation does have one good effect: it forces the tribe to concentrate on private enterprise. In other reservations almost all businesses are run by the tribe, either directly or through a corporation. Although such firms can be profitable, they are as susceptible to political meddling as any nationalised industry is (see article).

Under Mr Shirley, the first president to serve two consecutive terms since the 1970s, the Navajo government is steadily hacking away at the red tape. In 2006 it took control of business-site leases from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As a result, it now takes a year or two to obtain a lease—down from as many as five years in the 1990s. Alan Begay, who is in charge of economic development, reckons it will eventually be possible to grant a business lease in about a month.

Some of the Navajo Nation's local governments are going further. Since 2002 the town of Kayenta, near Monument Valley, has levied a 5% sales tax and spent much of the proceeds on housing and infrastructure. The town has a land-use plan and a long-term strategy for attracting businesses. All of which would be taken for granted outside Indian country, although it seems radical here. But nothing happens very fast in Navaj