By MELANIE DABOVICH

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) _ Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader said the youth of America must wake up, take a stand against the corporate policies that are dictating American politics and vote for a third party candidate that has fought for the issues facing their generation.

"As long as young people are subjected to the Obama snare and delusion, they'll continue to have a ring in their nose and will provide the Democratic Party with the tether," said Nader, referring to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Nader, a consumer-rights advocate, held a news conference and rallied with nearly 200 supporters during a campaign stop at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque on Tuesday.

Nader wasted no time in launching his attack on corporations, saying they have no allegiance to the United States. He described them as "fascist and communist regimes that try to keep workers in their place."

He said the current presidential candidates are ignoring the "central issue of politics in America: the domination of concentrated corporate power over our governments and over our economy."

"These companies have hijacked our government, corrupted our elections and they have turned the Republican and Democratic parties into agents or representatives of big business," Nader said. "It's quite clear that in this country we need a third political force made of up of people all over the country who have committed to the proposition that corporations and their governments must become our servants not our masters."

Nader will appear on New Mexico's general election ballot. He also is certified to appear on the ballot in 31 other states.

Nader, 74, ran for president on the Green Party ticket in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent in 2004. In New Mexico, he got 2.4 percent of the vote in 1996, 4 percent in 2000, and one-half of 1 percent in 2004.

Nader balked at the suggestion that he could be an election spoiler. Democrats criticized him for taking votes away from Vice President Al Gore in 2000, helping to elect President Bush.

"For 40 years I have not flip-flopped. That's why we have safer cars, clean air and clean water laws," he said. "... We all have an equal right to run for election."

During his news conference, Nader spoke about the Desert Rock Energy Project, a proposed coal-fired power plant to be built on the Navajo Nation in northwestern New Mexico. He said the plant should never be built and the focus should be on developing solar energy, given the area's abundant sunshine.

"We are nearing a stage now of burgeoning solar energy reality and potential. The mere proposal to build this a giant coal-burning plant would be considered a crime against humanity," Nader said. "It would be considered a poisoning of the air, water and soil that are the background of human health and safety."

Nader also talked of reform for the country's economy, health care system and programs for the poor.

Nader's visit to New Mexico follows recent appearances by Obama and Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Nader planned to visit the College of Santa Fe on Tuesday before heading to a rally the next day at the University of Denver.

Source: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/26/nader-campaigns-in-new-mexico-nm/

Under appeal in Desert Rock
© Indian Country Today
August 26, 2008. All Rights Reserved
by: Jerry Reynolds / Indian Country Today

SAN FRANCISCO - The Environmental Protection Agency issued an air permit July 31 that gives a green light to participants who have been in a holding pattern as the Navajo-backed Desert Rock power plant moves through a lengthy approval process, according to Din￩ Power Authority General Manager Steven C. Begay.

''People have been waiting to hear this,'' Begay said, among them skilled-labor unions and utilities that can now plan to purchase power from Desert Rock.

''The mining permits will also move forward, and here [at the Navajo Nation] we're working on our rights of way, and I think the proposal will receive a more positive response.''

Project developers Sithe Global Power of Houston and Din￩ Power Authority, an adjunct of the Navajo Nation, had filed a lawsuit against the EPA over the time-consuming air permit. The BIA must complete a favorable environmental impact statement before construction of the plant can begin, stated a release from the Navajo Office of the President and Vice President. The EIS is pending following closure of a public comment period in late 2007, after 10 regional hearings.

Opponents of the project, including the Navajo environmental organization Din￩ CARE, petitioned the EPA to withdraw the air permit and proceed with an air quality analysis they contend was curtailed in response to the lawsuit. The state of New Mexico, where Desert Rock will be located on Navajo land, also plans an appeal; and in Congress, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called the coal-fired plant ''reckless'' in its alleged lack of global warming emission controls.

Proponents and the EPA point to pollution controls against haze and mercury, advanced air cooling technologies to reduce water use by 85 percent over conventional plants, and efficiencies that will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent.

''The Desert Rock plant will be one of the cleanest pulverized coal-burning plants in the country,'' said EPA administrator Wayne Nastri in a statement issued by the agency.

''On top of the most stringent controls in the country, the Desert Rock Energy Facility has entered into an agreement with the Navajo Nation to further reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in the area by generating or purchasing sulfur dioxide credits [under a so-called ''cap and trade'' system for reducing greenhouse gases] and retiring them,'' the agency release maintained. ''Under the agreement, the company will also contribute additional funds toward environmental improvement projects that would reduce or prevent air pollution. These projects may include purchasing and retiring additional emission credits or allowances, or other studies that would provide a foundation for air quality improvement programs.''

A frequent theme of the Desert Rock development team, repeated July 31 by Desert Rock Energy Co. Executive Vice President Dirk Straussfeld, is that the plant's stringent emission standards will establish a new performance level that the coal-fired power industry will have to match as America goes increasingly ''green'' with its energy consumption.

The Navajo Nation Council approved the project by a 66 - 7 vote in 2006.

Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. said in a press release that the challenges of protecting the environment are many and will be met.

''Native people, Navajo people included, regard the earth as our mother, the sky as our father, and certainly we're doing everything we can to take care of the air and the environment. At the same time, we know that the deities want us to stand on our own, and that's where Desert Rock comes in.''

The $3 billion, 1,500-megawatt plant is expected to create thousands of jobs in a high-unemployment region, and bring more than $50 million annually to tribal coffers.

Source: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096418048

“Desert Rock air permit appeal extended by EPA—period increased by 30 days”
by Kathy Helms (Diné Bureau)

Window Rock- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board has granted a request by New Mexico and environmental groups for a 30-day extension of time in their appeal of the Desert Rock air permit.

In an order issued Thursday, Environmental Appeals Judge Edward E. Reich also granted a motion by Desert Rock Energy Co. LL, allowing the permittee to participate in the appeal proceeding and denied a stay of briefing on certain issues pertaining to a best available control technology limit for carbon dioxide emissions.

On Friday, 30 community, indigenous and environmental groups—including members of the Navajo were at EPA headquarters in San Francisco to protest the visit of Administrator Stephen L. Johnson and denounce what they claim are “EPA’s pro-polluter policies.”

EPA’s veto of California’s attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, and approval of the air permit for the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant were among key actions being protested.

On July 29, Senate Democrats called for Johnson’s resignation, charging that he had given misleading testimony before Congress, refused to cooperate with congressional oversight, and based agency decision-making on political considerations rather than scientific evidence or the rule of law.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Johnson has consistently chosen special interests over the American people’s interests in protecting health and safety.

“He has become a secretive and dangerous ally of polluters, and we cannot stand by and allow more damage to be done,” she said.

Desert Rock opponents

Desert Rock opponents have alleged that EPA’s approval of a prevention of significant deterioration, or PSD permit, was mired in politics.

“EPA is bending to the will of corporate, financial and misguided political interests that will pollute New Mexico’s skies,” Gov. Bill Richardson said when the air permit was issued.

Navajo Nation President Shirley Jr. has said development of the project with its state-of-the-art technology means more than 1,000 construction jobs, more than 400 permanent jobs, and more than $50 million annually in revenue. “We know that there will continue to be challenges, but, hopefully, at day’s end we will prevail,” he said recently.
On Aug. 14, the Environmental Appeals Board received a petition requesting the board grant review of Region 9’s permitting decision of Desert Rock.

The petition was filed jointly by Diné CARE, Environmental Defense Fund, Grand Canyon Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, and WildEarth Guardians. In the order they are lumped together as “NGO Petitioners.”

NGO Petitioners requested an extension of time through Oct. 17 to file a supplemental brief in support of their petition and requested a stay of certain issued pertaining to carbon dioxide emissions pending the board’s decision in another case that also raises issues concerning carbon dioxide.

New Mexico petition

On August 15, the state of New Mexico also filed a petition requesting the board grant review of the permit. New Mexico requested the board grant oral argument on its petition, and also filed a separate motion requesting an extension of time through Oct. 17 to file a supplemental brief.

New Mexico observed, among other things, that the region’s response to comments on the draft permit is 220 pages long and includes an additional 42 attachments totaling several hundred pages. The state said it needs the extra time to adequately analyze and brief issues raised in its petition.

On Aug. 20, Desert Rock filed a motion requesting it be allowed to participate in the administrative appellate proceeding and opposing the requests for an extension of time and stay.

Also on Aug. 20, the board received a response by Region 9, filed in consultation with EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, stating it does not oppose a 30-day extension, but does oppose a stay of briefing on the carbon dioxide issues.

The board granted Desert Rock’s request to participate in the proceeding and also granted a 30-day extension until Thursday, Oct. 2 for NGO petitioners and New Mexico to file supplemental briefs. It denied the request for stay of briefing on certain issues pertaining to a BACT limit for carbon dioxide emissions and took the request for oral argument under advisement.

“As we have frequently explained, the petitioners’ burden on appeal to the board requires them to go beyond their previous filings during the permitting process. Specifically, the petitioners must describe each objection they are raising and explain why the permit issuer’s previous response to each objection is clearly erroneous or otherwise deserving of review, “ Reich wrote.

“Among other things, we find significant the fact that the petitioners in the present case must digest and address in their appellate briefs the relevant portions of the Region’s 220-page response to comments and additional attachments amounting to hundreds of pages.”

Reich said the board concludes that its decision-making process will benefit from affording petitioners the additional time to fully present their arguments.

________________________________________

Opponents of Desert Rock gain time

The EPA gives 30-day extension to comment on plant’s air permit

August 22, 2008

By Ted Holteen | Herald Staff Writer

Opponents of the proposed Desert Rock power plant in northwest New Mexico won a small victory Thursday when the Environmental Protection Agency granted a 30-day extension to allow several groups and the state of New Mexico more time to review and appeal Desert Rock's air-quality permit.

The new deadline to file an appeal is Oct. 2.

Thursday's decision also allowed Desert Rock representatives to participate in the appeals process, and it also denied a request by the opponents to stay a decision by the EPA on carbon-dioxide emissions by Desert Rock.

The EPA issued the Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, air-quality permit July 31. By law, the EPA allows 30 days from the issuance of the permit for appeals to be filed, but Mike Eisenfeld, the energy coordinator for San Juan Citizens Alliance in New Mexico, said the Desert Rock case is an exception to the regular rules.

"We said look, we've got more than a thousand comments from people all over the Four Corners. I think what this decision says is that more time is warranted for us to put together a response, and this needs to be a legitimate process," Eisenfeld said.

In its decision, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board wrote, "additional time is needed because of the number and complexity of issues, the volume of relevant material and the unavailability of their expert witnesses, among other things."

The witnesses referred to in the decision are representatives of the petitioners who could not testify within the original 30-day appeal period.

The petitioning groups include Dine' CARE, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Natural Resources Defense Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club and Wild Earth Guardians as well as the state of New Mexico.

The Environmental Appeals Board also granted attorneys from Sithe Global, the company behind Desert Rock, the opportunity to participate in the appellate process. Rich Alonso, an attorney with the Washington firm of Bracewell & Giuliani, said the decision to allow Sithe Global's participation was a formality, and he also downplayed the 30-day extension.

"We opposed the extension request, but they got 30 days instead of the 45 they requested. It's no big deal," Alonso said.

The denial of the petitioners' stay request, he said, was more significant. The Environmental Appeals Board is currently reviewing an appeal related to a power plant in Utah. In the Utah case, the board is considering whether carbon-dioxide emissions should be considered a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

Opponents of Desert Rock had asked that the Appeals Board delay a similar decision about Desert Rock until the Utah case is decided, but the board denied that request. Now, the opponents must address the carbon-dioxide emissions issue as part of the Desert Rock appeal.

"If they would've granted that stay, it would've delayed our project another three to six months, and we'd have to issue a brand new briefing halfway through the process. It's important - by the board denying, it lets the appeal process proceed in a timely and orderly fashion," Alonso said.

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

August 18, 2008

Santa Fe, NM - Federal agencies aren't known for being speedy, but at least seven conservation and citizens' groups say the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved far too quickly to sign off on an air quality permit for Desert Rock. The proposed coal-fired power plant in New Mexico received a permit last month.

Now the state government, along with these groups, is asking for a delay. Dailan Long, with the group Dine Care on the Navajo Reservation, believes the permit was pushed through without completing required analyses of the plant's potential effects on air quality and public health.

"The EPA gave us a death sentence with the issuance of the air quality permit. The agency did nothing to look after the well-being of surrounding communities. It was the EPA's political appointees, trying to hand out gifts to the industry before President Bush leaves office. They were very quick to endorse the Desert Rock Energy Project."

The seven groups have filed a petition for an extension, to give them additional time to review the permit and document what they see as its major deficiencies. The New Mexico State Attorney General's office has taken similar action, and state officials in Colorado have said they also may become involved.

The plant's developers and EPA argue that the permit issued is extremely strict, and that Desert Rock will use new technology to be one of the cleanest coal plants ever. Long and others remain unconvinced. They intend to protest the permit at the EPA office in San Francisco this week.

Eric Mack/Craig Eicher, Public News Service - NM

Protest Corrupt US EPA Chief Stephen Johnson In SF On 8/22
Saturday Aug 16th, 2008 11:01 PM

The US EPA Chief Stephen Johnson will be coming to San Francisco on Friday August 22. His illegal actions have harmed people, animals and have helped destroy our environment.

Call To Action!!! Protest EPA Chief 8/22 In San Francisco.
on Fri Aug 15, 2008

U.S. EPA's Administrator Stephen Johnson is coming to San Francisco on Friday, August 22. Let's tell this friend of polluters and pesticide manufacturers that he's not welcome and should resign! Come out to demonstrate: Join in solidarity with the people of Bayview Hunters Point, the Navajo Nation, Colorado River Indian Tribes, farmworkers poisoned by pesticides, Kettleman City, and communities across the West, the U.S. and the world that are being harmed under Johnson's leadership.

Bring Banners and Signs About EPA's Actions: protesting approval of the deadly poison methyl iodide as a large scale pesticide fumigant, the veto of California's attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, and it's approval of the proposed Desert Rock Coal-Fired Power Plant on the Navajo Nation. Protest U.S. EPA's environmental racism, injustice, and pro-polluter policies that threaten the health of our communities and our planet.

When: August 22, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (protest EPA crimes) & 12:00 noon (rally for environmental justice & planet)

Where: U.S. EPA Region 9 Headquarters
75 Hawthorne Street (between 2nd/3rd Street & Folsom/Howard)
San Francisco

For more information, contact:
Greenaction | 415.248.5010
greenaction.org
greenaction@greenaction.org

** Protest Flier Attached **

By Cornelia de Bruin The Daily Times
Article Launched: 08/17/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT

FARMINGTON — If — or when — the 1,500 megawatt Desert Rock Power Plant planned near Burnham on the Navajo Nation comes online, its emissions will add significantly to the pollution wafting over the Four Corners region, contends Mary Uhl, director of the New Mexico Environment Department's Air Quality Division.

"The nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from Desert Rock, while less than emissions from San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant, are still substantial and are being added to an airshed that is on the brink of not attaining the federal ozone standard," Uhl said.

Added Lauren Ketcham, of Environment New Mexico, a sister organization to New Mexico Public Interest Research Group, "... The Desert Rock plant would increase New Mexico's global warming emissions by 15 percent." She credited New Mexico Environment Department with providing the figures to her.

That's in a county already listed as the "sixth-most carbon dioxide polluting county in the entire country," Ketcham said.

The plant's effects won't be known completely until it begins its operations, burning pulverized coal to supply power to growing areas in Arizona and Nevada, but Sithe Global claims the "clean coal" plant actually will improve air quality here and will be the cleanest coal-fired plant ever built on U.S. soil.

Sithe Global LLC is paying for construction of Desert Rock, which owners hope will be operational by 2012. The Navajo Nation created Diné Power Authority to operate the plant after it's built and brought online. Construction is expected to start by mid-2009, although legal challenges loom in the fight against a third coal-fired plant in San Juan County.

"Despite the continued claims from Sithe that the proposed Desert Rock power plant would improve air conditions in the Four Corners region, the simple facts are that Desert Rock would be a huge new source of carbon dioxide, would add mercury to our waterways, would contribute to more ozone, would create more regional haze, and result in decreased visibility in association with existing air pollution sources," said Mike Eisenfeld, New Mexico staff organizer for the environmental advocacy group San Juan Citizens Alliance. "The Four Corners region cannot afford the public health costs to our communities with further degradation of our airshed due to an ill-advised proposed third coal-fired power plant in a 25-mile radius."

Desert Rock's stance
The Washington, D.C.-based law firm Bracewell and Giuliani represents Sithe Global in its Desert Rock-related legal battles. Spokesman Frank Maisano continually touts the plant's "advanced" technology that makes it "the cleanest coal plant in the United States with the most strict air permit ever."

Maisano said requirements, in addition to those in its permit, "will reduce mercury by 90 percent and lower overall regional haze emissions by 10 percent" despite being a third power plant to operate in a small area. That's because of Sithe Global's plan to reduce emissions from other projects in the region.

"In addition, we reduce global warming emissions by 20 percent because of our efficient operation and reduce water use by 85 percent due to new air cooling technologies," Maisano said.

Sithe Global LLC provided only the permitted amounts of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide the large plant will be allowed to emit: 2,100 tons per year of nitrogen oxide and 3,300 tons per year of sulfur dioxide.

The permit issued by the EPA on July 31 allows Desert Rock to emit up to 3,325 tons of nitrogen oxide and 3,319 tons of sulfur dioxide per year. Those numbers are far less than current emissions at San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant (see related box).

The plant, which received an EPA air permit late last month, would add 1,000 jobs during construction and 400 permanent jobs when operational, Desert Rock officials claim. It also would generate $50 million in annual tax revenue.

Desert Rock's emissions also include "approximately 12 million tons of carbon dioxide," said Uhl of the state's Environmental Department.

The amount of carbon dioxide is "not much less than San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant," but will add to San Juan County's air — the airshed to which Uhl referred.

A carbon concern
The added carbon dioxide is significant because San Juan County's air continually flirts with non-attainment of EPA's new maximum permitted ozone, or smog, levels.

The EPA adopted the new standard of 0.75 parts per billion of ozone to air, lowering it from 0.80 ppb of ozone.

The change did not come without protest, however.

The EPA's scientific advisors recommended the standard be dropped from 0.80 ppb to 0.60 ppb.

New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry also took issue with a change he termed placed a higher value on politics than on people's health.

"Bowing to industry pressure and going with a higher 0.75 ppb standard will potentially mean thousands more heart attacks, hospital visits and asthma attacks for Americans annually — especially for children," Curry said. "New Mexico will continue to fight for more sensible standards to keep our air clean from ozone, from automobile pollution and from the Asarco smelter recently approved near the New Mexico border in Texas."

Curry called the nation's Clean Air Act the "Most effective tool in place to protect the air from pollution."

"It doesn't need to be modernized to allow for inappropriate industry pressure. It needs to be allowed to do its job with the best scientific knowledge available," he said.

Ozone in the Four Corners region is of particular concern to New Mexico's Environment Department because of the number of times air here has come close to non-attainment of EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) — 0.08 parts per million — for the pollutant.

San Juan County "has been as close as within 5 percent of the (standard) in the last five years," information from the department states. "While NMED (New Mexico Environment Department) has monitored a decrease in 8-hour ozone design values in San Juan County during the past seven years, the concentrations remain close to the eight-hour NAAQS and may be considered high for a rural area with low population density."

Plant upgrades, technology helping owners of the two existing coal-burning plants visible to the west of Farmington aren't blind to the need for improvements.

PNM's San Juan Generating Station in Waterflow began a $320 million upgrade project in 2006 that will be completed by the spring of 2009. Two of the plant's four units are completed, according to PNM's Susan Sponar.

The upgrades will improve the plant's environmental performance and its efficiency in serving customers. Upgrades include work on San Juan Generating Station's boiler parts, turbines and controls, Sponar said.

Environment upgrades include:

# Installation of nitrogen oxide burners and overfire air to reduce the amount of the pollutant created.

# Injection of a new additive to limestone slurry spray to increase the ability of scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide.

# Use of bag houses that act like giant vacuum cleaners to collect more than 99 percent of fly ash and other particulates created by burning coal.

# Installation of activated carbon injection systems. Mercury adheres to the injected carbon and is removed from the plant's flue ash by the bag houses.

Bag houses, however, do not reduce carbon emissions, Sponar said.

Steven Gotfried, spokesman for Arizona Public Service, the owner of Four Corners Power Plant, said improvements are being made on the five-unit plant. The Four Corners plant is located in Upper Fruitland.

They include the addition of sulfur dioxide scrubbers and particulate capture devices to three of the five units, and baghouses — also used to capture particulates — to the remaining two units.

"We also have NOx (nitrogen oxide) burners on all five units," Gotfried said. "We still have CO2 issues, but we are working on an algae project that creates oxygen."

Put simply, the project uses blue green algae that ingest carbon dioxide and convert the algae to biodiesel and ethanol. The function of algae in nature is to ingest carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen.

State of New Mexico Gov. Richardson last year directed state Environment Director Curry to testify to Congress about his administration's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution — specifically pollution from coal-fired power plants.

"Greenhouse gas emissions are just as detrimental to the environment and public health as the standard EPA regulated pollutants from power plants," Curry testified. "Those pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxides and particulate matter."

Curry's statement instructed the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about Richardson's implementation in 2005 of greenhouse gas reporting regulations within New Mexico.

Cornelia de Bruin: cdebruin@daily-times.com

Proposed reform to Endangered Species Act gets cool response

Source: http://www.idahostatesman.com/387/story/473111.html

It would give federal officials more leeway when dealing with wildlife agencies and is similar to a plan Kempthorne pushed as a senator. Now that he heads Interior under Bush, fewer seem willing to compromise.

BY ROCKY BARKER - rbarker@idahostatesman.com
Edition Date: 08/17/08

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne returned to Washington, D.C., with a history of bringing environmentalists and business interests together in searching for a way to reform the federal Endangered Species Act.

But when he announced that he and the Bush administration want to change the rules to give agencies more flexibility to bypass scientific oversight in ESA decisions, no environmentalist stepped forward to defend him.

The rules proposed last week aren't all that different from what Kempthorne tried to do as a senator. What has changed is where they are perceived to be coming from - and that could make a huge difference.

More than a decade ago, then-Sen. Kempthorne worked to forge a compromise reform bill that gained some momentum - but never passed - in 1996 and 1997.

He wanted to streamline the relationships between the federal agencies that operate dams, approve power plants and harvest timber and the agencies that ensure federal operations don't jeopardize the existence of fish and wildlife.

The idea attracted support from both sides of the aisle in the Senate and even the Clinton administration. But now that Kempthorne is the face of the Bush administration on environmental issues, his own past and reputation may not matter.

Michael J. Bean was one of the environmentalists who worked with Kempthorne in the 1990s. Today, he has joined a united chorus from an environmental community that universally characterized the new proposed rules as a threat to hundreds of endangered species.

"This disastrous proposal makes about as much sense as eliminating homeland security at airports," said Bean, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. "Sure, it would make air travel more convenient, but it would put passengers at greater risk, just as this proposal would put wildlife at greater risk."

KEMPTHORNE STARTED FROM A TOUGH SPOT
Early in his Interior tenure, Kempthorne sought out some of his former Democratic colleagues, looking to see whether together they could resume the effort to reform the ESA.

But he had an uphill battle.

By the time Kempthorne arrived back in Washington in 2006, the Bush administration already had lost its credibility on the Endangered Species Act, said John Freemuth, a Boise State University professor and fellow at the Andrus Center for Public Policy.

As Kempthorne was seeking - unsuccessfully - to bridge the gap between Congress and the White House on species issues, the administration's actions were questioned on several fronts.

Interior's own inspector general has criticized how Bush's appointees used their power to skew the science used to make decisions, including whether to list a species for more protection.

And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been ordered by judges to reconsider several endangered species decisions, specifically because scientific documents were rewritten by former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Julie MacDonald.

So in May, when Kempthorne made the historic decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species, few were pleased.

The decision angered Alaska's congressional delegation and other Republicans. And because the decision was forced by a lawsuit, Kempthorne got little credit from the environmental community.

Still, the decision heralded back to his Senate efforts to compromise.

"He was on the horns of a dilemma, and he finessed it," Freemuth said then.

But even though they pinned the bear's struggles on climate change, neither Kempthorne nor Bush wanted the decision to be used to regulate greenhouse gases or to halt every coal-fired power plant proposed, and that required a change in the rules.

CHANGING ONE OF THE NATION'S TOUGHEST LAWS
Kempthorne and Bush are targeting Section 7, an unusually strong section that has become perhaps the most important part of the 1973 law.

But whether they seek to "streamline" it or "weaken" it depends on your point of view.

In most instances, federal agencies are required to follow laws "where practicable." But Section 7 requires agencies to take "such action necessary to ensure ... the actions authorized, funded or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species."

With that one line, Congress elevated protecting endangered species - and preventing extinctions - to one of the government's highest priorities.

Now, federal agencies have to consult with Fish and Wildlife or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine when federal decisions "will not adversely effect," "may adversely effect" or "will adversely effect" a species or its habitat.

The process gives the oversight agencies power to determine when species are jeopardized and to suggest "reasonable and prudent" alternatives.

The proposed rules would give federal officials more leeway to avoid even consulting with the fish and wildlife agencies and impose a 60-day deadline for them to respond when a request for consultation is made.

"The existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts and delays," Kempthorne said in a press release last week. "The proposed regulations will continue to protect species while focusing the consultation process on those federal actions where potential impacts can be linked to the action and the risks are reasonably certain to occur. The result should be a process that is less time-consuming and a more effective use of our resources."

The current drawn-out process delayed for three years rules included in the Nez Perce Water rights deal that were aimed at helping salmon and steelhead, said Jim Riley, president of the Intermountain Forest Association.

"That's a waste of time that stops positive things from happening on the ground," he said.

"Dirk Kempthorne as governor, as senator and as interior secretary has always stood for incentive-based, moderate approaches to protecting species," Riley said. "This proposal is consistent with that."

And though he believes the proposed changes threaten hundreds of species, Bean acknowledged that their impact is narrower than many environmentalists are saying.

Even now, fish and wildlife agencies can issue permits that allow federal officials, without penalty, to make decisions that could kill some endangered species.

But the new rules could block Fish and Wildlife or the National Marine Fisheries Service from having a say or even knowing when an agency decision is made - if the agency itself determines the action won't harm species or habitat, Bean said.

In fact, he says, the new rules would have prevented Fish and Wildlife from overturning a recent Bureau of Indian Affairs decision that a coal-fired power plant on a Navajo reservation in New Mexico wasn't endangering any species.

Idaho Conservation League Executive Director Rick Johnson worked with Kempthorne in the mid-1990s and was pleasantly surprised at how much common ground they found then. Johnson doesn't support the changes Kempthorne proposes now.

He thinks Kempthorne's inherent role as just one voice in the Bush administration has kept him from using his traditional roadmap for seeking resolution of tough issues.

"He had a record of throwing out the gauntlet and then following up with a more nuanced, common sense proposal," Johnson said. "In this case he's just throwing down the gauntlet."

Rocky Barker: 377-6484

Clock ticking on challenges to Desert Rock

Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/17/2008 12:00:00 AM MDT

— The Daily Times —

Environmental groups and other interested parties who wish to challenge the July 31 decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue an air permit for Desert Rock Power Plant have until the end of August to act.

First to file, releasing its challenge to the public Aug. 14, was a coalition of seven environmental groups led by Earthjustice. The coalition claims EPA bowed to industry pressure at the expense of public health and the environment. It seeks the withdrawal of the permit and completion of numerous analyses it says the EPA was required to complete before issuing the permit.

One day later, Assistant Attorney General Seth T. Cohen sent the state of New Mexico's request for a Petition for Review of the decision.

Essentially the request is a "place holder" that asks the EPA give New Mexico time to prepare a supplemental legal containing its arguments. Without the extension, the time to appeal would cut off at the end of August "The state's appeal will come by Aug. 30," said Marissa Stone, spokeswoman for New Mexico Environment Department. "The department filed for a 45-day extension Aug. 13 because EPA changed the draft permit drastically before issuing it."

Stone said the New Mexico Environment Department is assisting state Attorney General Gary King in his preparation of the appeal promised by Gov. Bill Richardson the day EPA ruled.

Colorado's Department of Public Health and Environment is considering similar action, according to Mark Salley, its public information officer.

Friday, August 15, 2008
________________________________________

Environmental groups challenge Desert Rock decision
By Cornelia de Bruin The Daily Times


BURNHAM — A coalition of seven environmental groups, represented by Earthjustice attorney Nick Persampieri, Thursday filed a challenge to the federal Environmental Protection Agency's July 31 decision to grant an air permit for Desert Rock.

Desert Rock Power Plant is the 1,500 megawatt pulverized coal-burning plant proposed near Burnham, about 30 miles southwest of Farmington on the Navajo Nation.

"We feel EPA placed the public health and the environment at risk by not doing a number of required analyses before it issued the permit," Persampieri said.

The challenge to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board in Washington, D.C., enumerates five main points it states were not addressed in advance of the permit. They include:
• Failure to do a Maximum Achievable Control Technology analysis for hazardous air pollutants.
• Improper analysis of whether the plant violates national ozone standards — of special concern in San Juan County, where ozone levels hovered at the new federal ozone level of 0.75 parts per billion of ozone to air much of the summer.
• Failure to include emission limitations for carbon dioxide — an issue within New Mexico because of Gov. Bill Richardson's 2005 executive order mandating greenhouse gas emissions be reported.
• Failure to consider impacts related to mining, disposal of combustion waste and impacts on the region's scarce water supplies.
• No consultation with other agencies, as required, on the impacts of the plant on endangered species.

"This was a politically motivated decision to issue the permit in response to Sithe's suit against EPA," Persampieri said. "EPA caved in to the pressure and issued the permit without doing the analyses."

Sithe Global is funding the plant's construction. It will be operated by Diné Power Authority, an entity created by the Navajo Tribal Government.
"We are also very concerned about mercury pollution, especially because the fish in the San Juan River are already compromised," Persampieri said. "Advisories already exist for several lakes in the Four Corners area."

The groups want the Environmental Appeals Board to withdraw the permit and require the agency to complete the required analyses. The coalition contends the double actions ultimately would lead to denial of or significant changes to the permit.

"This permit is another example of the rush by the agency's political appointees to hand out gifts to industry before President Bush leaves office," said Dailan J. Long of Diné CARE, a Navajo tribal group that opposes the plant.

Frank Maisano, Desert Rock spokesman, said the latest challenge is simply more of the same from environmental groups.

"They're misconstrued, they're misleading and in some cases they're just plain wrong," he said. "This is the most strict permit that EPA has ever issued."

The appeal seeks a 45-day extension of time, until Oct. 17, in which to file a supplemental brief with a complete and detailed description of each of the objections.

EPA had no comment on the petition — the first of several expected to be filed.

"We don't comment on pending litigation," said EPA Region 9 spokeswoman Margot Perez-Sullivan.

Gov. Richardson and New Mexico Environment Department indicated on July 31 their intentions to challenge the permit decision.

Challenges must be filed within 30 days of EPA's decision, giving those preparing the documents until Aug. 30 to complete them.

Thursday's petition was filed by the Sierra Club, Diné CARE, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Grand Canyon Trust, WildEarth Guardians, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Cornelia de Bruin: cdebruin@daily-times.com

Groups petition to stop Desert Rock permit

August 15, 2008

Hope Nealson
Journal Staff Writer

In a joint petition filed today, a coalition of Navajo and conservation groups accused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of bypassing scientific review and pushing through approval of a permit for the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant.

The group requested a withdrawal of the permit, which authorized the construction of a 1,500-megawatt plant on Navajo land near Farmington, N.M., on July 31.

"We are not going to take the EPA's ruling sitting down," said Dailan Long, Diné CARE spokesperson. "They think this is all a done deal, but we're making it known that we're going to continue to counteract and fight for the health of your communities."

Citing air quality and public health threats to the Four Corners, the groups asked the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to review the permit decision and grant an extension of time so they can thoroughly document its problems.

According to coalition members, the EPA granted the permit too hastily after Desert Rock developers sued the agency, represented by the attorney for Sithe Global Power, Jeff Holmstead, the former head of EPA's air division under the Bush administration.

Frank Maisano, spokesperson for the Desert Rock Energy Co., said the permit has been under review for four years now.

"They're the same tired arguments, and they are displaced. There have been hundreds of hearings," Maisano said, noting EPA and environmental impact statement hearings, as well as numerous letters protesting the coal-fired plant.

The court recently dismissed the lawsuit against the EPA to force the permit as well as rejected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's requests to intervene.

The groups laid out specific deficiencies that violated federal clean air and public health laws, including "failure to do a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) analysis for hazardous air pollutants and improper analysis of whether the plan violates national ozone standards."

Failure to include emission limitations for carbon dioxide and failure to consider impacts related to mining, disposal of combustion waste and impacts on the region's scarce water supplies were also cited in the petition, along with the lack of a required consultation with other agencies on impacts of the plant on endangered species.

"More comprehensive analyses should have occurred," said Mike Eisenfeld, New Mexico Energy coordinator for the San Juan Citizens Alliance.

"They never got into the modeling. They made a decision that isn't supported by the science," he said, adding they didn't address mercury issues or the Clean Air Act.

"The data that is out there does not support the approval," Eisenfeld said.

Maisano said the permit is stringent enough and neither the mercury determination nor the environmental impact statement consultation are supposed to be in the air permit, which will happen before construction starts.

Advanced technologies will reduce water use by nearly 85 percent, virtually eliminating the project's regional pollution emissions while improving efficiency to reduce carbon emissions, Maisano said.

"The bottom line is, it's hard to stomach that they would ask for further delays. The only people that are hurt by the delays are Navajos," he said, adding hundreds of permanent jobs and thousands of construction jobs will help bring in $50 million in annual revenues for the Navajo nation.

Long disagrees.

"Desert rock is focused on coal and nothing else," he said. "How many jobs can be created for renewable energy sources compared to Desert Rock?"

Maisano maintained that a 66-7 tribal council vote in favor of the coal plant and the 2006 re-election of Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., a vocal advocate for the product who ran on a pro-coal platform, is proof enough of Navajo support.

"I don't buy this argument that there is this silent majority," Maisano said. "For four years they've said that, and yet they haven't been able to produce any evidence of that."

Eisenfeld said the EPA has made a purely political decision.

"We don't agree with their modeling, with their conclusions, and we believe that science has been abandoned for politics," he said, noting that San Juan County without Desert Rock will be out of attainment for ozone by 2009, according to the New Mexico Department of Environmental Health.

Eisenfeld added the EPA didn't take into account the entire region that will be affected.

"They're not really concerned with overseeing public health issues for communities and people in the Four Corners region," he said. "They told us at the hearings the air quality is fine here. What about the 35,000 natural gas wells in the San Juan basin, the natural gas and oil refineries, the Four Corners Power Plant and the San Juan Generating Station?

"It's the accumulative impacts of everything here that are already overburdened with air pollution, and the last thing we need is another coal plant," he said.

Reach Hope Nealson at hopen@cortezjournal.com.

COAL: Mercury from N.M. power project would threaten protected species--FWS
Daniel Cusick, Greenwire reporter

Mercury emissions from a planned 1,500-megawatt power plant in New Mexico's high desert region could pose ecological threats to six protected species, including native fish and birds, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Yet despite those concerns, U.S. EPA issued air permits for the Desert Rock Energy Facility last month, calling it "one of the cleanest pulverized coal-burning power plants in the U.S." The agency made the declaration even though it had not analyzed the plant's projected mercury emissions, a process that could take several months.

The $3 billion plant, to be developed by Sithe Global Power LLC on lands owned by the Navajo Nation, would produce electricity for the Southwest's growing population centers while also providing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Navajo tribe.

Before the plant can proceed, the Bureau of Indian Affairs must complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) demonstrating that the facility will not have adverse effects on air, water, land or other natural resources. Completion of the EIS requires consultation with other agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service.

But officials in FWS's New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office say they remain concerned about several elements of the proposed project, including its air emissions and water withdrawals.

In interviews and formal correspondence with BIA, federal biologists have pointed to the plant's planned use of coal that contains elevated levels of mercury, selenium and other heavy metals.

The agency also asked BIA to ensure that the plant's water withdrawals from the San Juan River do not impede the river's ability to support wildlife. Those concerns are based in part on models showing that the region could experience water shortages over the next several decades due to a variety of factors, including climate change.

In a January 2008 letter to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, FWS field supervisor Wally Murphy questioned initial findings from BIA showing that the plant's operations "may affect, [are] not likely to adversely affect" two endangered fish, the Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker, and two birds, the southwestern willow flycatcher and the California condor.

"The Service believes that the appropriate determination for these species is 'may affect, likely to adversely affect'," Murphy wrote to the BIA's regional director in Gallup, N.M.

Coal supply laden with metals
FWS's concerns derive from Desert Rock's plans to use of coal from the nearby Navajo Coal Field. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, those reserves are known to have higher concentrations of heavy metals and other contaminants.

When coal is burned, trace amounts of these heavy metals are released through smokestacks, then fall back to earth in rain and are deposited in waterways. In fresh water, such metals convert into bioavailable forms that can be taken up through the food chain, beginning with small bottom-dwellers and moving eventually to fish, birds and people.

"Our issue remains the deposition and deposition rates of pollutants, and the effect that those pollutants have on the food chain," Murphy said.
Calls to BIA's New Mexico office were referred to Washington. Senior BIA officials, however, were not immediately availible to answer questions about the review, spokeswoman Nedra Darling said.

But in a draft EIS issued last May, BIA estimated that the Desert Rock plant's mercury emissions would be roughly 114 pounds per year, and that as much as 10 percent of that mercury could accumulate in the San Juan River or the adjacent Morgan Lake. Yet even under worst-case conditions, the additional mercury concentrations would still fall well below federal and state water quality criteria, BIA found.

In the same report, BIA noted that mercury emissions in the region are widespread, including from gold and silver mines along the San Juan River and from six coal-fired power plants already operating within 200 miles of the Desert Rock site. According to USGS estimates, those coal plants annually contribute more than 3,000 pounds of mercury to the surrounding environment.

EPA stands by its statement
At EPA's Region 9 office in San Francisco, air permits chief Gerardo Rios said he was not familiar with FWS's concerns about mercury but that the agency may have received such comments through other channels.

Rios stressed that EPA would carefully evaluate the plant's mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act's hazardous air pollutant provisions and would require the appropriate level of controls. But since the plant's mercury review is just getting started, Rios said he had no details on what types of pollution controls the developers had proposed for the facility.

According to Sithe Global's project Web site, the Desert Rock plant will meet a minimum 80 percent capture rate for mercury under a voluntary regional air quality improvement plan, and efforts will be made to achieve as high as 90 percent emissions capture if it can be done cost effectively.

As for EPA's claim that the plant will be among the cleanest coal facilities in the country, Rios said such comments were based solely on the plant's emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead and other criteria pollutants subject to the Clean Air Act's "Prevention of
Significant Deterioration" provisions.

Even so, Rios said he was confident the Desert Rock plant would still be among the cleanest in the country once the agency had reviewed and approved its mercury control program.

To review EPA's actions on the project, including its July 31 issuance of the PSD air permit, please copy and paste link into url:

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/features/desert-rock/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, Aug. 14, 2008

Contacts: Dailan Long, Diné CARE, 505-801-0713
Mike Eisenfeld, San Juan Citizens Alliance, 505-360-8994
Nick Persampieri, Earthjustice, 303-996-9617


Groups Challenge EPA Over Desert Rock Air Permit
Agency’s error-ridden approval of coal plant threatens public health, air quality, climate

Burnham, N.M. – The EPA scrapped a rigorous scientific review and pushed through approval of
a severely deficient permit for the proposed Desert Rock coal-fired power plant, a coalition of
Navajo and conservation groups contend in an appeal of the permit.

In a joint petition filed today, the groups detail how numerous deficiencies in the permit for
Desert Rock threaten air quality and public health in the Four Corners region. The groups asked
the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to review the permit decision and grant an extension of
time so they can thoroughly document the major problems with the permit. The EPA granted the
permit July 31, authorizing construction of the 1,500-megawatt plant on Navajo land near
Farmington, N.M.

Rather than complete the critical analyses required by law, the EPA was stampeded into granting
the permit because of a lawsuit filed by Desert Rock developers, coalition members charge. The
EPA granted the permit after Desert Rock’s developers threatened to sue the agency. The notice
of intent to sue was filed by Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer for Bracewell Giuliani representing Sithe
Global Power and the former head of EPA’s air division under the Bush Administration.

“The EPA is abandoning its mission by rushing a permit out the door for political expedience
and ignoring the fact that it will emit massive quantities CO2 and other pollutants,” said Nick
Persampieri, attorney for Earthjustice who filed the appeal on behalf of the groups.

The coalition said EPA’s permit contains a number of major deficiencies that violate federal
clean air and public health laws:

• Failure to do a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) analysis for
hazardous air pollutants.
• Improper analysis of whether the plant violates national ozone standards.
• Failure to include emission limitations for carbon dioxide.
• Failure to consider impacts related to mining, disposal of combustion waste and impacts
on the region’s scarce water supplies.
• No consultation with other agencies, as required, on the impacts of the plant on
endangered species.

The groups are asking the Appeals Board to withdraw the permit and require EPA to complete
all the required analyses, which they contend would ultimately lead to denial of or significant
changes to the permit

“This permit is another example of the rush by the agency's political appointees to hand out gifts
to industry before President Bush leaves office,” said Dailan J. Long of Diné CARE, a Navajo
tribal group that opposes the plant. “It ignores how emissions from Desert Rock will threaten air
quality and endanger the health of people who live in the Four Corners region.”

Communities in the Four Corners already are suffering from dirty air, contaminated land and
water from the two existing coal plants, as well as from coal mines, waste disposal areas, and
widespread oil and gas operations.

If built, Desert Rock would overwhelm efforts of New Mexico and neighboring states to reduce
greenhouse gas pollution and would further poison the air, land and water of local communities.
Emissions from the coal plant would more than offset commitments to cut pollution from other
nearby sources.

Burning coal at Desert Rock also would emit hundreds of pounds of mercury every year,
increasing the already high levels of the toxic metal in local rivers and lakes, many of which are
already subject to fish-consumption advisories. Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that can harm
the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and immune systems of people of all ages.

###

Diné CARE, Environmental Defense Fund, Grand Canyon Trust,
Natural Resources Defense Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance,
Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians

**See (2) attachments: Press Release and Petition - EAB appeal of Desert Rock air permit

New Mexico Business Weekly - by Kevin Robinson-Avila NMBW Staff

Sithe Global Power LLC and the Navajo Nation are a major step closer to building a massive, coal-fired generating plant near Shiprock in northwest New Mexico.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved an air quality permit on July 31 for the Desert Rock Power Plant -- a $3 billion project with a 1,500-megawatt capacity that Sithe and the Navajo-owned Din

The Navajo government supports the project for its economic development potential. The plant will buy all its coal from Navajo-owned mines, generating about $50 million in annual royalties and taxes for the tribal government. Construction would create about 1,000 jobs, plus 400 permanent positions when the plant opens, said Frank Maisano, spokesman for Sithe Global's subsidiary, Desert Rock Energy Co.

"The Navajo nation is the project's strongest advocate," Maisano said. "They're anxious to move forward."

But Gov. Bill Richardson and New Mexico environmental groups vehemently oppose the project, which would neutralize state efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions. If built, the plant would emit about 12 million tons of carbon dioxide per year -- the equivalent of adding 1.5 million average cars to roads.

Because the plant is on Navajo land, however, the state has no authority to stop it, said New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry.

"We recognize their sovereignty, but the state will be stuck with the consequences," Curry said. "If Sithe tried to permit this anywhere else, we would definitely reject it."

The dispute over Desert Rock reflects an energetic effort by state government and environmental groups to push industry to cut emissions at New Mexico's existing coal-fired generators -- and prevent new ones from being built. Given the state's status as an above-average emitter of greenhouse gasses and other contaminants, New Mexico is now at the forefront of the growing national debate over fossil fuels, said Sandra Ely, the Environment Department's energy and environmental policy coordinator.

"New Mexico is about double the national average for greenhouse gas emissions," Ely said. "Fossil-fuel power plants are the per capita primary source. Second are emissions from oil and gas operations."

But industry leaders say coal-fired energy is here to stay for the foreseeable future because it's more reliable and much cheaper than alternative power sources. Nationally, 52 percent of all electric production still comes from coal plants, according to the Energy Information Administration.

New Mexico is no exception. About 54 percent of Public Service Co. of New Mexico's locally produced electricity is from coal, said John Myers, PNM's vice president for power production.

"The cost for electricity from coal plants is still relatively low compared to alternatives like natural gas, solar and wind, even with environmental regulations," Myers said. "Nobody has a crystal ball, but many of the 350 existing plants nationwide will continue to operate in the mid- to long-term because the costs are still so low."

New Mexico has two large, aging coal-fired generators that currently operate near Farmington in the Northwest -- the 1,800-megawatt San Juan Generating Station run by PNM and the 2,040-megawatt Four Corners Power Plant run by Arizona Public Service.

The Four Corners facility emits nearly 16 million tons a year of carbon dioxide, according to statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Markets Database. The San Juan plant releases about 13 million tons.

Those emissions, combined with contaminants from oil and gas wells, have made San Juan County the sixth highest emitter of carbon dioxide in the nation, according to a new study by Purdue University on carbon emissions nationwide.

In addition, non-greenhouse-gas pollutants from the power plants -- including nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and ash particulates -- have greatly lowered air quality in the Four Corners region. Particularly high levels of mercury have led to fish-consumption advisories for lakes and rivers in the area, Curry said.

"New Mexico has the highest mercury emissions of any state in the West," Curry said. "That makes us particularly wary of any new coal plants."

PNM has made a huge effort to reduce pollutants at the San Juan plant. A $320 million investment is under way there, which, once completed, will cut non-greenhouse-gas contaminants to almost zero (see related article, right).

Arizona Public Service has invested about $600 million in environmental controls since its plant was built in the 1960's, said APS spokesman Steven Gottfried.

But that technology is now largely behind the curve since most upgrades were done in the '80s and '90s. And, like the proposed Desert Rock operation, the Four Corners facility is on Navajo land, blocking state regulatory authority, Curry said.

"We have no jurisdiction there," Curry said. "We do regulate the San Juan facility, and it's clear that plant is now much more environmentally sound than the Four Corners facility."

Maisano said the Desert Rock plant will be built with state-of-the-art emissions controls, making it one the nation's cleanest coal plants to date.

But environmental upgrades at San Juan and controls at Desert Rock will do nothing to block carbon dioxide emissions because carbon sequestration technology is still in development.

Technology to remove carbon dioxide and other pollutants from coal by first turning it to gas and then burning that gas for electricity is available now. In fact, state officials want the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold a permit for Desert Rock unless Sithe agrees to build a coal gasification facility, known as an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant.

"That seems like the most-promising technology today to allow us to use coal responsibly," Ely said.

But Sithe says the technology is still far too expensive and unreliable.

"IGCC technology could add up to $1 billion more to the cost of Desert Rock and the plant would operate much less efficiently, making it uneconomical," Maisano said. "It's promising technology, but it's still not ready for prime time."

If Sithe adopted IGCC, it would greatly dissipate criticism, but many environmental groups would still oppose Desert Rock because they believe coal power should be phased out entirely.

"In San Juan County, we're talking about an area that's investing heavily in continued dependency on fossil fuels and a carbon economy, and we need to move away from all that," said Erik Schlenker, Taos-based director of the Western Environmental Law Center's southwest office.

Gail Ryba, executive director of the New Mexico Coalition for Clean Affordable Energy, said there should be an outright moratorium on the construction of all new coal plants.

"Given all the climate change issues, we shouldn't even be talking about coal anymore," Ryba said. "We should be looking at how to close them down and move toward renewables."

Ultimately, the debate over coal-fired power in New Mexico and the nation likely won't be resolved until state and federal authorities adopt fees and limits on carbon dioxide emissions, Ely said.

"When we start putting a regional and federal price on carbon emissions, dirty coal generation will become a lot more expensive," she said. "At that point, alternative technologies will start looking a lot more attractive to industry."


krobinson-avila@bizjournals.com | 348-8302

Alaine Ball and Chelsea Brown |
Source: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Their-View-Coal-plant-is-a-statewide-health-threat-081008

8/10/2008 - 8/10/08

There has been much talk recently about the Bush administration's sustained efforts to undermine the functioning of government agencies from the Justice Department to the Environmental Protection Agency. This week New Mexico felt the reach of such corruption as the Environmental Protection Agency issued a permit for the Desert Rock Coal Plant proposed in Northwest New Mexico.

The EPA, whose mission is to "protect human health and the environment," gave two big thumbs up on a plan that will pollute New Mexico's air and water and harm our citizens. Worse still, the power for the plant won't help any of us, but will instead provide cheap electricity for Las Vegas, Nev., and Phoenix.

Coal-fired power plants are responsible for two-thirds of all U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions, and Desert Rock will add to this. These emissions cause a host of pulmonary and cardiovascular disorders and have been associated with 24,000 premature deaths annually — more people than are killed by drunken drivers.

Even without the Desert Rock Plant, San Juan County already suffers from high levels of air pollution originating from two existing coal-fired power plants in the area — communities in northwest New Mexico are on the brink of exceeding the maximum level of ozone permitted by the EPA. Ozone, which is formed when nitrogen oxide reacts with volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere, causes lung-tissue damage, worsening of asthma and leads to increased hospitalization rates.

New Mexico has one of the highest concentrations of airborne mercury in the United States, and Desert Rock is projected to add as much as 500 pounds of mercury to the air per year. Fetal exposure to mercury can result in a range of developmental problems, including mental retardation and brain damage.

The issuing of the Air Quality Permit by the EPA despite enormous health concerns is a prime example of coal companies working in concert with the Bush administration to push through approval on coal-fired power plants before the next administration. This happened despite receiving more than 1,000 public comments urging the EPA to perform a more detailed and fair analysis of the environmental and health impacts of building a 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant.

Proponents for Desert Rock claim the plant will use new technologies and be "clean." We've heard this tune before. In the 1950s the tobacco industry developed cigarette filters and made the claim that they were healthier; history has proven otherwise. Like a filtered cigarette, the Desert Rock plant will release less pollution than its older counterparts, but will still cause significant health problems for New Mexicans.

We cannot afford to be swayed by irresponsible euphemisms like "clean coal." Consequently, the United States should immediately enact a moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants and host an honest debate with straightforward vocabulary about ways to power our communities while safeguarding health. Political will and scientific consensus are building around the world for a new energy economy, and the EPA has an obligation to support policies that will usher in the age of truly clean energy technologies.

Alaine Ball is Program Director for 1Sky New Mexico in Santa Fe. Chelsea Brown is interning with 1Sky New Mexico and is a student of Tufts University in Boston.

Tribe cites jobs and revenue; New Mexico to appeal EPA decision
Associated Press - Felicia Fonseca

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Both environmentalists who have been fighting a proposed coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Nation and supporters of the project expected it: an air permit for the plant.

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency signed off on the permit for the Desert Rock Energy Project, which the agency says will set a new standard for coal-fired plants in the United States.

Navajos hailed the EPA's decision as necessary to improve conditions on their vast reservation, while environmentalists proclaimed it "a sad day" and prepared to appeal.

The EPA had filed a consent decree in June, agreeing to act on the permit that sets limits for emissions covered under the federal Clean Air Act as part of the settlement of a lawsuit that the developers of the $3 billion project filed against the agency.

The Navajo Nation's Dine Power Authority and Houston-based Sithe Global Power are partnering to build the 1,500-megawatt plant near Farmington in northwestern New Mexico. The air permit was considered a major hurdle before construction could begin. An environmental impact statement also needs approval.

Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. said the benefits of Desert Rock, which include $50 million in annual revenues to the tribe and thousands of jobs, outweigh the environmental concerns.

Navajos, who regard the earth as their mother and the sky as their father, are "doing the best we can to do our part to take care of the environment," Shirley said.

"At the same time, we know that the deities want us to take care of ourselves, to stand on our own two feet, as individuals, as families, as a community, as a nation," he said in an interview Thursday. "And that's certainly what Desert Rock is about."

Gov. Bill Richardson and New Mexico Environment Secretary Ron Curry planned an immediate appeal of the EPA's decision, claiming the agency violated the Clean Air Act in issuing the permit.

"EPA is bending to the will of corporate, financial and misguided political interests that will pollute New Mexico's skies," Richardson said in a statement. "EPA's decision ignores its obligations to protect the health of residents and the environment in New Mexico and the region. We will not allow this ill-advised decision to stand."

Dailan Long of Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment called the decision irresponsible and inappropriate.

"It is a devastating blow to tribal members who continually suffer from the large coal complex encroaching upon our land," he said in a statement.

The Navajo Nation, which stretches into New Mexico, Utah and Arizona, is rich with natural gas, uranium and low-sulfur coal. Tribal officials say the reservation's coal can be mined for the next 200 years.

On Thursday, President Bush said coal should be part of the solution to reduce dependence on foreign oil and that he would use his last six months in office to push new energy plans that include electricity from coal.

Without global warming emission controls, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said it is reckless to approve Desert Rock.

"This one massive plant will negate the emissions reductions being implemented by the northeastern states in the first mandatory regional program to cut global warming pollution," said Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "The administration's shameful decision rewards polluters, flouts the Clean Air Act and fails the American people."

EPA officials contend their approval process was thorough and involved comprehensive analyses that will ensure that pollution levels safeguard public health and the environment.

A review of the more than 1,000 comments on the permit led to additional monitoring requirements for organic compounds, lead, sulfuric acid, hydrogen fluoride and visible emissions, said Colleen McKaughan, a Southwest region deputy air division director for the EPA. The EPA also lowered limits for nitrogen oxide, a precursor for ozone, she said.

McKaughan said those who commented on the air permit and the consent decree can appeal the EPA's decision to the agency's Environmental Appeals Board, which has the final say on all administrative decisions. The EPA received nearly 100 submissions on the consent decree.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

'Far from a done deal'
N.M. appealing Desert Rock permit, Navajo lawmaker says company may seek additional tax relief

By Jim Snyder
Tsé bit'a’ Bureau

SHIPROCK, Aug. 7, 2008

The state of New Mexico is appealing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision to grant Sithe Global Power an air quality permit to build the 1,500-megawatt Desert Rock Energy Project south of here.

But a key Navajo lawmaker worried that the rising cost of the project, which grows with each delay, could trigger a request for more tax breaks from the Navajo Nation Council.

The council agreed in 2006 to eliminate 80 percent of tribal taxes at the request of Sithe and the Diné Power Authority, which is facilitating the project.

"EPA is bending to the will of corporate, financial and misguided political interests that will pollute New Mexico's skies," said Gov. Bill Richardson in a news release about his decision to appeal.

"EPA's decision ignores its obligations to protect the health of residents and the environment in New Mexico and the region," he stated. "We will not allow this ill-advised decision to stand."

"From a legal standpoint, Desert Rock is far from a done deal," added New Mexico Attorney General Gary King.

The appeal will be filed with the U.S. Environmental Appeals Board in Washington, D.C.

State officials in Colorado and Arizona who had criticized the proposed power plant have so far not commented publicly on the EPA's long-awaited permit decision.

Delegate LoRenzo Bates (Upper Fruitland), chairman of the council's Budget and Finance Committee, said Monday, "I suspect (Sithe and DPA) will come back to the nation, and put pressure on the nation (for more tax relief)."

The council earlier gave Sithe a tax relief package worth $1 billion after the company asserted that the project might not be profitable otherwise. Cost increases published periodically by Sithe long ago outstripped the potential savings from the tax cuts, however.

The company has not voiced further concerns about financial viability. Frank Maisano, a spokesman for the Desert Rock project, said the company would not request additional tax relief from the tribe.

Sithe's most recent estimate for plant construction is $3 billion, almost three times the estimate when it was lobbying for tax relief from the tribe and state.

Tribal lawmakers agreed to a massive reduction in future revenues to the tribal treasury, rationalizing that the greatest benefit of Desert Rock would be jobs and salaries for individual Navajos.

The New Mexico Legislature has repeatedly turned down similar requests, which would have cut Desert Rock's state tax bill by about $85 million over a 25-year period.

"Since they didn't get the tax break from the state that means it may or may not be as profitable as projected," Bates said. "So in order for them to make it as profitable, they may end up coming back to the nation. And tell you what, that ain't going to fly with this guy."

"There is no intent of any kind to re-do the tax plan," Maisano emphasized Wednesday. "We're comfortable with the agreement we have with the Navajo Nation. We look forward to completing the project for them."

Shirley praises EPA

Desert Rock developers applied for an air quality permit four years ago, but EPA had delayed making its decision under heavy pressure from project opponents, which include a long list of environmental groups as well as the surrounding states except Utah.

Sithe and DPA finally sued EPA to force action, and the agency signed a consent decree promising to issue its decision by July 31.

Wayne Nastri, administrator for EPA Region 9 in Denver, said Desert Rock "will be one of the cleanest pulverized coal-burning power plants in the country."

The emission limits in the permit "will set a new level of performance for coal-fired plants in the United States," he said.

President Joe Shirley Jr. praised the decision.

"The deities want us to stand on our own and that's where Desert Rock comes in," he said in a July 31 news release.

The project is expected to create more than 1,000 annual jobs during the four-year construction period, and more than 400 permanent jobs, he said, and to contribute more than $50 million annually to the Navajo Nation treasury.

But the Four Corners region already has two coal-burning plants: the Four Corners Power Plant in Upper Fruitland, N.M., and the San Juan Generating Station in Kirtland, N.M., in addition to the Navajo Generating Station in Page, Ariz.

Together they make San Juan County the sixth-worst source of emissions in the nation, according to Sierra Club spokesperson Oliver Bernstein in Austin, Texas.

Environmentalists say they will come out in force to fight the EPA's decision to issue a permit to yet another power plant, because in their view even a clean plant will add pollutants to a region already overburdened with them.

"EPA's irresponsible, inappropriate decision has failed Navajo communities and needlessly sacrificed our air, land and water," said Dailan Long of Diné CARE, in a news release following the EPA announcement.

"It is a devastating blow to tribal members who continually suffer from the large coal complex encroaching upon our land," he said.

State Rep. Ray Begaye, D-Shiprock, said Tuesday he believes the EPA decision was "90 percent politics."

"The rush-rush job they did was prompted because they were up against the wall from this powerful company and their lobbyists," Begaye said.

DPA, meanwhile, has played an important role in laying the groundwork for Desert Rock, making presentations at chapter meetings and persuading Navajos around the 600-acre plant site to sell their grazing rights.

Some Burnham Chapter elders have said they received as little as $2,000 to surrender a portion of their grazing territory to make way for the plant.

In 2006, the Navajo council, which funds DPA annually, voted 66-7 to grant the enterprise a business site lease for Desert Rock. DPA, in turn, would grant a sublease to Sithe Global Power.

The plant is intended to funnel power into the regional transmission grid for use mainly in fast-growing areas like Phoenix and Los Angeles.

There are no plans to provide the electricity to homes on the reservation and no discount for the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, which purchases power in bulk from the region's producers.

The Navajo Nation also did not negotiate a share of ownership in the plant, so it will not share in the profits. The agreement with Sithe grants the tribe an option to purchase up to 25 percent of Desert Rock - but the Navajos must pay cash.

Bates said he would only consider a increasing the tribal tax break for Desert Rock if the Navajos had the option of owning 51 percent of the plant.

Shiprock Bureau reporter Jim Snyder can be reached at premwriter@yahoo.com.


Job hopes drive Navajos views on Desert Rock
By Jim Snyder
Tsé bit'a’ Bureau

SHIPROCK, Aug. 7, 2008

Navajo citizens voiced definite opinions on the Environmental Protection Agency's July 31 decision to grant an air quality permit to the Desert Rock Energy Project, a 1,500-megawatt coal-burning power plant proposed about 20 miles south of here.

Here is what shoppers had to say Saturday at the Begay Flea Market and at City Market.

Gayle Goldtooth and her husband Vince, of Hogback, N.M. - who hope to land two of the construction jobs promised at the site - welcomed the EPA decision.

The couple said they are forced to travel throughout the year to work at industrial construction sites in the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana and Washington, and would welcome jobs close to home. There is virtually no construction work on the reservation, they said, and even fewer of the nonunion jobs for which they qualify.

"Some Navajos work out of state, going from construction to construction. I was away from my kids for one year," Gayle Goldtooth said. "Some people don't know what we go through. People are lucky to have a job here on the reservation. ... We hardly come back to our people. Some people don't know what Navajo, what Diné is."

Vince Goldtooth added that he trusts the EPA to make the right environmental decision for area, which already has two nearby coal-fired power plants - the Four Corners Power Plant and the San Juan Generating Station - and some of the nation's worst air pollution.

"We need (Desert Rock)," he said. "More people need supplies, like utilities, on the Navajo Nation."

None of the power from Desert Rock will go directly to Navajo homes and there are no plans to allocate a portion to the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. Instead, the power will be fed into the regional transmission grid and will be sold to the highest bidder, most likely fast-growing cities such as Phoenix, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, Nev.

When Goldtooth was informed of this, he said the power plant would benefit urban Navajos who live off-reservation in those places.

Who will benefit?

But among Navajos who do not hope to personally benefit from Desert Rock, doubt or downright cynicism prevailed.

Albuquerque resident Jim Casey, who calls Carson, N.M., in Nageezi Chapter his home, said the EPA's action was a political decision not based on science.

"It's going to bring a lot of radiation and a lot of chemicals to this place," Casey said. "It's going to pollute everything. It's not going to be healthy. It's for the money - and for the land they can use.

"We're still being treated the same way from the government. We still don't have our own land, our own thing. We're still underneath them," he said, noting that EPA is part of the federal government.

Casey added he does not believe that the tax and lease revenues from Desert Rock would be used to help the Navajo people.

"The (Navajo) president is sitting on so much money right now, I don't know where it is going. Look at the flea market, look at this place, look at Shiprock. There's no progression, there's nothing going on. This is supposed to be the city of Navajos. But look at it, it's poverty," Casey said.

A Navajo elder shared Casey's sense that Desert Rock would not be a blessing to the community, in part because he believes the tribal government will absorb the revenues from taxes and leases.

"The money goes to Window Rock," said Keeswood Russell of Red Valley, Ariz., adding that revenues from other industrial development in the area, such as mining and power generation, never resulted in improvements to the community. "It's not helping my people."

That point of view was also echoed by Vincent Parrish of Kayenta and Tim Price of Sanostee, N.M.

"I don't think we'll see it," Parrish said. "It all goes to Window Rock and it stays in Window Rock. Us local, common Natives, we don't see a cent of it."

Price added, "Where's it going to go? I really don't know. I really don't trust the Navajo Nation, too. (President Joe) Shirley, I really don't trust him. He says this and that to our land, and there's nothing down here for us."

The heavy pollutants hanging in the sky Saturday did not go unnoticed by Russell.

"We already got enough pollution here," he said. "When you come out here in the morning, you can see all this reddish, orange, brown dust covering the whole area around here. If you build another (coal-burning power plant), it will probably be like Los Angeles, like the big city, with smog all over the place and people will have all kinds of problems."

But a young Burnham Chapter resident, who works at a retail store in Farmington, supported the plant for economic reasons.

"Go ahead and let them do it," said Dennison Yazzie. "People need jobs around here, especially these young kids, the ones who are in college, the ones who have their engineering (degrees). If I get a chance, if I'm still around when that plant is open, I would like to work there.

"I don't know why it took so long," he said about the EPA's decision. "It would have been built now, I would have been working over there now. ... I think I'm overworked and underpaid with the company I am with now."

Source: http://www.navajotimes.com/news/0808/080708desertrock.php

State vows immediate challenge
By Kathy Helms
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an air permit Thursday for the proposed 1,500 megawatt Desert Rock Energy Facility on the heels of a court action compelling EPA to issue or deny the permit by July 31.

Desert Rock Energy Co., a subsidiary of Sithe Global Power LLC, and Diné Power Authority sued EPA earlier this year to compel the federal agency to act on the permit, which they said was more than three years overdue. The state of New Mexico filed a motion to intervene in the consent decree case July 10.

Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., received news of the permit around 10 a.m. through a phone call with U.S. EPA Region 9 Administrator Wayne Nastri, according to George Hardeen of the president’s office.

While Shirley and Sithe officials applauded the news, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Attorney General Gary King vowed to file an immediate appeal to stay the permitting action. Diné CARE and Earthjustice, which represents a number of conservation groups, also plan to contest the permit within 30 days.

“I know there are many challenges,” Shirley said. “Native people, Navajo people included, regard the earth as our mother, the sky as our father, and certainly we’re doing everything we can to take care of the air and the environment. At the same time we know that the deities want us to stand on our own, and that’s where Desert Rock comes in.”

Richardson and King, in a press release issued soon after the announcement, labeled EPA’s decision “ill-advised” and claimed that EPA and Sithe apparently attempted to cut a deal to evade judicial review of the new power plant.

“EPA is bending to the will of corporate, financial and misguided political interests that will pollute New Mexico’s skies,” Richardson said. “EPA’s decision ignores its obligations to protect the health of residents and the environment in New Mexico and the region. We will not allow this ill-advised decision to stand.”

New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry said EPA is shirking its responsibility to require an analysis of several pollutants, including mercury, ozone and carbon dioxide. “This plant will increase the region’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by more than one third and wipe out our efforts to reduce these emissions across the state.”

Hardeen said developers had two meetings with Curry, explained the plant’s technology, and answered all the state’s questions.
“Everything was fine, and then out came the state’s opposition without so much as a phone call to the president. There hasn’t been, as far as I know, any communication between the governor and the president.”

Mike Eisenfeld of San Juan Citizens Alliance, said, “This is a political decision, not one based on science or EPA’s own mandate. EPA ramrodded this permit out the door in response to a lawsuit filed by the coal plant owner, whose lawyer, Jeff Holmstead, was a high-level EPA official in the Bush administration. It looks like he’s still giving orders to EPA’s staff.”

Sarah Jane White, who lives in the Sanostee area and suffers from asthma, said it is ironic that EPA issued a Clean Air permit for Desert Rock when “here on Navajo, on a daily basis, more and more of our people are being diagnosed with asthma.
“Why are we having respiratory problems? How does U.S. EPA know the air is clean when there are neither studies nor efforts made to address it? The one and only answer is environmental racism,” she said.

Dailan Long of Dine CARE said U.S. EPA has failed Navajo communities. “Their decision clearly demonstrates the coal industry’s power to make economics more important than the health impacts. Today, is a sad day for the Dine’ and future generations.”

Shirley said development of the project means more than 1,000 construction jobs, more than 400 permanent jobs, and more than $50 million annually in revenue for the Navajo Nation.

“We know that there will continue to be challenges, but, hopefully, at day’s end we will prevail,” Shirley said.

Doug MacCourt of the law firm Ater Wynne, which represents DPA, said the enterprise has worked hard for more than five years to see the permit issued and the process has been open, fair and respectful.

“Remember that this project is not just about energy. It is about tribal sovereignty, about independence, and quality of life for an entire nation. I am very proud of the DPA and all the members of the Navajo Nation who have worked so hard to make Desert Rock a reality.”

Steven C. Begay, DPA general manager, said the permit turns on a number of green lights to go forward, while Dirk Straussfeld, executive vice president of the Desert Rock Energy Co., called issuance of the permit “another important milestone.”

FELICIA FONSECA | August 1, 2008 04:24 AM EST |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Both environmentalists who have been fighting a proposed coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Nation and supporters of the project expected it: an air permit for the plant.

On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency signed off on the permit for the Desert Rock Energy Project, which the agency says will set a new standard for coal-fired plants in the United States.

Navajos hailed the EPA's decision as necessary to improve conditions on their vast reservation, while environmentalists proclaimed it "a sad day" and prepared to appeal.

The EPA had filed a consent decree in June, agreeing to act on the permit that sets limits for emissions covered under the federal Clean Air Act as part of the settlement of a lawsuit that the developers of the $3 billion project filed against the agency.

The Navajo Nation's Dine Power Authority and Houston-based Sithe Global Power are partnering to build the 1,500-megawatt plant near Farmington in northwestern New Mexico. The air permit was considered a major hurdle before construction could begin. An environmental impact statement also needs approval.

Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. said the benefits of Desert Rock, which include $50 million in annual revenues to the tribe and thousands of jobs, outweigh the environmental concerns.

Navajos, who regard the earth as their mother and the sky as their father, are "doing the best we can to do our part to take care of the environment," Shirley said.

"At the same time, we know that the deities want us to take care of ourselves, to stand on our own two feet, as individuals, as families, as a community, as a nation," he said in an interview Thursday. "And that's certainly what Desert Rock is about."

Gov. Bill Richardson and New Mexico Environment Secretary Ron Curry planned an immediate appeal of the EPA's decision, claiming the agency violated the Clean Air Act in issuing the permit.

"EPA is bending to the will of corporate, financial and misguided political interests that will pollute New Mexico's skies," Richardson said in a statement. "EPA's decision ignores its obligations to protect the health of residents and the environment in New Mexico and the region. We will not allow this ill-advised decision to stand."

Dailan Long of Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment called the decision irresponsible and inappropriate.

"It is a devastating blow to tribal members who continually suffer from the large coal complex encroaching upon our land," he said in a statement.

The Navajo Nation, which stretches into New Mexico, Utah and Arizona, is rich with natural gas, uranium and low-sulfur coal. Tribal officials say the reservation's coal can be mined for the next 200 years.

On Thursday, President Bush said coal should be part of the solution to reduce dependance on foreign oil and that he would use his last six months in office to push new energy plans that include electricity from coal.

Without global warming emission controls, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said it is reckless to approve Desert Rock.

"This one massive plant will negate the emissions reductions being implemented by the northeastern states in the first mandatory regional program to cut global warming pollution," said Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "The administration's shameful decision rewards polluters, flouts the Clean Air Act and fails the American people."

EPA officials contend their approval process was thorough and involved comprehensive analyses that will ensure that pollution levels safeguard public health and the environment.

A review of the more than 1,000 comments on the permit led to additional monitoring requirements for organic compounds, lead, sulfuric acid, hydrogen fluoride and visible emissions, said Colleen McKaughan, a Southwest region deputy air division director for the EPA. The EPA also lowered limits for nitrogen oxide, a precursor for ozone, she said.

McKaughan said those who commented on the air permit and the consent decree can appeal the EPA's decision to the agency's Environmental Appeals Board, which has the final say on all administrative decisions. The EPA received nearly 100 submissions on the consent decree.

EPA has circumvented a proposed consent decree it was seeking to enter into with the developers of the planned Desert Rock power plant in New Mexico by issuing July 31 a contentious air permit for the facility while the legal process was still pending, assuring a quick legal challenge to the permit with EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) over the permit's lack of greenhouse gas (GHG) limits and other issues.

"In effect, through a back room deal . . .