Criticism of Senator Reid over his stance on coal power in eastern Nevada is short sighted. Reno, NV September 20, 2007
Since we first posted on Senator Reid’s opposition of coal power plants in Ely, Nevada the Senator has taken hits in the media both in the state and across the nation. Even the Labor Unions, the same one’s who look to the Majority Leader for help and support, are criticizing his stance because they fear there will be no new jobs. Reid makes the obvious point that alternative energy requires significant building and maintenance workers as well. People want change and then when someone begins to put forth a vision for bringing about change, he gets chastised for it. Makes sense right!?!
Therefore, we thought it best to share some more information about why the Senator’s decision is so important to us as lovers of wild places, Nevada as a state, and the nation at large.
Would you want to trade this…
For this…
As we mentioned in our previous post, the location of two of the proposed power plants would be north of Ely, Nevada by the Schell Creek Mountains. This would have disastrous effect on the new wilderness areas out there and the overall quality of life in Eastern Nevada. Below are some facts about just how bad coal fire power plants really are from the Sierra Club.
“Most Americans know that burning coal releases a host of pollutants even when pollution controls for a power plant are required and installed. Few, however, are aware that metals such as mercury are released as well which causes contamination of rivers and lakes thereby affecting migratory waterfowl and fish. In addition, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, coal release carbon dioxide (CO2) which scientists agree is one of the chief gases causing global warming. Nevada is now the target for several new coal-fired power plants including the Ely Energy Center — the 2nd proposed plant in Steptoe Valley — just north of the town of Ely, Nevada. Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrous oxides every year. Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury pollution (but Nevada’s Gold Mines produce the vast majority in Nevada), largest contributor of hazardous air toxics6, and release about 50% of particle pollution. Additionally, power plants release over 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, a prime contributor to global warming. 12.6 million tons of carbon dioxide would be produced by the EEC annually. In EEC’s 50 year lifespan that’s 630 million tons. [Additional Information Here.]
Power plants emit 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, the primary global warming pollutant. Although coal-fired power plants account for just over half of the electricity produced in the U.S. each year, they have been responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990. Coal-fired power plants have the highest output rate of CO2 per unit of electricity among all fossil fuels. [More on Global Warming and Power Plants Here.]“
We don’t always see eye to eye with the Club, but those facts are gross! Why would any one invite that into their backyard??? Especially since there is no coal in Nevada at all! That’s right people we’d be polluting our air and precious water with someone else’s coal, which means we’d have to import it to begin with, another huge expenditure which only compounds the waste. Also check out some math from our friend Rick Spilsbury in Ely on how much pollution we can look forward to from these projects over the next 50 years.
Reid’s leadership on the issue is huge and encouraging. Rather than continuing to let Nevada be associated with the nation’s waste, he’s trying to put us on the forefront of technology and renewable energy solutions. Today he introduced new legislation that calls for the majority of power traded across state lines to come from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, or geothermal. You can read about it from the RGJ here.
So what should be done about all of this? Well, since Global Warming is the buzz word and most people can agree that it does exist along with a finite supply of non-renewable energy sources, it is imperative that we support those who are trying to find solutions to these problems. Thank Senator Reid for his efforts to not only protect wild places throughout Nevada–he’s been involved in every wilderness designation except for Jarbidge–but also his efforts to lead Americans away from our energy dependencies by giving Nevada the opportunity to become a model for alternative energy. Letters like these from the Las Vegas Sun and RGJ need to be more frequent. Or else you can kiss places like this good bye.
List of links in this article:
Sierra Club coal plant facts and Fact Sheet
Senate leader’s bill boosts alternative energy in Nevada
Other blogs to watch for info on this matter:
I think the thing we need to accept about renewable energy is that it’s not something we have to stick off in the sticks. Solar and wind can generate power in urban areas, or areas that are already impacted decreasing transmission costs, or be sighted along existing transmission corridors.
What I’d like to see is big 60 meter turbines or solar arrays out in the median of HWY 395 through Washoe Valley…
-M
I’m no energy expert, but it seems to me as long as we are on grids that are controlled by power companies, they will continue to draw as much power as possible from one place rather than import from several different places. If you de-regulate energy and allow people to choose where they buy it from, then you allow the market to open up for providers beyond the existing/established companies such as Sierra Pacific and Nevada Power. Problem is that building transmission lines from a power source to your consumers can be extremely costly and risky. Am I right?
Reid’s latest bill seeks to help defray those costs. Here’s the latest about Reid’s new proposed legislation.
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Reid wants to build power lines for remote sources (09/21/2007)
Katherine Ling, E&E Daily reporter
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took the cover off legislation yesterday that would create federally approved zones to build transmission needed to reach remote renewable energy generation.
The bill attempts to provide certainty for companies that build such power lines, as costs could be recovered through “just and reasonable” transmission fees. Cost-recovery is a significant barrier for constructing transmission and expanding renewables because few companies want to construct power plants in remote areas without a means to bring the electricity to areas of high consumption (Greenwire Aug. 24).
Reid does not plan on including the legislation in the House-Senate energy bill conference later this fall, said Blair Hinderliter, a spokesman for the senator. At press time, no cosponsors had stepped forward.
The legislation would require the president to identify “zones” in the country that have the potential to generate at least 1,000 megawatts of electricity from renewable energy sources within one year of the bill’s passage. The federal power marketing administrations would then have one year to identify the transmission lines — whether high-voltage or simple interconnection — that would be needed to access that power.
The hope would be that private entities would finance the transmission once zones are identified. But if no commercial funders could be found within two years, $10 billion in bonding authority would be given to the five regional power administrations to finance the construction of the transmission lines.
The bill defines renewable energy sources as wind, biomass, solar, ocean, geothermal, landfill gas, municipal solid waste or additional energy found in hydroelectric plants through new capacity or efficiency upgrades.
A high-voltage transmission line would have to carry at least 75 percent renewable electricity in order to qualify for financing, as would any lines that cross federal lands. The bill also prohibits federally protected lands from becoming renewable energy zones “if the federal land is subject to protective management policies that are inconsistent with energy development.”
Additionally, the legislation would require the five power administrations to explore the use of “grid-enabled” vehicles that would rely on electricity as its fuel and potentially as a power storage unit for the grid.
Reid’s bill adds strength to a growing consensus that the transmission deficiency in this country must be addressed to gain the full benefits of its renewable energy resources. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) inserted a similar measure in his comprehensive energy legislation introduced in the House. And Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) attempted to include an amendment to the Senate energy bill that would have created “clean energy corridors.”
Several states with renewable energy standards, also known as renewable portfolio standards, have already enacted similar “renewable energy zones.”
Texas, largely credited with creating the concept, is currently undergoing approval procedures to get eight “competitive renewable energy zones” authorized by its public utility commission to access wind resources available in remote regions in the state.
Colorado, Minnesota, California and the Mid-West Independent System Operator are also analyzing plans to help facilitate the construction of transmission to access their renewable resources.
This notion that renewables are expensive and coal is cheap is silly. Coal is cheap because it is much more heavily subsidized by the federal government, and it is cheap because no true life cycle analysis is undertaken by industry. So what is the full cost of coal when you take into account degraded air and water quality, destroyed fish and wildlife populations, sky high lung cancer rates. That is before you even begin to calculate the complex and interconnected health and environmental problems from global warming.
There is no doubt that we can’t just oppose energy solutions, because our needs are growing by the day. That’s why I like Senator Reid’s clear minded solution: massive, immediate investments in renewables. If there are tax incentives and subsidies equivalent to fossil fuel subsidies, we will see that the cost will soon come down, and renewables will become a part of everyday life. And then we don’t have to destory our air and quality of life in a short-sighted attempt to drive up stock prices.
Make no mistake–Senator Reid’s long history of delivering for Nevada is a better promise for our future than a power company CEO who promises that he values the environment. If you care about this, write to every elected official you have and let them know you want renewables and NOT coal.
People alway complain about politicians who don’t have the guts to stand up to industry. Well apparently Harry Reid does have the guts, and he’s walking the talk…
While not many will argue that coal is a “clean technology”, we should all do some homework before blindly backing Senator Reid’s proposal to ban coal plants. Coal is certainly not cheap, but it is currently cheaper than renewable energy. The reason, in part, is the State of Nevada’s commitment and aggressive schedule to developing renewable energy in this state. The Public Utility Commission of Nevada (PUCN) has mandated that 20% of our electricity come from renewable resources by 2015. There are various ways that the utilities can meet this demand (it is all public information and can be found on the PUCN’s website or on the Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Task Force) however much of it must be met by developing renewable generation sources. Currently there are numerous projects being proposed by our local utilities and independant developers to meet this state mandate. Because it is a mandate, independant developers are able to charge ridiculous prices for renewable energy contracts and our utilities are paying it. The utilities aren’t taking a big hit in the wallet for it though, because they are passing those costs straight to the consumers (that’s you and me).
The notion that Senator Reid’s proposal is going to help jump start renewable energy development in Nevada is simply untrue. It is already happening. The real issue is that renewables cannot be developed fast enough to meet the growing demand within the state. The Nevada Solar One Project is a solar generation plant south of Las Vegas which recently came online to supply 64 megawatts of power. As of July 2007, this was the 3rd largest plant of its kind in the world. According to the Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Task Force’s 2007 Annual Report, Sierra Pacific Power and Nevada Power Companies completed negotiations with 8 new renewable energy projects representing a total of 150 megawatts which should be online by 2007 or 2008. As a comparison, one of the proposed coal plants would supply approximately 1500 megawatts in its first phase of development. In addition, the State of Nevada expects its power needs to increase by approximately250 to 300 megawatts a year. As fast as renewable energy is being developed, it is not fast enough to meet our insatiable electricity appetite.
Senator Reid’s proposal to replace the conventional energy with renewables in his July 24th letter to the power companies suggests developing over 5000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2024. This (according to his plan) would include 65% of Sierra Pacific’s generation and 81% of Nevada Power’s generation. While this sounds like it would be a fantastic idea, we should all be concerned about the source of this plan. These numbers were developed by Jon Wellinghoff, a former Nevada state consumer advocate and presently a FERC Commissioner. Our own PUCN disagrees with the Nevada Energy Independance plan proposed by the Senator.
Senator Reid’s most recent bill will not make constructing lines to renewable projects any easier or less risky, either. Keep in mind that our state utilities are regulated by the PUCN and the utilities don’t begin a new major project (either transmission or generation) without first getting approval from the PUCN. Their plans are public information and are filed with the state every time they are amended. This is to insure that the cost of whatever project they begin will be allowed to be rolled into the rate base. What this means is that there is very little risk to the investment because the ratepayers are going to cover it. What the bill would do if it were to be made law, is keep the power lines from carrying power produced from fossil fuels because the majority of the capacity would have to be used for renewables, regardless of whether or not there was additional capacity on the line. The lines will be built regardless of the Senator’s bill because the utilities have to meet their renewable portfolio, anyway.
I don’t disagree that coal is a dirty fuel and that renewables are a much better solution. And if we feel strongly that the Senator’s plan will work logistically, we should absolutely write to our representatives. The very first letters we write should go to the PUCN. They are our elected officials who are charged, in part, with ensuring the reliability and costs of the energy projects proposed in our state. I just hope that before we decide that we don’t need fossil fuels for generation, we are certain that the alternatives don’t leave us in the dark.
We need to alter our “insatiable electricity appetite.” And if our appetite is insatiable it is because we aren’t paying enough for it. I’m just a humble dirtbag writer, but that sounds like supply-demand economics to me. When the price of Fruit Loops goes up, I don’t whine and write my senator, I switch to Tootie Frooties! Since when is it the American way to charge less than the absolute highest rate the market is willing to bear?
We could and should write to elected officials, but as long as we’re buying crappy stick-frame houses with black roofs facing south and no insulation, who is the real problem? Why should we cater our environmental policy to people with such little foresight?
-M
Off-Width,
thanks for your perspective, i think it is helpful to the debate. My understanding of Reid’s proposal is that it is both helpful to Nevada and critical for bringing other states up to speed. He’s in the unique position of representing a state that has potential for renewable energy, while also being in charge of establishing national policy.
RB
I also appreciated the post from Off Width–it definitely raises the complexity of the issue as it cuts across local, state, federal, public and corporate spheres of influence and responsibility.
I think the point that we need to communicate directly to the PUCN is valid; unfortunately, PUCN, though “public,” is also the kind of Byzantine agency that the general public struggles to access and understand. Federal legislation reported on the front pages of major newspapers tends to grab the attention of ratepayers more than a public agency’s meeting notices cranked out monthly (by an agency that addresses water, gas, electric, renewables and telecommunications!) Even for the policy wonk, its a bit much to grab hold of.
However, I believe Senator Reid’s bold vision in this is critical, and not just the normal hot air from politicians.
Specifically, I disagree with Off Width is in his statement that:
“Senator Reid’s most recent bill will not make constructing lines to renewable projects any easier or less risky, either.”
I am fascinated by the “can’t do” attitude of our industrial and political elites, which is why I think Senator Reid’s leadership on this is so valuable.
One of the primary impediments to moving our country into a thoughtful energy policy based on clean renewables is that many business leaders (like Sierra Pacific’s Yackira) constantly talk about what is NOT POSSIBLE, or what is TOO HARD. With our country’s obsession with the culture of “CEO as Hero,” we find ourselves celebrating industry leaders who write books about “tough leadership” and “bold vision” when in fact, this “We in America dare not dream because its just too hard” mentality is simply a risk-and-vision-averse new strain of business “leadership.” Protecting the status quo because it is more comfortable (and in the short term profitable) is not leadership.
This mentality was demonstrated by Yackira in recent media interviews see the Ralston interview mentioned above). The best part about Senator Reid’s bold leadership on this issue is that despite how hard it is, he makes this decision because it is in the long term best interests of ratepayers in Nevada, workers in Nevada and American energy policy. Never forget that Yackira and other power companies have “shareholders” to think about, not ratepayers, and certainly no vested interest in an American energy policy that moves us away from a system that is so wrongly skewed towards coal in the first place.
Think of it this way: John F. Kennedy said he was going to put a man on the moon. Of course it was expensive, of course it was difficult, and of course he was reviled by folks who though it was a waste of time and money. But by placing that bold vision forward, Kennedy set the tone for decades of scientific research, space exploration, and national pride that we still benefit from today (think medical advances, as an example). The greatest value of the Kennedy commitment in the space debate was setting a tone of accomplishment, perseverance and excellence leading to success.
I believe our ridiculous dependency on fossil fuels is similar. We simply haven’t had the guts to invest the vision, time, money, and political will against vested corporate interests, who always tell us that its too hard, too expensive, and too unreachable. It is all those things because these vested industrial elites like Yackira are smart—they know that their current situation is too lucrative, too easy, too non competitive to make changing the way we do business worthwhile for their corporations.
Though his legislation will absolutely encourage more investment and financing options for building transmission lines to renewable energy projects, the greatest value of Senator Reid’s opposition to the coal-fired plants in Nevada is the fact that he has the vision, the guts, and the intelligence to pull it off. Show me another politician in America who speaks truth to the energy industry and is working to back it up with real, actionable legislation.
Few and far between, I say, and the Senator will (as you’ve seen in the media) need our support.