Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /home/mesquite/public_html/include/dbconnect.php on line 9
Mesquite Nevada Number One Online News Source Mesquite Citizen Journal

* Barbara Ellestad, Publisher * ALL Content Copyright 2011-2014*

Thursday, July 20, 2017

This week's poll

Has the NSA gone too far in its data collection efforts?

Yes, they need to stop
No, they are keeping us safe
I don't care

View Poll Report

one or more words required
all words required
forced & ordered phrase
Multi forced & ordered phrase
words with exceptions
 Issue date:
Date Format: dd-mm-yyyy

NV Energy Responds To Sierra Club Criticism
Posting Date: 06/27/2012

By John Taylor
The Reid Gardner Power Plant In Moapa Is Southern Nevada's only coal-fired power plant. Photo supplied.

The Reid Gardner Power Plant In Moapa Is
Southern Nevada's only coal-fired power plant.
Photo supplied.

As the dispute continues between the Sierra Club, the Moapa Indian Tribe, assorted environmental groups, and NV Energy, the operator of the Reid Gardner coal-fired power plant, (which is blamed for a myriad of problems) the question arises; why does NV Energy not just give it up, get rid of coal, and switch to some other form of power generation?

In a highly critical report released June 14 by the Sierra Club, it is suggested that it would be significantly cheaper for NV Energy rate payers if the utility would retire the 50 year old coal-fired Reid Gardner plant. An independent economic analysis of NV Energy data by Resource Insight, Inc., on behalf of the Sierra Club found that retiring the plant by 2013 would save $59 million dollars rather than continuing the operation until 2023.

If the company had acted sooner, $121 million would have been saved, the Sierra Club contends. The report states that retiring the plant would also save 8,300 acre feet (2.7 billion gallons) of fresh water the plant uses each year for its operations. It would also potentially save millions of dollars associated with the health costs related to the coal controversy about the plant's smoke stack emissions and groundwater contamination.

See Mesquite Citizen Journal story Report Finds Closing Reid Gardner Coal Plant Would Save Money

Added to that critique, the Moapa Indian tribe living next door to the plant alleges emissions from the plant are making people sick, even killing them. “It's getting really scary on the res,” said Paiute member Vernon Lee. “We are dying at an alarming rate, much higher than the average.”

At a recent meeting with the EPA, tribal members told of a host of medical problems from asthma, respiratory ailments, heart disease, headaches and strokes. They told of seeing a white haze drift over their homes from the power plant and children getting sick or getting nose bleeds from playing outside. Tribal members contend the blowing coal ash and polluted water from the landfill is contaminating the environment around them.

"However," said David Sharp, Plant Direct of the Reid Gardner station told the Mesquite Citizen Journal June 26, “the answer is not so simple.”

“We have a mandate to provide energy to our customers at the most reasonable cost possible and in a safe, responsible manner. The utility is also required by state law to buy 12 percent of its power from renewable energy sources, which we already do. To keep the cost down for consumers, we use the cheapest source available and, at this time, it is coal. All of our operations are approved by the Public Utility Commission of Nevada and have been reviewed by the Southern Nevada Department of Health.”

“We also have retrofitted this plant to make it safer and cleaner,” said Mark Severts, Project Communications Director. “In 2007, we began to retrofit all of the units using clean natural gas igniters, we have added more stringent emissions limits that now capture 99.9 percent of all particulate emissions at a total cost of over $84 million dollars.”

The plant's high efficiency scrubbing systems allow it to consistently rank among the top 10 percent of plants nationwide for its low sulfur rate emissions.

“The start up costs for renewable energy projects are high,” said Sharp. “If we closed this plant, the cost would be reflected in people's electric bill and that bill would go up. We currently have contracts for a stable supply of an energy producer and we can't get that with other resources. Natural gas prices, for example, fluctuate wildly and will give us only short contracts. We don't want to put rate payers in a position of being hostage to price swings.”

See Mesquite Citizen Journal story Energy Wars Raging All Around Mesquite

In addition to price considerations, the Reid Gardner plant disputes statements made by the Sierra Club.

“When this plant was built in the late 1960s and 1970s, the plant was built with the technology of that time,” said Sharp. “As environmental regulations change, we change with them. We want to be good neighbors, especially to the Moapa area. There is a misconception about this type of plant so we are open and transparent about everything we do."

"There was a complaint about the smell so we are moving the ponds away from our neighbors and out of the flood plain. There was an allegation of water contamination, so we made new ponds that are double lined with state-of-the-art leak detection and recovery systems that also reduce the potential for odors. We even have odor monitors located a distance from the plant so if there is a release, the monitor immediately notifies me and someone responds,” Sharp explained.

In March, the EPA issued new guidelines that could limit greenhouse gases from new power plants that could go into effect as early as 2013. No coal plants can be built unless they meet very stringent carbon dioxide capture standards. Politicians who support the coal industry are scrambling to overturn it.

“Every time you hear something about doing away with the EPA during a debate or by a presidential candidate, it really means the speaker is for coal,” said Harold Cassity, a spokesman for a Nevada environmental group. “If there is a change in the White House, coal will be back with a vengeance.”

“Another thing to remember is jobs,” said Jane Feldman of the Sierra Club. “Reid Gardner buys the majority of its coal from Utah and Wyoming. That translates into Reid Gardner supporting a lot of jobs out of state when we could have those homegrown jobs right here in Nevada. Not to mention that 2.7 billion gallons of water taken from the Muddy River that could be used for better purposes.”

Severt said that the Reid station employs about 130 people and utilizes more than 100 local contractors and shutting it down would cause a significant loss of those jobs for this area. Also, only a third of the water is taken from the Muddy River, another third is taken from NV Energy wells in the area and the last third is leased from the LDS church wells in Moapa.

Sharp also noted that vehicles contribute more carbon dioxide emissions than the Reid plant and pose a much greater problem of trying to control those types of emissions. In addition, the use of sophisticated filters and sprinkler systems at Reid keeps coal ash from becoming airborne.

“Bottom line is, we are regulated by the Public Utility Commission, The Environmental Protection Agency, the BLM, the health district, the water district, state law, various other regulators and we operate a plant that meets all appropriate standards,” said Sharp. “We report to all those regulators and file an integrated resource plan for everyone to see. The plant provides electricity for our customers at a rate they want.”

Severt added, “NV Energy will continue its commitment to operate Reid in an environmentally responsible manner, in compliance with all federal and state laws, and in the best interests of its customers. We will continue to work within the appropriate processes established by the Public Utility Commission of Nevada and do what makes sense for our customers. It is important to note that this plant represents an important hedge against the potential for higher natural gas prices, which have been volatile in the past.”

NV Energy President and CEO Michael Yackira, in a shareholder's meeting said, “We have a mandate to meet our customers' needs and to do it as cheaply as possible. Every action we take as a company is to keep the costs as low as we can.”

Whatever the perception is of the Reid Gardner plant, the controversy will not soon go away. In the meantime, the plant will continue to operate, until they are told differently.


  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    Watching NV Energy and The Sierra Club duke it out is like watching Godzilla and Gamarra battling over Tokyo. I hate them both, they are both bad for Nevada, so may they destroy each other, to the public's benefit.
    By: Devon
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    If it was up to the Sierra Club, we would all be living in tents in a national park but coal is another story. If Romney gets elected, we will see a lot of coal and dirty air thanks to special interest groups.
    By: Frank
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    Whatever you believe, don't ever donate to the Sierra Club, they will hound you for the rest of your life. They are worse than Green Peace.
    By: Nancy
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    Primarily, the Sierra Club is an enrichment scheme for attorneys and lobbyists.
    By: A#1
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    Hmmmm. Buying coal from Utah and water from the LDS church. Interesting.
    By: Paulie
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    Romney has already said on a major national news talk show, he would stop solar and wind projects as a waste of time and go with coal. Utah is a very major coal producer.
    By: Bill
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    Are reaching the point where nuclear energy is a viable option?
    By: Delta
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    I would like to see the cost analyses by both the Sierra Club and NV Energy. Neither has justified its claim on cost.
    By: Bill Hurd
  • Posted Date: 06/27/2012
    We should be askingOverton Power when they are going to get with solar and gives us some serious rebates for installing home solar.
    By: Kathy
  • Posted Date: 06/28/2012
    Solar energy might pay-off some time in the future. It is most likely our best source of "green" alternative energy. I firmly believe that our present technology is infantile and will developed exponentially in the near future. What is currently unfortunate is the exceedingly high initial costs of installing any sized solar energy capturing system. While many have received subsidies or "rebates" the costs that they evaded is ultimately picked-up by the tax payer. Now that we are borrowing so much money from foreign countries, it is going to take a very long time to pay for these and just about everything else. Many of you have home mortgages. Have you ever seriously looked at what you will ultimately pay for your home if you go full term on your loan? My argument/concern is this; considering our country's present financial situation (no blame assigned, we are where we are), is now really the time to leap so excitedly onto this vogue high costing solar adventure? Those who have received the subsidies may laud the savings but the "savings" would not exist without the subsidies! Again, considering our present finical plight, along with our debt to other nations, I suggest you go give your grand children a big hug and thank them for financing your solar subsidy.
    By: Big Mon
  • Posted Date: 06/29/2012
    You make some good points, Big Mon, and here are some answers. We already subsidize all other forms of energy. We all know that it’s ridiculous to be subsidizing the most profitable companies in the history of the world, but because they own our politicians, we do! So the relatively small subsidies to renewable energy are nothing out of the ordinary. The tax code treatment for the companies who use up our natural resources are ludicrous – why do we give them special “depletion allowances” for depleting OUR natural resources? – and the “other” enormous subsidies to the Oil industry, those incurred by having to provide them with our military to keep their shipping lanes safe and to “stabilize” their middle-eastern suppliers, etc. How much better off will our grandchildren be if the U.S. does not have to pay these enormous costs? Other subsidies to the “carbon- based-energy” industries includes the healthcare costs of dealing with their pollution. Yes, the capital costs now are high, but the long-term benefits are so enormous that we are REALLY cheating our grandchildren if we saddle them with the true costs of carbon=based electricity. Have you sent any royalty checks to the sun recently?
    By: John
    Opinion (2000 Characters)  
    Publish My Opinion    
    CAPTCHA Image
    Reload Image

            Get our toolbar!