Has Construction Really Started?

I noticed recently that the Bowie Power Station Web site has not been updated for four months and that there has been no activity at the site. I spoke to Trevor Baggiore from the Air Quality Permitting Section of ADEQ and learned that there will not be a new round of licensing as SWPG will be using the same gas turbine as specified in the original proposal. The license would have expired on September 13, 2007 - 18 months from the date it was issued - if construction had not commenced. Construction is considered to have started if site work has begun or if a contract has been signed for construction. On Sept. 10, SWPG signed a contract with MMR Group for construction of the plant. As SWPG is wholly owned by MMR Group, this contract could be either a legitimate legal contract or a disingenuous way to get around a deadline. We'll see.

In a recent story in USA Today SWPG general manager Getts blamed increasing costs and uncertainties on carbon dioxide capture for the switch back to natural gas.

Change of Plans

On Friday August 31, SWPG issued a press release stating that they no longer wished to build an IGCC plant at Bowie and instead were going to pursue the original plan to build a 1,000MW natural gas plant on the same site instead. The press release is given in full along with events leading up to and immediately following the announcement at littlebigdog. Two days later, The Sierra Vista Herald ran a story on the change in plans with reactions from the three supervisors. On September 9 the Herald ran a particularly wrong-headed story about Bowie and the power plant which inflamed things further. The Board of Supervisors voted to extend the permit to build the gas plant on September 18.

On August 25 at the CCIPRA meeting, 6 days before the press release was issued, Tom Wray was still insisting that natural gas was too costly and that they were determined to build an IGCC plant. What happened to change their minds? There hasn't been any major change in natural gas prices so the answer probably has more to do with a political calculation that showed the IGCC plant might not be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Even if it was approved, they realized that if it went to a county wide referendum they would probably lose – hence better to burn natural gas than be turned down for IGCC. SWPG will still have to get ADEQ air quality permits for the natural gas plant, as even though the permits were issued earlier, they have changed gas turbines.

A natural gas plant is perhaps less undesirable than an IGCC plant as there will be no slag dump or evaporation basins but there still be a lot of carbon dioxide emitted and a lot of water used. Although many of the problems with an IGCC plant were aired over the last few months, we weren't able to get a serious consideration of conservation or of the wisdom of having private companies, rather than utilities, building power plants. An article in the New York Times on Sept. 16 stated that the New York State Attorney General has opened an investigation of five large energy companies, questioning whether their plans to build coal-fired power plants pose undisclosed financial risks that their investors should know about. “The AG, Andrew Cuomo, using the same state securities law wielded by his predecessor, Gov. Eliot Spitzer, to investigate corruption on Wall Street, sent subpoenas on Friday Sept. 14 to the top executives of the five companies, seeking internal documents. The companies, which have projects in various states, are AES Corporation, Dominion, Dynegy, Peabody Energy and Xcel Energy.” The only other power plant in Arizona that SWPG is associated with, Gila Bend Panda, is still operating but is in receivership.

In the last couple of weeks there have been further stories about opposition to coal plants, including serious and growing problems for a proposed plant in Holcomb, Kansas and a more general story by Peter Montague on the turn about that coal companies are facing.

I'll try to post updates on the “progress” at Bowie from time to time but I need to start devoting some time and space to other issues in the county.

CCIPRA Meeting - August 25

Tom Wray spoke at a CCIPRA meeting in McNeal on Saturday August 25. The gathering was small with ample opportunity for questions and a lot of material was covered.

1. Southwest Power Group (SWPG), the company wanting to build the power station, is wholly owned by MMR Group , a large company specializing in instrumentation and control systems. They have been involved in “siting” several large power plants, including the Gila Bend Power Station, which is a natural gas fired plant currently in receivership but still operating. A private company, not a utility, owning a power plant is a new development – but is becoming more common.

2. I was under the impression that water is recycled after being combined with pulverized coal and oxygen in the gasifier. That appears to be wrong. Carefully controlled amounts of water are used in the gasifier and virtually none is reused. Water used to make steam in the steam turbine is recycled up to 15 times, before going to the evaporation basin.

3. The slag or solid coal ash from the gasifier may be sold as a road base but it will be used mixed with other materials to make a composite asphalt road bed. We were assured it will not be used to coat gravel roads.

4. Carbon dioxide sequestering prompted a lot of questions. Although SWPG is working with UofA researchers in planning seedling greenhouses, the greenhouses will be built by UofA (with grant support?) and will remain their property. So, SWPG is in effect claiming credit for capturing CO2 but delegating the work and financing. Eurofresh was brought up as another use for the CO2 but, as tomato plants are short-lived, they don’t provide permanent CO2 sequestering. Fast growing conifers will be raised in the greenhouses and planted in the field. A distinction was made between on site CO2 capture by the seedlings (no more than 10-15%) and total capture of CO2 over the first ten years of the conifers (40% of the plant’s carbon dioxide output).

5. An area (40 acres - ?) at the Bowie site is set aside for solar power generation – but the land will be leased to another company to generate the power.

6. Gas turbines are less efficient at higher altitudes but there will probably only be an efficiency drop of around 10% at Bowie (3600-3700 ft asl). Tom Wray was quick to point out that the Bowie site is not ideal for solar power generation – but the 10% loss in efficiency they’re incurring with gas turbines is probably comparable to the difference between Bowie and Yuma for solar power.

7. Although ADEQ will be issuing a new certificate of compliance with air quality standards, they have apparently asked SWPG to operate under the permit issued for the proposed natural gas plant, which was to have been much larger (1000 MW vs 600 MW). As ADEQ is not currently regulating CO2 emissions, they should be able to meet this requirement – but oxides of nitrogen could be a stretch. ADEQ will regulate CO2 when directed to by the EPA.

8. The power plant can still use natural gas and probably will when the gasifier is down for maintenance.

9. A large part of the Bowie site was rezoned for the natural gas plant and the current Master Development Plan that is before the Board of Supervisors seeks to rezone an additional 160 acres. Much was made of the fact that they are only after a rezoning of part of the site. However, as the nature of the facility is very different, it is only proper that the whole project be reviewed by the county.

10. Wray spun the facts a bit at the meeting; Mike Jackson has documented a lot of the bloopers at littlebigdog (Scroll down to the Aug. 25 meeting report.). At one point Wray talked about SunZia , which is trying to build a line to carry power from New Mexico to southern Arizona and from there to California. However he got off track when he tried to make that relevant to Bowie and imply that SWPG may sell power to California. California has to meet an increasing amount of its power needs from green sources and imported power must satisfy that requirement as well. I suspect that Californian authorities will not be interested in Bowie power and I doubt the Corporation Commission would be happy to see coal power generated in state and sold out of state. SWPG has been very quick to point out they'll be selling power locally and in state - and that remark of Wray's was a little odd. For more details see the California Renewable Energy Standard (PDF) at Clean California . There was also some confusion about the composition of syn gas (mostly CO and hydrogen) and natural gas (mostly methane).

11. A resident of Bowie, now employed by SWPG as a “Bowie booster,” pleaded the case for the power station as Bowie’s best chance for survival. It was a nice counter point to all the technical material covered but a little myopic on the merits of the power plant. While it will certainly help the town, the power plant probably won’t solve other problems such as the current high crime rate (methamphetamines?) there.

At Tuesday's Town Hall Meeting

On the evening of Tuesday August 14 Cochise County Supervisor Paul Newman convened a town hall meeting in Bisbee about the proposed Bowie Power Plant. Approximately 85 people attended. Kim Vacariu attended and provided his summary of the meeting from which I prepared these notes. The Sierra Vista Herald ran two stories on the meeting – on Wednesday and Thursday. There's also an account of the meeting at littlebigdog .

At the meeting County Administrator Jim Vlahovich announced that the Supervisor's next work session on the plant has been postponed at least three weeks to approximately September 14 to allow the consultant more time to complete the report. The actual vote by Supervisors to approve the Master Development Plan for the site will also be delayed, probably until mid-October at the earliest.

David Getts (SWPG General Manger) probably saw for the first time a lot of people solidly opposed to the plant, who presented thoughtful, non-confrontational questions--many of which he couldn't answer. One quote--"I would love to do a solar energy project if I could only find someone interested in paying to buy the product." This was 10 days after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a 15% by 2020 Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) amendment to the energy bill, H.R. 3221. And Arizona has its own renewable energy goal.

Governor Napolitano's representative, Steve Ahearn, gave a non-committal presentation. However, he is the Governor’s conduit to the ACC, and he did hear a lot of good reasons why the plant should not be built.

Nancy LaPlaca, an environmental advocate from Colorado, who attended at her own expense, gave a very compelling presentation. She pointed out that solar power costs about 4 cents more per KWH than coal-fueled power, but when you factor in the huge expense of carbon sequestration/recapture the two energy sources cost the same per KWH. (And you don’t have slag dumps and evaporation basins!) She is affiliated with the The Energy Justice Network, which provides an excellent resource on IGCC plants at http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc/ .

Feedback from ADEQ

Earlier this week, I spoke to Trevor Baggiore who is the manager of the air quality permits section at The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). He was quite helpful and very open. They're watching Bowie with some interest; he attended the April work session, and expressed interest in how the BoS politics are shaping up. ADEQ hasn't received a formal request for a permit from SWPG yet.

ADEQ will not revise the old air quality permit for the proposed natural gas, but will come up with a new one that is line with IGCC emissions and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

At this point they don't have any regulations on the book for CO2 sequestering (That may be something that has to come from the legislature - ?), but even so they don't regard greenhouses as a permanent form of carbon dioxide sequestering. This makes perfect sense, particularly with a short-lived crop like tomatoes.

He agreed that an IGCC plant will emit more oxides of nitrogen than a natural gas plant - and they would apply the national standards here.

So, ADEQ is not going to hold the Bowie plant to any sort of requirement on CO2 emission. All that stuff we've been hearing from SWPG about greenhouses won't amount to anything with ADEQ - and may not ever happen. I noticed at the July 7 "power lunch,” that SWPG was backing away from the greenhouses a bit. If CO2 matters to us, we need to convince the county that it's important.

In addition, this confirms that the county is the gatekeeper; ADEQ will regulate the plant and its emissions but not to a particularly high standard. Perhaps we need to make it clear to the supervisors that, if this plant is approved, we can anticipate far more emissions than with a natural gas plant.

Town Hall Meeting

Cochise County Supervisor Paul Newman will hold a town hall meeting providing an opportunity for public comment on the planned Bowie Power Plant project. The meeting will be from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Aug. 14 at the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 1415 Melody Lane, Building G, in Bisbee.

This town hall is an opportunity for the public to learn about this project, a clean-coal fueled 600-megawatt plant planned to open in 2012. Bowie Power Station will be based on a clean-coal technology called integrated gasification combined cycle. The town hall will include an overview and history of the Arizona project as well as a history of a similar project in Minnesota, the Mesaba Energy Project, presented by representatives from Minnesota and Colorado. Also invited are representatives from state agencies, including the corporation commission, the Department of Environmental Quality and the Residential Utility Consumer Office.

This anouncement is taken from the Range News; for more details see The Arizona Range News .

Upcoming Meetings

Town Hall Meeting on the Bowie Power Station project Tuesday August 14 5-7 pm in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, County Offices, Bldg. G, Bisbee. See article in Douglas Dispatch for more details ( http://www.douglasdispatch.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/news4.txt )

Work Session - Consultant's report on the Bowie Power Station project. BoS Meeting Room, August 21, probably at around 2pm.

BoS Meeting still tentatively scheduled for the evening of September 10 in Bowie.

Bowie Power Station - Reflections and Opinions

Synopsis: Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 14, 2007, voted 5-4 to approve the Master Development Plan (MDP) for Bowie Power Station submitted by SouthWestern Power Group II, LLC (SWPG). The plan involves a rezoning and covers the Bowie Power Plant, a 600 MW Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal-fueled electricity generating station, a University of Arizona Research Center, a commercial greenhouse, temporary construction housing, possible permanent (workforce) residences, a convenience store, open space for recreation, and buffering the plant from the surrounding area. Planning and Zoning staff recommended approval of the plan with some conditions. The Board of Supervisors originally planned to vote on the MDP on April 3, but, owing to the publicity, controversy, and complexity of the project, scheduled a work session on April 17 in which SWPG officials outlined details of the power station. After some delay, a consultant was hired by the County on July 24 to help evaluate the MDP and assist with air and water quality issues as well as assessing the carbon dioxide sequestering. The consultant will present the evaluation at an August 21 work session prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting at Bowie on September 10. If the Board of Supervisors votes against the power station, it will not be built. State regulators at ADEQ and ACC are basically waiting until the County hearings have concluded.

Obtaining state and federal permits will take a while, and they anticipate construction to begin in 2009 and finish in 2012/13. A transmission line will run north-west about 15 miles from the power station to a Tucson Electric Power (TEP) line, where a switching station will be built. They hope to sell some power locally (50-100 MW to Sulfur Springs) and more to TEP.

IGCC: In an IGCC plant, coal, water and oxygen are fed into a high pressure gasifier where the coal is partly combusted to produce “syn gas” (CO + H2) and the ash in the coal is converted to glassy slag. The syn gas is next cooled and cleaned of particles. Sulfur and other pollutants such as mercury are removed; the fate of arsenic and selenium is less clear. The syn gas is fired in a combustion or gas turbine that produces electricity, and the hot exhaust from the gas turbine is fed to a heat recovery steam generator, which drives a steam turbine. Water from the gasifier is recycled up to nine times before going to an evaporation basin as sludge. Water used with the steam turbine is cooled and reused up to 15 times. Plans for the Bowie plant specify two gas turbines and one steam turbine. There are more details on the IGCC process at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle , http://www.clean-energy.us/facts/igcc.htm , and http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/howgasificationworks.html .

The Wikipedia article points to reliability problems with the two existing IGCC plants in the U.S. There’s no mention of these problems on the DOE Web site at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/gasificationpioneer.html , but these plants are over ten years old, and it is only recently that we’ve seen renewed interest in building IGCC power stations. There are additional efficiency and reliability problems associated with running gasifiers and gas turbines at higher altitudes. Bowie is 3,700 feet above sea level; both operating IGCC plants are at or close to sea level.

An additional concern relates to fuel. SWPG’s submissions in the Master Plan and their presentation at the work session emphasized a 3:1 mix of coal (mostly from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming) and pet coke (oil refinery end product). Lately, they have backed away from that saying the fuel will probably be all or mostly coal. The reason may be that pet coke is less available as some refineries now use it to generate their own electricity. Both IGCC plants in this country use pet coke in their fuel mix, and reliable IGCC plants in Europe use even more pet coke.

IGCC plants can be expected to cost at least 20-25% more than a comparable SCPC (super-critical pulverized coal) plant, the standard “dirty” plant that’s been built for the last 30 years. Against that they are far less polluting and may reflect more accurately the true cost of generating electricity. This additional cost figure does not include expenses for sequestering carbon dioxide.

IGCC Proposals with Problems: Although there are numerous IGCC plants being proposed, several are encountering barriers to approval. Opposition stems from lack of or inadequate carbon dioxide sequestering, cost overruns, poor planning stemming from inexperience with this technology, and uncertainty about the future cost to curb carbon dioxide emissions (http://www.counterpunch.org/blair01232007.html ). Some of the problems encountered can be viewed at http://nwenergy.org/publications/the-transformer/2007/the-transformer-february-7-2007/ , http://www.mncoalgasplant.com/ , & http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.asp . Conventional (or SCPC) coal plants are still being planned across the country but with considerable opposition. One such plant, Desert Rock, to be built near Burnham, N.M., to supply power to Las Vegas and Phoenix, has become very controversial (http://www.indianz.com/News/2007/004120.asp ). Sentiment has swung sharply against coal in Florida where the Public Service Commission is now authorized to give priority to renewable energy and conservation programs before approving construction of conventional coal-fired power plants.

Bowie Power Station and SWPG: Although the proposed Bowie Power Station can be expected to be far less polluting than any currently operating coal plant in Arizona and may meet emission levels of a natural gas plant (but not for carbon dioxide without some sequestering and possibly not for oxides of nitrogen), there are still several issues to worry about.
CO2 Sequestering. MIT's recently released study, "The Future of Coal in a Carbon Constrained World," (http://web.mit.edu/coal/ ) stated that "coal faces a bleak future" without carbon capture and storage, and further recommended "no new coal plant be built without carbon capture technology." SWPG announced a carbon sequestering plan at the work session using greenhouses and tree seedlings. They claim they’ll be sequestering 40% of the carbon dioxide, but, as this figure includes the carbon dioxide that the young trees will take up under ideal conditions over a ten-year period after being planted in the field, the actual amount of carbon dioxide sequestered on site would be considerably less. The figures used in the study cited on the bowiepower Web site are based on raising lettuce and tomato plants and eucalypt seedlings in the greenhouse (http://www.bowiepower.com/assets/0607_U%20of%20A_Sequestration%20Study.pdf ). However, Eucalyptus seedlings grow very rapidly when young and are unsuited for plantations in much of the United States. I suspect CO2 absorption by seedlings more suited to reforestation would be lower. On July 7, SWPG officials appeared to be backing away from this plan by stating that the greenhouses are dependent on University of Arizona researchers obtaining grant funding for the greenhouses. Although SWPG has mentioned working with Eurofresh to grow tomatoes in greenhouses with elevated CO2 levels, there are to this date no commitments or agreements – just speculation and wishful thinking.

The site was originally selected for a natural gas-powered plant, as it is close to the natural gas pipeline and existing high transmission lines. It is less suited for a coal plant as the geology in the area precludes underground sequestering and the higher elevation will reduce the efficiency of the gasifier and gas turbines. Figures read from slides shown at the work session are (as pounds of CO2 emitted per MW hour) – IGCC without sequestering 1,300, natural gas 750, IGCC with sequestering 600. They said the last figure reflected 40% sequestering, but that doesn’t seem right. Without some CO2 sequestering, SWPG will not be able to match emissions from a natural gas plant, something they have stated the ADEQ would like them to do. Furthermore, permitting and operating this plant without carbon sequestering would run contrary to and violate the spirit of the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint effort among five western states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change (http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/regional_initiatives.cfm ). It is clear that, following the recent Supreme Court decision, CO2 emissions will be regulated and possibly taxed before long.

Sludge Ponds. ADEQ regulates the evaporation ponds, the coal piles, and the byproducts storage facility (aka the slag pile). The coal piles have liners, and rain water runoff from the coal pile will be collected and treated. The evaporation ponds hold the water slurry from the gasifier. The evaporation ponds will have dual liners with a drainage layer between them and a clay layer in mesh below. The liner system is monitored, and any breaks or ruptures must be repaired immediately. There was some discussion in the submissions to Planning and Zoning to sell the evaporated sludge, but the plan now is to leave all the material in the ponds and to eventually close them. Very little information is available on the likely chemical composition of the evaporation ponds, but it’s obviously far from pristine. Even if the ponds are fenced and dust is minimized, are they poisonous and will they attract birds?

Slag Heaps. The solid residue from IGCC plants is called vitreous slag. It is not water soluble and is largely inert. The two operating IGCC plants sell their slag as road base material. SWPG proposes a large storage area for slag – 8’ deep, up to 40’ high, 6.5 million cubic yards capacity. They hope to sell the slag for road base, but, if they can’t, this facility should hold all the slag generated over the projected 30-year life of the plant. When it’s over, the slag will be covered with 2 feet of soil, and native vegetation will be reestablished. Given hauling costs, the slag will probably only be used for nearby projects, so a large slag pile will probably develop. Even if all works out well and native vegetation is reestablished, the area will not be suitable for agriculture or housing.

Bowie and Cochise County: Plant construction will involve 800-1,000 workers, the operational plant will employ 100-120 people, and additional business spinoffs are possible. The economic benefits of the power station are presented in http://www.bowiepower.com/assets/060107_UofA_Bowie%20Econ%20Impact%20Study_final.pdf , and this study predicts significant tax revenues and employment income. It’s clear that numerous Bowie residents feel that the plant could be their and Bowie’s salvation. However, it’s highly unlikely that all the permanent plant employees will live in Bowie. Also Bowie residents may not be counting the busier roads, increased rail traffic, and other issues that the plant will bring. Finally, is it appropriate for Bowie to have a disproportionately loud voice in a project whose effects will be felt over much of the county?

There is considerable interest in and some opposition to this project. Other articles on the power station are http://littlebigdog.net/bowieplant.htm and http://bowiepower.blogspot.com/ . Both are well worth reading and they cover different material from a slightly different perspective. SWPG presents its version of the project at http://www.bowiepower.com/ and http://www.southwesternpower.com/ .