Power in the Southwest comes from coal. For the past 50 years, the combustible carbon rock has fired the Four Corners Power Plant, which sits just 60 miles south of Durango. Following a federal decision last year, those coal fires will continue to burn for another quarter century./Telegraph file photo

 

Power struggle

Groups file suit over renewal, expansion of coal power plant

by Tracy Chamberlin

A midst the rubble of a crumbling coal industry lies the Four Corners Power Plant, which was given new life in the form of a 25-year permit renewal and mine expansion less than a year ago.

For a coalition of conservation groups, the concern isn’t just with the potential harm the plant’s continued operations can do to the environment and health of the region, but also the economic future of the tribes it’s meant to support.

The coalition filed a lawsuit in federal court last month challenging the decision by the federal Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, or OSMRE, to approve the 25-year permit and 5,600-acre expansion of the mine that supplies it.

“Given the energy landscape today, it’s a serious disservice for government leaders to just tell the Four Corners to stick with collapsing coal without even a look at alternatives,” Mike Eisenfeld, energy and climate programs manager for the Durango-based San Juan Citizens Alliance, said in a statement.

The trends of the day are to move away from traditional, fossil fuels and toward renewable resources. Just last month, the largest private-sector coal company in the world, Peabody Energy, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Even countries are starting to play the green game. Saudi Arabia recently announced its Vision 2030 plan, in which the desert nation known for its oil reserves revealed a strategy to wean itself off oil earnings by 2020 and move toward investment as a source of income.

EPA called on to tighten fracking waste disposal rules In addition to taking a stand against coal, the San Juan Citizens Alliance is also standing up to fracking. Or more precisely, the fluids that are left over from the fracking process. On Wednesday, a coalition of community and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, calling for regulations in the disposal and handling of drilling and fracking waste. Currently, such waste is governed by outdated rules, which give it no more special treatment than household trash, according to the suit. The organizations are pushing EPA to update rules to address problems including the disposal of fracking wastewater in underground wells, which has been linked to earthquakes in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas. “Updated rules for oil and gas wastes are almost 30 years overdue, and we need them now more than ever,” said Adam Kron, a lawyer with the Environmental Integrity Project. “Each well now generates millions of gallons of wastewater and hundreds of tons of solid wastes, and yet EPA’s inaction has kept the most basic, inadequate rules in place.” Others groups filing suit include the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice. The lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., calls on the court to set strict deadlines for EPA to comply with its long-overdue obligations to update waste disposal rules. Amy Mall, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said waste from the oil and gas industry is often toxic and should be treated that way. “Right now, companies can get rid of their toxic mess in any number of dangerous ways – from spraying it on icy roads, to sending it to landfills, to injecting it underground.” Each well produces millions of gallons of wastewater and hundreds of tons of drill cuttings, which contain contaminants that pose serious risks to human health, including benzene (a known carcinogen), mercury and radioactive materials. The organizations are urging EPA to ban the practice of spreading fracking wastewater onto roads or fields and to require landfills and ponds that receive fracking waste be lined to prevent groundwater contamination. The groups filed a notice of their intent to sue last August, warning the agency of its failure to comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which requires EPA to review its regulations and state plan guidelines at least every three years. – Missy Votel

The green sweep, though, may have moved right past the Southwest.

For the past 50 years, coal has fired the Four Corners Power Plant, which sits just 60 miles south of Durango near Fruitland, N.M.; and in that time it has shuffled through a litany of ownership.

At this point, the Navajo Transitional Energy Co., reated a few years ago by the Navajo Nation Council, owns the lease for the existing 33,600-acre coal mine and is the name behind the newly proposed 5,600-acre mine, called the Pinabete Permit Area.

The primary owner of the power plant – Arizona Public Service Co. – is also the operator. Coming in a distant second on the lengthy list of shareholders is the Public Service Co. of New Mexico.

Several years ago, these entities asked the federal government to grant the permit renewal and mine expansion. Those requests were granted in July 2015.

The San Juan Citizens Alliance, along with its partners at the Western Environmental Law Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Amigos Bravos and the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit challenging the OSMRE’s decision under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Shiloh Hernandez, staff attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, said the coalition has not been contacted by the federal agencies named in the suit, but it expects the case to be in court by the end of the year.

“It is department policy that we do not comment on litigation,” said OSMRE spokesperson Chris Holmes.

Since the request first came down for a permit renewal, Eisenfeld has championed renewable resources as a part of the Four Corners’ future. He saw the changing energy landscape and asked everyone to consider renewables as a part of the plan.

However, addressing renewable options and the collapse of coal is not a specific purpose or need of the project.

“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to allow continued operations at the Navajo Mine and (Four Corners Power Plant),” the official Record of Decision, released July 2015, reads.

Several possible actions were considered during the years-long process, including no action, which would have allowed the current permit to expire and operations to cease, and the chosen alternative, which allows for the 25-year permit renewal and mine expansion.

Federal decision-makers acknowledged that the chosen action is not the environmentally preferred one.

“(The No Action) alternative ... would best protect, preserve and enhance historical, cultural and natural resources,” the decision reads. “However, the No Action alternative would fail to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.”

According to the decision, socioeconomic impacts played into the choice to keep the plant running.

Eisenfeld said there needs to be empathy and understanding for the potential economic impacts to the Navajo Nation – but at what cost?

“It’s a bad predicament,” he added, “but it’s time to start thinking about a different approach.”

Part of the concern for Eisenfeld and others is the cost of cleanup. For coal production, much like mining in the mountains, the owner is often responsible for reclamation. This part of the economic equation was pointed out by representatives of Dine CARE, another member of the environmental coalition behind the lawsuit.

“Our Navajo Nation president recently declared ‘We can’t depend on our coal, oil and gas revenues anymore,’” Carol Davis, of Dine CARE, said in a statement. “Approving 25 more years of coal mining and burning at the Navajo Mine and Four Corners Power Plant blindly assumes profitable operations when in reality they are suspect at best, and places the Navajo Nation at great economic risk with the cost of owning and operating the Navajo Mine with full responsibility for eventual reclamation.”