Print
Comment
Rate
Bowie power plant zoning OK'd
Shar Porier
Wick Communications
Cochise County's Planning & Zoning Commission on Wednesday narrowly approved a re-zoning plan for a coal-fired power plant in Bowie after hearing emotionally charged concerns and environmental questions.
Bowie Power Station, LLC, owned by SouthWestern Power Group II LLC, a Delaware company, made a request to the planning and zoning commission to approve a master development plan and rezoning of 1,361 acres on Central Avenue two miles north of Bowie. The company had originally planned to build a gas-fired power plant, which had been approved in 2002. Claiming the unpredictable market price and availability of natural gas, the company decided to go to a coal-fired plant using relatively new technology to reduce emissions.
Community reaction
Michael Gregory of McNeal had a number of questions about the coal-fired plant, including the potential for hazardous materials leaching into the ground water as well as other impacts to the environment.
"This is not the way to go about it. They're presenting a whole new ball game here. Coal is different from gas," he noted.
He also had several questions about the reliability of the technology and also where the power the plant generated was going to be sold.
"Very serious thought needs to be given to the hazardous materials that will be stored on site. Don't permit it tonight," he cautioned.
He did not stand alone.
With a quivering voice, a quiet man who had worked for years establishing his retirement home near Bowie explained to the planning and zoning commission members how he loved to look up at the night sky and watch the stars.
"I always wanted a small farm in a remote area to work when I retire. So I bought 260 acres out there in 1999. I have spent every weekend out there building my farm. There are 2,200 trees planted in the orchard. And the stars. You can't imagine the stars. I never saw the Milky Way before.
"I've spent a great deal of money building my dream. I've mortgaged my home in Tucson. I borrowed on my life insurance.
"I own the whole west side of this thing. I'm not a mile away or two miles away. I'm right there, guys! I will lose my serenity. The coal plant will completely change my way of life. My quality of life will decline. I beg you not to approve this."
So said Dan Roberts, tears in his eyes, as he stood in passionate opposition to a proposed coal-burning power plant that could be his neighbor.
All the other speakers at the meeting touted the windfall the plant would bring in - around 120 permanent jobs, more people and needed revenue to the struggling town of Bowie.
In fact, there were a number of letters of support for the plant from the Bowie fire district board and the school board, Gov. Janet Napolitano, U.S. Sen. John Kyl and U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, in addition to many members of the Bowie community.
Only a few letters noted the need for more information and concerns about the effects of burning coal, carbon monoxide reclamation, excessive water use, heavy metal contamination and general distress over the possibility of having a stack pouring out pollutants.
The plan
The existing zoning of the property is RU-4 (single family home minimum lot size four acres), RU-36 (single family home, minimum lot size 36 acres) and HI (heavy industrial). The company requested a change to HI and PD (planned development).
According to Martin Bailey, agent for SouthWestern Power, the plans are not just to build the plant, but also provide housing for employees on site, a commercial greenhouse enterprise, a research center operated by the University of Arizona, a possible solar-powered generating facility, a convenience store and open space for a buffer zone and recreation facilities.
Also, the plant now plans to use coal as a fuel source, instead of natural gas, using an emission-reducing process.
The process is known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and uses a slurry of coal and coke heated to extreme temperatures without burning the coal. The byproduct of the slurry, once it goes through the process, is a sludge that is to be stored in evaporation ponds for the expected 30-year life of the plant.
Some CO2 emissions will be diverted to the greenhouse for plant and tree production in the greenhouses.
The U of A research center will be studying the sequestering of CO2 emissions in the ground.
Bailey said that local power companies, as well as some in Utah and Nevada, have indicated interest in purchasing some of the power generated by the plant.
The plant and other facilities will use approximately 6,000 acre-feet of water per year.
That figure does not include the usage of residences and offices.
It will use just 846 acre-feet less than what an agricultural business would use.
Bailey said the plant technology produces fewer emissions and particulates than traditional coal-burning plants, but no coal-fired process is as clean burning as natural gas.
Commission member Lee Basnar was concerned that the water in the evaporation ponds would be wasted and wanted to know why some effort was not being made to recapture it.
"I don't see why you can't run it through a condenser and reuse or recharge it. Water can be cleaned. I don't like the idea of losing water when we have water issues all over the county. Once it evaporates, it's gone. It looks to me that you're importing dirty coal and exporting water.
"We just don't need to see more evaporation ponds in the county. The Legislature is giving us more authority to deal with water issues, and we need to look at that. I see no need to rush to build it. There's no great demand for power."
He also pointed out that though the evaporation ponds are lined, no liner holds up forever or even for the number of years that the plant will be in service.
"We have problems now with liners at the landfill. We don't need more problems with pollutants leaching into the aquifers," Basnar said.
He was also concerned with mercury, which he said is another byproduct of the burning of coal that had not been addressed.
Commission Chairwoman Karen Corey was concerned with the same issues and also brought up the concern of what effect rain with coal dust and soot would have on the surrounding environment.
The plant has no mitigation plan for retaining rainwater runoff.
Basnar tried to get the other commission members to table the matter until a more knowledgeable representative could answer some questions and address water and environmental concerns.
The motion was defeated five to four. Those voting to table it were Basnar, Corey, John Wendle and Dave Walters. Commission members voting against it were Gilbert Reeves, Duane Brofer, Jim Martzke, Don Hudgins and Ruiz Silva.
When the vote was called for on the motion to recommend approval of the re-zoning, the commission again voted five to four in favor, with Basnar, Corey, Walters and Wendle voting against it.
The rezoning now goes before the board of supervisors for their decision on April 3.
(Shar Porier is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.)
Wick Communications
Cochise County's Planning & Zoning Commission on Wednesday narrowly approved a re-zoning plan for a coal-fired power plant in Bowie after hearing emotionally charged concerns and environmental questions.
Bowie Power Station, LLC, owned by SouthWestern Power Group II LLC, a Delaware company, made a request to the planning and zoning commission to approve a master development plan and rezoning of 1,361 acres on Central Avenue two miles north of Bowie. The company had originally planned to build a gas-fired power plant, which had been approved in 2002. Claiming the unpredictable market price and availability of natural gas, the company decided to go to a coal-fired plant using relatively new technology to reduce emissions.
Community reaction
Michael Gregory of McNeal had a number of questions about the coal-fired plant, including the potential for hazardous materials leaching into the ground water as well as other impacts to the environment.
"This is not the way to go about it. They're presenting a whole new ball game here. Coal is different from gas," he noted.
He also had several questions about the reliability of the technology and also where the power the plant generated was going to be sold.
"Very serious thought needs to be given to the hazardous materials that will be stored on site. Don't permit it tonight," he cautioned.
He did not stand alone.
With a quivering voice, a quiet man who had worked for years establishing his retirement home near Bowie explained to the planning and zoning commission members how he loved to look up at the night sky and watch the stars.
"I always wanted a small farm in a remote area to work when I retire. So I bought 260 acres out there in 1999. I have spent every weekend out there building my farm. There are 2,200 trees planted in the orchard. And the stars. You can't imagine the stars. I never saw the Milky Way before.
"I've spent a great deal of money building my dream. I've mortgaged my home in Tucson. I borrowed on my life insurance.
"I own the whole west side of this thing. I'm not a mile away or two miles away. I'm right there, guys! I will lose my serenity. The coal plant will completely change my way of life. My quality of life will decline. I beg you not to approve this."
So said Dan Roberts, tears in his eyes, as he stood in passionate opposition to a proposed coal-burning power plant that could be his neighbor.
All the other speakers at the meeting touted the windfall the plant would bring in - around 120 permanent jobs, more people and needed revenue to the struggling town of Bowie.
In fact, there were a number of letters of support for the plant from the Bowie fire district board and the school board, Gov. Janet Napolitano, U.S. Sen. John Kyl and U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, in addition to many members of the Bowie community.
Only a few letters noted the need for more information and concerns about the effects of burning coal, carbon monoxide reclamation, excessive water use, heavy metal contamination and general distress over the possibility of having a stack pouring out pollutants.
The plan
The existing zoning of the property is RU-4 (single family home minimum lot size four acres), RU-36 (single family home, minimum lot size 36 acres) and HI (heavy industrial). The company requested a change to HI and PD (planned development).
According to Martin Bailey, agent for SouthWestern Power, the plans are not just to build the plant, but also provide housing for employees on site, a commercial greenhouse enterprise, a research center operated by the University of Arizona, a possible solar-powered generating facility, a convenience store and open space for a buffer zone and recreation facilities.
Also, the plant now plans to use coal as a fuel source, instead of natural gas, using an emission-reducing process.
The process is known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and uses a slurry of coal and coke heated to extreme temperatures without burning the coal. The byproduct of the slurry, once it goes through the process, is a sludge that is to be stored in evaporation ponds for the expected 30-year life of the plant.
Some CO2 emissions will be diverted to the greenhouse for plant and tree production in the greenhouses.
The U of A research center will be studying the sequestering of CO2 emissions in the ground.
Bailey said that local power companies, as well as some in Utah and Nevada, have indicated interest in purchasing some of the power generated by the plant.
The plant and other facilities will use approximately 6,000 acre-feet of water per year.
That figure does not include the usage of residences and offices.
It will use just 846 acre-feet less than what an agricultural business would use.
Bailey said the plant technology produces fewer emissions and particulates than traditional coal-burning plants, but no coal-fired process is as clean burning as natural gas.
Commission member Lee Basnar was concerned that the water in the evaporation ponds would be wasted and wanted to know why some effort was not being made to recapture it.
"I don't see why you can't run it through a condenser and reuse or recharge it. Water can be cleaned. I don't like the idea of losing water when we have water issues all over the county. Once it evaporates, it's gone. It looks to me that you're importing dirty coal and exporting water.
"We just don't need to see more evaporation ponds in the county. The Legislature is giving us more authority to deal with water issues, and we need to look at that. I see no need to rush to build it. There's no great demand for power."
He also pointed out that though the evaporation ponds are lined, no liner holds up forever or even for the number of years that the plant will be in service.
"We have problems now with liners at the landfill. We don't need more problems with pollutants leaching into the aquifers," Basnar said.
He was also concerned with mercury, which he said is another byproduct of the burning of coal that had not been addressed.
Commission Chairwoman Karen Corey was concerned with the same issues and also brought up the concern of what effect rain with coal dust and soot would have on the surrounding environment.
The plant has no mitigation plan for retaining rainwater runoff.
Basnar tried to get the other commission members to table the matter until a more knowledgeable representative could answer some questions and address water and environmental concerns.
The motion was defeated five to four. Those voting to table it were Basnar, Corey, John Wendle and Dave Walters. Commission members voting against it were Gilbert Reeves, Duane Brofer, Jim Martzke, Don Hudgins and Ruiz Silva.
When the vote was called for on the motion to recommend approval of the re-zoning, the commission again voted five to four in favor, with Basnar, Corey, Walters and Wendle voting against it.
The rezoning now goes before the board of supervisors for their decision on April 3.
(Shar Porier is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.)
 |
 |
|
| Kiwanis may form Benson chapter | Property values shock taxpayers |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
