This whole deal has been out on the table for quite some time, the "Decision" made. The timing of the formalization and release of this plan is patently agenda driven. As we all know to well, when everybody involved has their own agenda, it can become hard to see the woods for the trees.
The main and over theme / overriding emphasis of the OP article seems to be on COAL, and it's "enviroquences."... (ENVIROQUENCES) new buzz word, straight off this desk).
I'd note it makes only a few brief comments about another, and perhaps even more complicating issue,...WATER.
Here's some additional commentary that drifted in on my regular E-mail yesterday AM, and a link to it's source article which is WELL worth the read in it's entirety.
Excerpt:
In 2010, CAP officials reckoned that closing the Navajo plant would have increased the cost of electricity to pump water by 50 to 300 percent and they would lose $US 50 million per year in the sale of surplus power. Surplus power, which is the difference between the federal government’s allocation and what CAP requires, is sold to pay down Arizona’s share of the CAP construction cost. The remaining balance is roughly $US 1.2 billion.
The U.S. natural gas boom, which ramped up just before CAP made its 2010 forecast, flipped the calculations. In a February 16 presentation to the agency’s board, CAP officials estimated that they would have saved $US 38.5 million in energy costs in 2016 by buying power on the market instead of from the Navajo station. Even though surplus power sales would have declined by $US 12 million in this scenario, CAP still would have come out ahead last year from switching energy sources.
The net savings of $US 26.5 million would have been expressed in lower water bills for tribes, farmers, and cities. Farmers buying water from CAP, for instance, pay only the cost of pumping water. In 2016 that rate, including rebates, was $US 57 per acre-foot using Navajo station power. With power purchased on the market, however, CAP figures the charge would have been $US 49 per acre-foot, a savings of 14 percent. One acre-foot is 326,000 gallons.
....and another excerpt:
Another huge factor is water. The Navajo Generating Station has rights to consume 34,100 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year. The water is withdrawn from Lake Powell and not returned to the river system. The plant, however, does not use the entire allocation. Over the last 15 years, annual use has ranged from 26,000 acre-feet to 29,000 acre-feet.
The water rights are owned by the state of Arizona and could be reallocated if the plant were to close. The existing rights are part of Arizona’s 50,000 acre-foot Upper Colorado River Basin allocation, which restricts the water used to the northeastern corner of the state, Leslie Meyers, manager of Reclamation’s Phoenix office, told Circle of Blue. In practice, that means only on the Navajo Nation.
The above excerpts from:
Link:
http://www.circleofblue.org/2017/water-energy/utilities-move-break-arizonas-coal-water-link/I'm thinking we'd better have a damn well squared away approach as to how this all gets "decided', and by whom. We just SAW what "Native American Environmental Interest Groups" do to water, and water rights. I wouldn't get to warm a feeling knowing that this particular group/tribe of NAs are going to handle it any better.
GTC
