'Clean coal' a pipe dream for Four Corners?

Kathy Helms, (Dine Bureau/Gallup Independent)

WINDOW ROCK – Arizona Public Service Co. wants to be as transparent as possible in discussions with the Navajo Nation about the future of the 2,060-megawatt Four Corners Power Plant because at the end of the day, everyone expects APS to go off and do everything in its power to keep the facility alive.

“We've got almost 50 percent owners walking out the door. Someone's got to buy it. That's the reality,” Mark Schiavoni, senior vice president of Fossil Generation, told the Budget and Finance Committee this week.

The other reality is APS is best situated to buy out Southern California Edison's 48 percent share, but it can't move forward until it has locked in leases for the site, transmission and fuel, all of which are up in 2016. In addition, several other factors have the potential to impact Four Corners' future, including best available retrofit technology, or BART, for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility.

On April 15, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed amendments to its July 1999 regional haze rule. The BART requirements apply to facilities built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons a year of visibility-impairing pollution. Four Corners' first three units were placed in service in 1963-64; units four and five in 1969-70.

EPA is expected to propose BART requirements for the plant later this year. APS estimates costs for Selective Catalytic Reduction to improve visibility at nearly $900 million. Also expected are new mercury rules which would require $250 million in upgrades.

Budget and Finance member Hoskie Kee had a number of questions for Schiavoni, such as whether BART is “clean coal” technology. “I hear a lot of that term from the news media and all over. Is that what it is?” He also questioned whether the quality of coal from BHP Billiton's Navajo Mine is down.

“It always interesting when I hear clean and coal in the same sentence,” said Schiavoni. “Clean coal technology, all it really means is, basically, the gasification process that takes place allows you the ability to extract the CO2, the carbon. That's what you read about in potential carbon capture, sequestration – pumping CO2 into the ground much like you do in oil fields.

“There are things you can do to enhance your emissions, but nothing that really burns clean coal,” he said.

It's not just the carbon that's being captured in the gasification process. There are other chemicals coming off the process that also have to be captured and shipped away, he said, and though the technology has been in the works for a few years, the problem today is that it is not available on a commercial scale.

“Tampa Electric has a project – IGCC – Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, where they have gas running through a gas turbine to generate electricity. But it's not utility grade, commercially available. It's probably 15 to 20 years away from that. It's not something that's going to happen today or tomorrow.”

Pulverized coal and supercritical plants have different types of environmental profiles. Though more efficient, they still do not burn clean, he said.

The last thing he saw on the proposed 1,500 megawatt Desert Rock power plant was that they wanted the coal gasification process put on there, he said, adding that they would lose about 40 percent of their energy just in making it work. “They're very inefficient, process-wise.”

Still, the real problem lies in what to do with the carbon once it is captured, he said. “We have a lot of people that believe in the NIMBY – not in my back yard – syndrome. Whether it's from nuclear, transmission lines, or whatever it may be, no one wants it in their back yard.

“Now we're going to talk about sequestering CO2 in someone's back yard. Who's going to own it when it burps and goes up into the atmosphere? What happens? Where's the liability? There's still a lot of work to be done,” he said.

Also in response to Kee's question, Schiavoni said the coal quality and BTU content from BHP's Navajo coal is not where they would want it, and they are losing generation.

“We've had a lot of operational issues as a result of coal quality, especially on our small units – one, two and three. We've had discussions with BHP,” he added.

Kee asked whether it was economically feasible to retrofit the newer units at Four Corners with natural gas.

“Gas saves you like 45 to 50 percent of your carbon, so it's not clean like everybody believes,” Schiavoni said. “But we did look at retrofitting and it would be cost-prohibitive.”

Delegate Francis Redhouse, who once worked at Four Corners, sat in on the Budget and Finance meeting and asked to be allowed to make some comments regarding hazardous materials at the site, including the fly ash pond.

“When the wind blows at 90 miles an hour, it goes all the way down to Upper Fruitland Chapter and I'm sure that LoRenzo Bates (Budget and Finance chairman) breathes in some of that, unless you provide him with a respirator.

“The fly ash and those ponds are carcinogens, if you look at it in terms of breathing it in. Those are cancer-causing contaminants and those are very important to me from the standpoint of looking at it on behalf of the Navajo Nation,” Redhouse said.

EPA is considering whether to regulate fly ash as solid or hazardous waste. That would cost APS an additional $60 million a year. Currently, the plant's fly ash impoundments are in full compliance with state and federal laws and dam safety rules, according to APS. Approximately 13 to 22 percent of the fly ash is sold for other uses, such as in the manufacture of concrete products.

Schiavoni said the ash ponds and dust are the most prevalent safety issues. Four Corners has retained URS to look at the ponds and determine how best to remediate them. “We're not going to wait for decommissioning to go down that path, because we do understand the issue with dust, including at the site,” he said.

APS is hoping for a 25-year fuel agreement, through 2041, and an extension through 2065 on the site leases.

“We think the units can last that long,” Schiavoni said. “With technology, we can make anything last.”