Arizona’s Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee last week issued a certificate of environmental compatibility for a new 1,800 MW natural gas-fired power plant being proposed by an operating unit of SouthWestern Power Group II, LLC. The plant, which will produce enough electricity to meet the needs of a half-million homes, will be located in south-central Arizona.

The plant will be built by Toltec Power Station LLC and will be located on a 5,000-acre tract near the town of Eloy, 60 miles southeast of Phoenix. The company said the plant is expected to commence operation in 2004. The plant’s output will be distributed to the east valley area of Phoenix and metropolitan Tucson, two of the fastest growing regions in the country.

SouthWestern Power said construction will be phased in three 600-MW power blocks, each consisting of two combustion turbine electric generators, two heat recovery steam generators and one turbine electric generator. The plant has been engineered to operate continuously in a base-load mode or to follow the demand for power in a cycling mode. The proposed project will have six General Electric 7FA natural gas turbines.

Tom C. Wray, SouthWestern Power general manager said wet-cooling towers will cool the steam turbines with water coming from an underlying aquifer. The plant also will incorporate a zero discharge wastewater system. An evaporative cooling system will reduce air inlet temperatures while increasing plant efficiency during hot weather.

He said an average of 400 jobs will be created during the plant’s 24-month construction period. When operational, the facility will have approximately 60 full-time jobs at an annual payroll of $3 million. The company also expects to make as much as $8 million in local purchases each year the facility is in operation.

The siting committee said the application has now been forwarded to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), which has 60 days to act upon it.

The siting committee decision came on the same week that the ACC rejected another power project proposed for the state. Citing numerous unanswered questions including environmental impact issues, the ACC voted unanimously to deny a certificate of environmental compatibility for the natural gas-fired Big Sandy power plant. The blow comes as the second rejection in the last three months for the estimated $425 million project. Caithness Corp. had applied for a permit to build the 720 MW project in Wikieup, south of Kingman, AZ.

In September, the siting committee rejected an environmental compatibility application because members didn’t have enough information regarding some of the water issues. Caithness then applied to the ACC to overturn the ruling.

“The unanimous vote today shows that my colleagues and I take very seriously our role as stewards of Arizona’s environment,” Commission Chairman Bill Mundell explained. “The siting committee went through an exhaustive process of hearings, public comment and cross- examination. The siting committee could not support the development of this power project at this location.”

The Hualapai Nation, which resides near the proposed site, opposed the plant, citing threats the power project might pose to their Native American cultural and religious sites.

While Commissioner Marc Spitzer said the project had obvious pros and cons, he also felt that there were problems with the proposal. “The facts suggest several unresolved issues — there are serious concerns about water and concerns expressed by the sovereign Hualapai Nation — and I believe the site and application are not appropriate for this community,” said Spitzer. “Therefore, I vote to affirm the siting committee’s decision to deny a certificate for the Big Sandy project.”

Commissioner Jim Irvin said Caithness’ legal brief to overturn the siting committee’s ruling contained “false or misleading statements and errors in fact.” He added, “In my analysis of this project, I did not find any compelling reasons to overturn the siting committee’s decision. Public support for the project was sharply divided.”

The ACC said water to cool the plant would have been pumped from an underground aquifer, but environmental impact studies came back “unclear” as to the effect the groundwater pumping would have on the aquifer. By contrast, several other power projects approved by the Commission rely on surface water, reclaimed water or a combination of those sources.

“Groundwater pumping itself was not the undoing of this project,” Spitzer said, adding, “We have to be sensitive to the fact that we live in a desert, but realize also that farming and agriculture pump a lot of groundwater. We were offered inconclusive evidence on the total environmental impact of this project and that is why I voted the way I did.”

©Copyright 2001 Intelligence Press Inc. Allrights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republishedor redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without priorwritten consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.