Decisions

I’m taking an environmental planning class this semester, and as part of that class I need to do a big project analyzing a current environmental issue using a framework devised by the professor.  The first step, of course, is to choose a topic, and a memo describing the topic and a plan of action for researching it was supposed to be due this past week.  Class was canceled on account of snow, however, which was a great relief for me since I was having trouble with this assignment, and I’m now assuming it’s due this coming week.  I’ve heard no indication otherwise.

I have a general sense of the sort of topic I want to do, something about Navajos and coal, in keeping with recent trends in my interests as reflected in this blog.  What I’m having trouble with is deciding on a specific case to study.  The options I’ve been considering are:

1. The proposed Desert Rock coal plant in Burnham, New Mexico.  This is interesting primarily because it’s a pet project of Navajo President Joe Shirley, and also because now seems like a really weird time to be building a new coal plant, especially one with a plan to sell its power on the open market rather than arranging a guaranteed buyer.  There has been a lot of opposition, as you might expect, and while an EIS has been prepared and the process has gone rather far, it’s been bogged down lately and it’s not at all clear that the thing will actually get built.  Since the process has gone so far, it should be pretty easy to find information on the various stakeholders and issues involved, which is a plus for me.
2. Peabody Coal‘s request to resume mining at the Black Mesa Mine, which was shut down a couple years back, with the coal to be sent to the Navajo Generating Station in Page, Arizona rather than the now-closed Mohave Generating Station in Laughlin, Nevada.  The Navajo plant is currently supplied exclusively by Peabody’s other mine on Black Mesa, which is called the Kayenta Mine.  Like everything else involving Black Mesa coal, this has ended up being strongly opposed by environmental groups and others, and a permit that was initially issued was recently sent back for review after it was appealed by opponents.  Lots of interesting dimensions to this issue, including different factions within both the Navajo and Hopi tribes, and there should be a fair amount of information out there, although much of it might be in the context of the earlier disputes over the mine.
3. The debate over how the EPA should act to control emissions from the Navajo Generating Station that cause atmospheric haze at the Grand Canyon.  Unlike the other two options, this one centers not on an industry proposal but on a regulatory decision.  A preliminary decision favoring mandating expensive scrubbing equipment was the subject of an interesting article in the Arizona Republic laying out many of the stakeholders here and their positions.  This has a lot of the same overall issues as option 2, but with some added complications related to the use of the power from Navajo to move water elsewhere in the state and the whole Grand Canyon thing.  Since this is a newer issue than the other two, there is probably less information out there, but I know there are at least some responses to the preliminary proposal out there, and it’s a bit more topical than the other two, which have been bogged down in appeals for a while and will probably stay there for a long time to come.

I have to make this decision soon, and this post is largely a way for me to think through the different options and decide which one sounds best.  Right now I’m leaning toward option 3.  It’s current, topical, and interesting from a variety of angles.  There’s the issue of whether haze is something the EPA should be worrying about at all, the indirect link to climate change (seen most obviously in the way environmental groups don’t seem very worried about the prospect of the added expense of the scrubbers forcing the plant to shut down), the water angle, and the complicated mix of stakeholders, including governments, private companies, and non-profits.  The other options have some of these same angles, but option 2 really only has a subset of them since it’s mostly just about where the coal is going to come from rather than how it’s used, and option 1 mostly stands alone, with similar issues but a largely different cast of stakeholders.  Having thought this through, I think I’ll try to put together a memo based on option 3 and see how well it seems to work.  If it works, I’ll go with it, and if it doesn’t I’ll take another look at the other options.

Whichever option I end up choosing, I’ll probably do some posts here as I work on the project.  Stay tuned.