A relocated gas power plant in Mohave County fuels uncertainty, suspicion

MOHAVE VALLEY — A gas-fired power plant project that was ejected from its proposed location in Fort Mohave by neighbors concerned about impacts is facing similar backlash from residents close to its new planned site in nearby Mohave Valley. That community now also suspects potential financial incentives for insider individuals.

The natural gas peaker plant, called the Mohave Energy Park by its proponent partners, has been fueling unrest across Mohave County since the beginning of the year. The Mohave Electric Cooperative, or MEC, a local electricity distributor, and the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, or AEPCO, a regional transmission and generation provider, plan to build two turbines generating 98 megawatts, but have hinted that they may double. They say the facility is necessary to meet the rural desert region’s growing energy demands.

But residents and clean energy experts say there is no clear reason, besides individual profit motives, for these not-for-profit utility cooperatives to be pushing new fossil fuel infrastructure in an age of reliable and affordable renewable alternatives like solar and wind. Although the utilities have promised to use upgraded air filtration and efficient turbine engines, experts say peaker plants are still one of the dirtiest ways to produce electricity after coal and diesel. The resulting carbon dioxide emissions and common methane leaks also worsen climate change.

Read the full first chapter here: A solar ban, a gas power plant and the rural retirees firing back at dirty energy

The Arizona Republic covered opposition to the project’s original location in early April. After telling Mohave County Supervisors on March 18 that no suitable alternative existed, MEC’s CEO Tyler Carlson pivoted to announce the new Mohave Valley site at an invite-only meeting on April 12, five days after The Republic’s first story appeared.

People living near the new proposed location, which is in a lower-income agricultural area near tribal lands and several schools, are now also objecting to the human and environmental health risks and questioning why the energy can’t be generated elsewhere or by a solar field.

“There’s 7-plus miles of desert behind that are unoccupied,” said Kim Qualey, who raises chickens on her Mohave Valley homestead less than a mile from the new project site. “Couldn’t they move it back a little farther to protect people and animals?”

Regional politics casts a shadow over state support for solar

The fight against this natural gas facility in one of America’s sunniest locations is playing out against the regional backdrop of a political anti-solar legacy.

Last October, Mohave County Supervisors, all Republicans, voted to ban new renewable energy projects on privately owned land until a better process could be worked out for managing impacts. The ban exempted local utilities like MEC and has since expired. But Supervisor Jean Bishop told The Republic in late April she thinks the existence of the solar moratorium has facilitated both the formal approval and the public acceptance of more fossil fuel projects.

While the moratorium was inspired by residents feeling inundated by solar projects that carpet their desert landscapes only to export the energy elsewhere via the Western transmission grid, the region is also home to an array of other existing and proposed gas power plants.

One of these, a 200 MW natural gas expansion project proposed by Unisource Energy, was recently the catalyst for a vote by Arizona’s utility regulators to roll back required environmental review. By the Sierra Club’s count, at least 36 other natural gas turbine projects in the state may benefit, in stark contrast to Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs’ messaging about support for clean energy.

No such political messaging for environmentally friendly power generation exists in this northwest corner of the state. Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter told The Republic in April he supports gas projects in the name of “a strong Mohave County.”

‘Utilities have a pretty good track record for being lazy thinkers’

Clean energy advocates question the motives and wisdom of investing in new fossil fuel facilities amid recent developments in technology and federal funding for renewables.

MEC’s energy portfolio includes 14% solar generation, and AEPCO is pursuing a large solar-plus-storage project near the coal plant it anticipates closing, toward its goal of a 30% solar energy mix by 2026. The cooperatives are also applying for an array of federal grants to help fund more batteries and renewables.

But given Arizona’s consistent sunshine, environmentalists are unimpressed by these numbers.

“Truthfully, utilities have a pretty good track record for being lazy thinkers about these things,” said Bill McKibben, a nationally-known climate activist. “A gas-fired power plant is 2008’s answer to the energy problem.”

Amanda Ormond, an Arizona-based expert on the regional transition to post-coal-dependent economies, agrees. She challenged AEPCO’s claims that a peaker plant is especially reliable or an essential bridge away from coal. She also hinted at logistical and financial incentives for utilities that stick with natural gas.

“We’re at this really interesting period when the economics have completely changed,” Ormond said. “Solar combined with battery storage is the lowest cost resource available. But change is difficult and systems are getting more complex. Smaller, rural co-op utilities are typically slower to adopt newer technologies. Utilities are projecting huge load growth in the West, creating resource adequacy problems. If you can build a peaker plant in Arizona, you can turn it on, sell excess energy and make some really good money.”

‘No profit motive’

After The Republic published its first story on the Mohave plant protests, AEPCO’s CEO, Patrick Ledger, got in touch to reinforce that, as not-for-profit cooperatives, the utility partners have “no profit motive” and are acting in the best interests of their member ratepayers.

But tax filings reviewed by The Republic suggest alternate possibilities.

In 2022, Tyler Carlson, MEC’s CEO, received a base salary of $1.35 million, more than the $1.2 million that SRP, Arizona’s much larger urban utility company, paid its CEO, which some view as odd.

But what’s more strange, according to not-for-profits expert Robert Ashcraft, who directs Arizona State University’s Center for Nonprofit Innovation, is the dramatic fluctuation of Carlson’s salary. It bounces from $1.66 million in 2017 down to $617,483 in 2018, back up to $1.24 million in 2020 and then down to $658,030 in 2021, before doubling again in 2022.

“You normally don’t see that in nonprofits,” Ashcraft said. “You might see it in for-profit shareholding companies, depending upon CEO performance contract details.”

Read more from this reporter: The latest on climate from Joan Meiners at azcentral

Neither Carlson nor Joe Anderson, who oversees executive salary changes as the president of MEC’s board, responded to The Republic’s request for an explanation.

But over the phone, Ledger clarified that compensation packages sometimes reflect performance on project goals. After a good year, the utility might also issue checks to some of their partners. Combined with the fact that MEC zeroed out its revenue and expenses at exactly $96,009,131 each in 2022, this raises questions about how that balance is achieved and reeks to Ashcraft and others of potential profit motives for individuals who push lucrative infrastructure in rural areas.

Meanwhile, in the absence of robust justifications for the peak plant, outrage and restless simmer among Mohave Valley residents as a summer sure to break heat records builds to a boil.

This story is part of The Republic’s ongoing coverage of this issue. You can read earlier coverage at azcentral.com and read the full version of this story here.

This report was made possible in part by a grant from the Fund for Environmental Journalism.

Joan Meiners is a climate news and storytelling reporter at The Arizona Republic and azcentral.com. Before becoming a journalist, she completed a doctorate in ecology. Follow Joan on Twitter at @beecycles or email her at [email protected].